41% of voters think the prime minister has responded badly to the US's actions against Tehran, versus 37% well.

However, 59% of people who voted for Labour in 2024 think Sir Keir is handling the crisis well.

And voters for all parties believe the government should be doing more across the board to help all households with energy bills.

84% of voters, meanwhile, think action should be taken to reduce energy prices for all households.

That's actually higher than the 73% who think action should be taken to support the least well-off households.

Significantly more Conservative and Reform UK voters, as well as slightly more Labour voters, think action should be taken for all households to help with energy prices than think the poorest households should get support.

The figures are based on who respondents said they voted for in the 2024 general election.

They suggest that if energy prices do rise significantly in the months ahead as a result of the war, the government will come under pressure to step in.

Sir Keir announced £53m of support on Monday for the poorest households who use heating oil to warm their homes.

Unlike homes connected to the gas grid, heating oil isn't covered by the energy price cap, which currently sets prices until the end of June.

Heating oil prices have more than doubled since the start of the conflict in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, three quarters (75%) think the government should take action to reduce energy prices for businesses.

They are also not covered by the price cap - although often sign fixed price contracts, so may not see an immediate increase in costs.

Voters strongly oppose UK joining Iran war

70% of voters oppose the UK joining the US's military offensive against Iran, against only 17% who support.

That may bring some relief to Sir Keir, who has resisted Donald Trump's attempts to draw the UK further into the war.

Those polled also think Mr Trump was wrong to take military action against Iran at all. 57% think the US president was wrong, and only 18% think he was right.

Only 11% think the US's actions against Iran will leave the world a safer place - while 34% think it will leave the world less safe, and 37% think it would make little real difference.

How were they able to avoid a points deduction and accept a fine - albeit a record £10.75m - that they won't even need to pay themselves?

An explanation is provided in a tranche of league documents that casts a further cloud over the Abramovich ownership that transformed the club's fortunes.

Across eight years, more than £47m in secret payments were made related to transfers, including to unregistered agents, and concealed on behalf of the club by entities associated with Mr Abramovich.

There was, the league said, "deception and concealment in relation to financial matters".

They involved deals for some of the biggest stars of the era, including Eden Hazard, David Luiz, Nemanja Matic, Willian, Ramires and Samuel Eto'o. None of the players are accused of wrongdoing or knowing about the payments.

In the period central to the investigation - 2011 to 2018 - Chelsea won the Premier League twice, the Champions League, the FA Cup and the League Cup.

The league makes no suggestion that any of that success is tainted. But would the outcome of the competitions have been different without these players? How central were these payments to the players being in the team?

The Blues escaped the points deductions imposed on Everton and Nottingham Forest for breaching financial rules.

It is because the league claims that even if the payments had come from Chelsea themselves, the club would still not have overspent to breach profit and sustainability rules.

Chelsea were prepared for the outcome of a case that also involved misconduct in approaches to academy players.

The £10.75m fine will come from the £150m set aside to cover potential fines when Mr Abramovich was forced to sell the club in 2022 after being sanctioned when the UK government targeted oligarchs at the start of Russia's all-out war on Ukraine.

The takeover process uncovered the illicit payments, which the incoming ownership self-reported to football authorities, leading to more leniency on the punishments.

So the only sporting sanction is a one-year transfer ban. It was suspended for two years because of the club's "exceptional co-operation".

This completes the Premier League strand of the investigation inside four years, after €10m in fines from UEFA in a related case. But further fines could come from the Football Association and 74 alleged rule breaches.

And yet the football world is still waiting for the outcome of the Premier League's investigation into Manchester City, almost eight years after the allegations of financial wrongdoing emerged.

The league's commission hearing the case concluded 15 months ago, and there is no sign of the verdict, as City fought around 130 charges to prove their innocence.

One reason it has dragged on is because of City's alleged failure to cooperate and assist with the case. They remain under the same ownership of Abu Dhabi's Sheikh Mansour.

What the Chelsea verdict shows is that there would not have been a points deduction even for non-cooperation.

It says the fine would have been doubled and a transfer ban immediately imposed for next season had it not been for the "immediate disclosure" by the new ownership, including Americans Behdad Eghbali and Todd Boehly.

They volunteered thousands of pages of documents.

The mitigating factors in reducing punishments will be looked at by every other club. Chelsea can start looking to the future, but they cannot completely move on from the Abramovich era.

Read more from Sky News:
Dubai airport shutdown affects thousands of UK passengers
Two Lake Windermere swimmers were taken to hospital

The Russian is still in a standoff with the UK government over releasing the proceeds of the sale to help victims of the war in Ukraine.

While some Chelsea fans still long for the days of the oligarch and the flow of silverware, the new ownership, along with the Premier League, has exposed the off-the-book payments used to sign so many stars.

There has been no public defence from Mr Abramovich.

Hundreds of amendments have been debated during multiple marathon sessions as the proposed legislation has made its way through the Scottish parliament.

If passed, the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill would allow those aged 18 or older with decision-making capacity and six months or less to live to seek medical help to end their life.

The final vote is expected to take place at about 10pm.

Scottish Liberal Democrat Liam McArthur, who put forward the bill, will meet with supporters outside Holyrood this morning.

He said MSPs had the chance to deliver "a robust and well safeguarded law that would give terminally ill Scots with mental capacity the choice of an assisted death if they wanted one".

Mr McArthur said the bill has the "overwhelming support of a significant majority of Scots regardless of religious affiliation, political party or disability status".

"MSPs have added detailed amendments on coercion, prognosis, and protection of vulnerable groups," he added, "and there are cast iron protections for healthcare professionals ready to go."

How did we get here?

A total of 175 amendments to the bill were accepted in the past week alone.

MSPs sought changes to ensure it does not contain elements outwith Holyrood's powers.

Other amendments focused on patient safeguards, including protecting people from coercion and ensuring alternative treatment management options are discussed.

If passed, two doctors would both have to confirm a person is terminally ill and be "reasonably expected" to die within six months to be eligible for an assisted death.

The patient must also have the mental capacity to make such a request - and be able to understand, decide, communicate, comprehend and remember their decision.

Some changes to the bill prompted backlash - with the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland (RCPsychiS) and Royal Pharmaceutical Society in Scotland withdrawing support.

RCPsychiS said it "remains neutral" on the principle of assisted dying but claimed the removal of a key section of the planned legislation had "significantly weakened safeguards for psychiatrists and other healthcare professionals".

Section 18 previously provided statutory protections for clinicians who choose not to participate in assisted dying, ensuring their decision would not affect their employment, regulatory standing or professional relationships.

With employment rights reserved to Westminster, there were fears that if the section had remained in the bill, it would have been outside Holyrood's competence.

However, a deal has been agreed with the UK government that should enable the rights to be protected if the bill passes.

Opponents brand bill 'dangerous'

Others - including crossbench peer Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson; Tressa Burke, chief executive of Glasgow Disability Alliance; and Heather Fisken, chief executive of Inclusion Scotland - have also voiced their concerns about the bill for vulnerable disabled people.

Mike Smith, spokesperson for Not Dead Yet UK, said "coercion comes in many forms, whether it's intentional or more subtle".

Mr Smith, former disability commissioner at the Equality and Human Rights Commission, branded the bill "dangerous".

Dr Gordon Macdonald, chief executive of campaign group Care Not Killing, added: "Vulnerable people who are sick, elderly or disabled can so easily feel pressure, whether real or imagined, to end their lives so as not to be a burden on others.

"Parliament's first responsibility is to protect its most vulnerable citizens from exploitation and abuse by those who may have a financial or emotional interest in their deaths."

Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes also urged MSPs to consider their views as she revealed she would be voting against the bill.

Ms Forbes said: "Doctors, psychiatrists, pharmacists, and palliative care specialists - the people who would be tasked with implementing this - are asking us not to do it.

"These are the people on the frontline of compassion in Scotland, the people who have dedicated their lives and careers to helping people in life and in death. They think this bill is unsafe."

'Dying people should not have to suffer'

However, in his final pitch to MSP colleagues ahead of the free vote, Mr McArthur said it is now the "toughest and most comprehensively safeguarded assisted dying bill in the world".

He added: "If you believe that dying people should not have to suffer against their will, and you have heard, like I have, of the many instances where they have been simply failed by the lack of compassion and safety in our current law, you now have to back this bill.

"It is time to look terminally ill Scots in the eye and make this change."

This is the third time MSPs have considered legislation on assisted dying, with two previous attempts having failed at their first vote.

Last month, Jersey voted to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults.

It came almost a year after the Tynwald in the Isle of Man became the first parliament in the British Isles to agree a framework for assisted dying.

However, the process of getting that framework on the statute book is yet to be finalised.

Meanwhile at Westminster, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill for England and Wales is progressing slowly through the House of Lords and is at risk of failing due to a lack of parliamentary time.

Here are four:

Inconsistencies over discussions with the Iranians

The US president has said a few times over recent hours that dialogue with the Iranians is ongoing.

"They want to make a deal," he said on the plane back to Washington DC on Sunday night, repeating it again on Monday.

But when asked the obvious questions - "Who are you talking to that wants to make a deal?" and "what does a deal look like?" - the president couldn't answer.

Instead, he said that all the people they had been talking to were now dead. He's said this before, attributing it, bizarrely, to the military operation being so successful.

He also mused whether he would actually want to make a deal with the Iranians even if they wanted to. These musings were peppered with "they want to make a deal".

Artificial Intelligence

The president revealed that he had seen a video (presumably on social media) which showed the US aircraft carrier, the Abraham Lincoln, under attack and on fire.

He then revealed that he'd called his generals and asked: "What's with the Abraham Lincoln? Looks like it's on fire."

He was then told it was fake.

This raises serious questions about the sort of content the president is absorbing and believing on social media.

The Starmer call

The president and prime minister spoke by phone on Sunday. The "readout" of the call from Downing Street was thin and revealed very little. A source later told me that the call was "good" and that there was a "clear shared interest in keeping the Strait of Hormuz open".

I am told that any public frustration shown by the president was not reflected in the call.

The president has now revealed a further window into that call.

"You know the prime minister of UK - United Kingdom - yesterday, told me, 'I'm meeting with my team to make a determination'."

"I said, 'you don't need to meet with the team. You're the prime minister. You can make your own… why do you have to meet with your team to find out whether or not you send some mine sweepers to us…'"

Learning about Lebanon

In another moment of conscious thought, he revealed that he'd only recently been told about the geographical power structure in Lebanon - something that's vital to understand given the Israeli military operations the US is supporting there right now. In the same sentence, he also expressed surprise that people lived even in Ukraine or Lebanon.

This is the verbatim transcript of that moment: "...substantial person, wealthy person, whose parents live in Lebanon. I said: 'Really, how do you live in Lebanon? Your parents? Oh, yeah, they live there. And over the years, they've gotten used to the fact that it's being bombed.'

"But they explained to me that it's really a different section of Lebanon. It's the section where Hezbollah is, and they get used to it, I guess... I mean people live in Ukraine.

"You would think they wouldn't live in Ukraine, but they live in Ukraine. I don't know that I'd do that, but they live in Ukraine. They live in Lebanon."

Ms Reeves will deliver the annual Mais lecture today, where she will declare regional investment and AI as being similarly vital for getting the economy growing.

"In this changing world, Britain is not powerless," she will say. "We can shape our own future. Our method is stability, investment, and reform - through an active and strategic state.

"Today, I am making three big choices on the greatest growth opportunities for Britain in the decade to come: growth in every part of Britain, AI and innovation, and a deeper relationship with the EU."

But the Conservatives have said it's her economic policies, not the departure from the EU that they oversaw, that's caused the economy to stagnate.

Shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride accused the chancellor and prime minister of wanting "to row back on Brexit".

"Labour are desperate to blame anyone but themselves for their economic failures," he added.

"Under increasing pressure, having mismanaged the economy, Reeves would rather point the finger at Brexit than accept their poor choices have been a disaster for our economy."

Ms Reeves's lecture comes following anaemic growth figures. The economy didn't grow at all in January, and only by 0.2% in the three months prior.

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) downgraded its growth forecast for 2026 a fortnight ago - although it is forecast to grow slightly quicker than previously expected in 2027 and 2028.

Ministers are also grappling with the economic consequences of the Iran war, which threatens to push up energy prices and inflation if the conflict continues for much longer.

Ms Reeves has regularly spoken about the need for closer ties with the EU. She discussed the prospect with Ireland's finance minister, Simon Harris, on Monday.

But on AI, the chancellor will say the UK must "chart our own course".

Reeves: We face a choice on AI

"AI is the defining technology of our era," Ms Reeves will say. "The choice is this: we can bury our heads in the sand and leave it to other countries - whose values may differ from ours - to shape and own this technology.

"We can leave it to the market alone, and let the balance of risk and reward be determined by a super-wealthy few. Or we can chart our own course."

She wants the UK to achieve the fastest adoption of AI in the G7 group of wealthy nations.

The chancellor will commit £500m to back the most promising AI companies in the UK - plus a £1bn investment in commercial-scale quantum computers.

Read more: What's up with quantum computers?

The annual Mais lecture is the City of London's foremost banking and finance event, hosted by City St George's University.

Ms Reeves previously gave the lecture while shadow chancellor in 2024, while other recent speakers have included Rishi Sunak, George Osbourne, Mark Carney, and Odile Renaud-Basso, President of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.