The Independent Office for Police Conduct has spent 13 years carrying out the largest ever independent investigation into alleged police misconduct and criminality. Its report identified a dozen officers - including the then-chief constable of South Yorkshire Police - who would have had a case to answer for gross misconduct had they still been serving. A 13th officer would have potentially faced a misconduct case. Hillsborough remains to this day the worst disaster in British sporting history. A crush on the terraces during the FA Cup semi-final at the stadium in Sheffield resulted in the death of 97 Liverpool fans on April 15 1989. The men, women and children were aged from 10 to 67. What the victims' families have endured ever since, said IOPC deputy director general Kathie Cashell, was "a source of national shame". Ms Cashell said: "The 97 people who were unlawfully killed, their families, survivors of the disaster and all those so deeply affected, have been repeatedly let down—before, during and after the horrific events of that day. "First by the deep complacency of South Yorkshire Police in its preparation for the match, followed by its fundamental failure to grip the disaster as it unfolded, and then through the force’s concerted efforts to deflect the blame on to the Liverpool supporters, which caused enormous distress to bereaved families and survivors for nearly four decades." The IOPC report also found that South Yorkshire Police "fundamentally failed in its planning for the match, in its response as the disaster unfolded and in how it dealt with traumatised supporters and families searching for their loved ones". The force "attempted to deflect the blame" and "this included allegations about the behaviour of supporters, which have been repeatedly disproven". Police initially blamed Liverpool supporters, arriving late, drunk and without tickets, for causing the disaster but, after decades of campaigning by families, that narrative was debunked. In April 2016, new inquests - held after the original verdicts of accidental death were quashed in 2012 - determined that those who died had been unlawfully killed. The IOPC also examined the actions of West Midlands Police, which investigated the disaster and supported Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry that followed. It found the force's investigation was "wholly unsatisfactory and too narrow". The report names 12 officers who would have had a case to answer for gross misconduct. They include the then-South Yorkshire chief constable Peter Wright "for his part in attempting to minimise culpability and deflect blame for the disaster away from SYP and towards Liverpool supporters". Peter Wright died in 2011. Also named is the match commander on the day, Chief Supt David Duckenfield. He was cleared by a jury of gross negligence manslaughter at a retrial in November 2019, after the jury in his first trial was unable to reach a verdict. Dozens of allegations of misconduct against officers have been upheld but none will face disciplinary proceedings because they have all left the police service. Legislation in place at the time did not require the police to have a duty of candour. But the report has received a lukewarm reception from some of the victims' families. Read more on Sky News:What is the 'Hillsborough Law?'Jail 'the only way to stop cover-ups' Jenni Hicks, whose teenage daughters Sarah and Vicki died at Hillsborough, questioned why action had not been taken against those officers when police failings were first revealed by the Taylor inquiry just months after the disaster. She said: "I can't believe, having seen the 370-odd page report, how on earth it can have taken them 13 years to write. There's very little in this report that I didn't know already. It's not, in my opinion, about telling the families anything." In September, the government introduced the so-called Hillsborough Law to the House of Commons. It will include a duty of candour, forcing public officials to act with honesty and integrity at all times or face criminal sanctions. But Louise Brookes, whose brother Andrew Mark Brookes died at Hillsborough, dismissed both the IOPC report and the new law. "Nothing will ever change. There will be another cover-up, there will be another disaster, and until things change at the very top, and I include MPs, chief constables, CEOs of organisations, until they're the ones who stop protecting and covering up for themselves, nothing will ever change." Nicola Brook, a solicitor at Broudie Jackson Canter acting for several bereaved families, said it was a "bitter injustice" that no one would be held to account. She said: "This outcome may vindicate the bereaved families and survivors who have fought for decades to expose the truth - but it delivers no justice."Instead, it exposes a system that has allowed officers to simply walk away, retiring without scrutiny, sanction or consequence for failing to meet the standards the public has every right to expect. "Yes, the law has now changed so this loophole cannot be used in future. But for those affected by this case, that is no consolation. "They are left with yet another bitter injustice: the truth finally acknowledged, but accountability denied." In her statement, published with the IOPC report, Kathie Cashell said: "As I have expressed to those closely affected, this process has taken too long - those who campaigned for so many years deserve better. "If a legal duty of candour had existed in 1989, it could have helped ensure that all relevant evidence was shared fully and promptly. The families of those who were unlawfully killed would have experienced a far less traumatic fight for answers about what happened to their loved ones. Had that duty existed, our investigations may not have been necessary at all."

Age UK spoke to more than 2,600 people and found 11% will eat dinner alone on 25 December, while 5% will not see or speak to anyone the whole day. Applied to the overall population, the findings suggest 1.5 million people will eat alone at Christmas, according to the charity. Dame Joanna said the "silence can be deafening" for those left isolated and called it "a crisis hidden in plain sight". The actor and campaigner is now joining other luminaries including Dame Judi Dench, Brian Cox and Miriam Margolyes to back Age UK's campaign against loneliness. The charity says its volunteers made more than 70,000 minutes' worth of calls to people during Christmas week last year and is urging people to donate. 'A tragedy we don't talk about enough' Age UK said it also supports coffee mornings and festive lunches to give lonely people the chance to enjoy in-person interaction. Dame Judi said: "For so many older people, Christmas can be a time of silence - days without conversation or company." Succession star Brian Cox called the issue "a tragedy we don't talk about enough". He said: "Far too many older people are left spending the season in silence, when it should be a time of warmth, connection and joy." Margolyes, of Harry Potter fame, added: "Growing older shouldn't mean disappearing into the background, we need to be seen, heard and celebrated. "That's what Age UK is striving for - they're changing how we perceive age." Read more:What counts as a white Christmas?CCTV shows festive thief The charity's chief executive, Paul Farmer, said: "Your donation could bring comfort, friendship, and care to an older person facing loneliness this winter. "From friendly, weekly calls to local lunch clubs, we're here to make sure no one spends winter alone. But we can't do it without you."

During a speech at the Guildhall in London, the prime minister said "wild promises" made to the British people ahead of the referendum have been unfulfilled. "How it was sold and delivered was simply wrong," he added. "We are still dealing with the consequences today." Sir Keir argued it would be "utterly reckless" to consider Brexit as a template for future foreign policy - and attacked politicians who have a "corrosive, inward-looking attitude". He singled out Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage, who have both called for the UK to leave the European Convention on Human Rights - and Zack Polanski, who wants to leave NATO. Such attitudes "offer grievance rather than hope", the PM said - accusing them of having "a declinist vision of a lesser Britain, not a Great Britain". Although Sir Keir opposed Brexit when in Opposition, he stressed that the vote to leave "was a fair, democratic expression, and I will always respect that". He told the Lady Mayor's Banquet that Labour has made "a decisive move to face outward again and build our power, both hard and soft, which had been so damaged and neglected". 'Protecting our security is non-negotiable' Elsewhere in the speech, the prime minister warned the UK needs a policy towards China that recognises the national security threat it poses. He said: "For years we have blown hot and cold. We had the 'Golden Age', which then flipped to an 'Ice Age'. We reject that binary choice. "So our response will not be driven by fear, nor softened by illusion. It will be grounded in strength, clarity and sober realism." China has been a major issue in Westminster of late following accusations of spying in parliament, and controversy over the new "super embassy" that Beijing wants to build in central London. However, Sir Keir defended plans to visit China in the new year - and said an absence of engagement with the world's second-biggest economy would be "staggering" and a "dereliction of duty". He described it as "a nation of immense scale, ambition, and ingenuity" and a "defining force in technology, trade and global governance". 'Huge' opportunities for businesses Setting out his own approach, Sir Keir explained: "This is not a question of balancing economic and security considerations. We don't trade off security in one area, for a bit more economic access somewhere else. "Protecting our security is non-negotiable - our first duty. But by taking tough steps to keep us secure, we enable ourselves to cooperate in other areas." The PM added that he wants to give businesses "the confidence, clarity, and support" to win opportunities in China. "In areas like financial and professional services, creative industries, pharmaceuticals, luxury goods and more - Great British success stories - the export opportunities are huge, and we will back you to seize them," he said. 'Starmer continues to kowtow to China' Sky News understands the prime minister is set to approve plans for a controversial Chinese "super embassy" in central London. A final decision on the planning application for the former Royal Mint site near the Tower of London is due on 10 December after repeated delays. Concerns were previously raised after Beijing's planning application featured blacked-out areas. Since he was elected last year, Sir Keir has been active on the world stage, trumpeting deals with the US, India, and the EU and leading the "coalition of the willing" in support of Ukraine. But he has also faced criticism from his opponents, who accuse him of spending too much time out of the UK attending international summits rather than focusing on domestic issues. Read more:MI5 spying warning aims to send signal to China'Many options' on table for Venezuela Responding to the prime minister's speech, shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel said: "From China's continued flouting of economic rules to transnational repression of Hong Kongers in Britain, Starmer's 'reset' with Beijing is a naive one-way street, which puts Britain at risk while Beijing gets everything it wants. "Starmer continues to kowtow to China and is captivated by half-baked promises of trade. "Coming just days after the latest Chinese plot to interfere in our democracy was exposed, his love letter to the Chinese Communist Party is a desperate ploy to generate economic growth following his budget of lies and is completely ill-judged. "While China poses a clear threat to Britain, China continues to back Iran and Russia, and plots to undermine our institutions. Keir Starmer has become Beijing's useful idiot in Britain."

Norris failed to take his first opportunity to seal a maiden drivers' title at the Qatar Grand Prix as he finished third in the Sprint and fourth in the full-length race at the Lusail International Circuit. The upshot was that Norris lost ground on each of his two remaining rivals for the title and goes into the final round 12 points ahead of Red Bull's Max Verstappen, with his McLaren team-mate Oscar Piastri four points further back. F1 title permutations for three-way Abu Dhabi GP deciderWhen to watch Abu Dhabi GP on Sky | F1 championship standingsDownload the Sky Sports app for expert analysis, best video & more📱Not got Sky? Get Sky Sports or stream with no contract on NOW📺 Norris said after Sunday's race: "There's nothing I can do about it. Obviously, not our greatest day, not our greatest weekend. "But I've had... I don't know if anyone saw the run of results I had before that were great. "I've put myself in this position, I'm still happy. It wasn't our finest day, it wasn't my finest weekend in terms of driving and putting things together, but that's life. "Everyone has bad weekends so I take it on the chin, we all take it on the chin, and we'll see what we can do next weekend." Norris had put together a superb run of performances - including back-to-back wins in Mexico City and Sao Paulo - that had put him on the brink of sealing the title. However, he lost a second-place finish when both McLarens were disqualified from the Las Vegas Grand Prix after post-race checks showed they had exceeded plank-wear limits. Then in Qatar, Norris potentially lost positions as a result of McLaren choosing not to pit both of their cars under an early Safety Car. Although Norris accepted the strategy call didn't necessarily harm him overall as it also cost his team-mate Piastri, who had begun the race as his nearest challenger, a likely victory. Asked whether McLaren should have pitted him under the Safety Car, Norris said: "Probably, yeah, but both of us should have done, so I would have been had over either way, because we would have double-stacked and potentially I would have lost time - a bit of time, I mean, I probably wouldn't have lost a position, I don't think. "It's something we'll go and talk about and review, but I also have to have faith that the team are making the right call, and that's what I had to do." The Brit also made a couple of errors of his own during the Qatar Sprint weekend, failing to maximise his performance in both qualifying sessions and being overtaken by Verstappen at the start of the race. Norris insists that the spectre of Verstappen, who is seeking a fifth successive drivers' title, challenging him for the title in Abu Dhabi won't alter his approach. "It's the same as every weekend," he added. "I try and beat them, they try and beat me. It's nothing different." Sky Sports F1's Abu Dhabi GP schedule Thursday December 411am: Drivers' Press Conference2pm: Paddock Uncut Friday December 57am: F2 Practice9am: Abu Dhabi Grand Prix Practice One (session starts at 9.30am)*10.55am: F2 Qualifying*11.40am: Team Bosses' Press Conference*12.45pm: Abu Dhabi Grand Prix Practice Two (session starts at 1pm)*2.15pm: The F1 Show* Saturday December 610.15am: Abu Dhabi Grand Prix Practice Three (session starts at 11:30am)*12.10pm: F2 Sprint*1.15pm: Abu Dhabi GP Qualifying build-up*2pm: ABU DHABI GRAND PRIX QUALIFYING*4pm: Ted's Qualifying Notebook* Sunday December 79.10am: F2 Feature Race11.30am: Grand Prix Sunday: Abu Dhabi GP build-up*1pm: THE ABU DHABI GRAND PRIX*3pm: Chequered Flag: Abu Dhabi GP reaction*4pm: Ted's Notebook *also on Sky Sports Main Event The 2025 F1 season concludes with the title-deciding Abu Dhabi Grand Prix live on Sky Sports F1 from Friday. Stream Sky Sports with NOW - no contract, cancel anytime

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) has been probing the 1989 tragedy since 2012 under the title Operation Resolve, and today published its verdict in a new 366-page report. Dozens of allegations of misconduct against several officers have been upheld, but none will face disciplinary proceedings because they all left the police service before investigations began, the IOPC said. The disaster that unfolded at Hillsborough stadium in Sheffield in April 1989 caused the deaths of 97 people, with 766 more injured. On the day, a large crowd of fans had formed, waiting to gain access through a single entrance on Leppings Lane. Police opened a gate to admit the crowd, leading to a deadly crush inside. The IOPC investigation aimed to increase understanding of the disaster in relation to the actions of police forces involved. Here are its key findings. The safety of the stadium The report found that the safe capacity of the stand where the tragedy unfolded "was based on incorrect calculations". An engineering expert, looking at the safety standards of 1989, said the West Terrace should have had a capacity of no more than 4,518 - perhaps as low as 3,089 - but instead its permitted capacity was 7,200. This larger calculation, from 1979, wasn't revisited even when changes were made that left less space for fans. And while police had recommended changes to the Leppings Lane entrance to the stadium, these changes were not made, being rejected as "too expensive". On Leppings Lane, there were only seven turnstiles to serve 10,100 Liverpool fans with standing tickets (each turnstile could admit a maximum of 750 people per hour). It was not clear, the report's authors wrote, that police understood "the potential consequences" of this. The horror unfolds Supporters reported the pressure from the back of the terrace "suddenly intensified" at around 2.55pm, five minutes before kick off and minutes after Gate C had been opened. The report describes what happened next. At 2.57pm, the gate to pen 3 in the perimeter fence burst open, and the officer there tried to close it, thinking it was a pitch invasion. As the scale of the disaster became clear, the police control box called for a "fleet of ambulances" to be dispatched. But they offered "limited information" about the incident, so the request was rejected, with only a "limited initial response" deployed instead. When the ambulances did arrive, police outside the stadium did not know why they had been called or where they were needed. The IOPC concluded that, "with no central organisation of the rescue effort... it was left to those on the pitch to make decisions as best they could". All told, the lack of direction "meant that medical resources were not well deployed". But the report found no evidence of police using their truncheons on supporters or physically preventing fans from escaping the pens. Police planning Police argued that their planning for the fateful day was broadly the same as it had been for another game between the same teams a year earlier. But the IOPC found that actually there was a 14% reduction in the number of officers on duty, and 21% fewer in the area where Liverpool fans were expected to arrive. Several arriving fans commented that there was a lack of control compared to the previous year's game, the report said. Nor was there contingency planning for crushes on the West Terrace, which had occurred before. Furthermore, the authors wrote, the three police divisions deployed to the game were not co-ordinating with each other. A 'poorly timed' decision The report said SYP had made a "poorly timed" decision to replace its previous "highly experienced match commander". In his place would be chief superintendent David Duckenfield, "who had never previously commanded a match" at the stadium. And while the officers present noticed that the areas for Nottingham Forest fans were much fuller than those for Liverpool fans, none reported their concerns to Duckenfield. Read more:'Momentous' step as Hillsborough Law introducedExplained: The Hillsborough Law and what happens next Duckenfield, referring to a "very limited set of pre-determined criteria" chose not to delay kick-off and did not consider turnstile count data as part of his decision-making process. However, while he made the decision to open the exit gates to arriving fans, he was not blamed for the "prolonged, uncontrolled opening" of Gate C, because it had already been opened at that point without him being told. In fact, the authors wrote, the decision to open Gate C wasn't communicated to anybody in the stadium, with "catastrophic consequences". As a result, police didn't guide supporters in, and they headed in large numbers towards the already-crowded centre pens of the terrace. Duckenfield was cleared of gross negligence manslaughter for the deaths of the 97 fans in 2019, after two trials. Getting the story straight After the disaster, 327 officers were asked to produce written accounts of the day, including sharing their "fears, feelings and observations" and commenting on "the mood of the fans". A number of officers have previously said their accounts were amended without their agreement, and the IOPC found some were uncomfortable with the changes and were pressured to accept the amended version. The new report also states that the number of accounts that were amended is more than 100 higher than previously thought. Amendments ranged from being relatively minor, such as correcting spelling, to several paragraphs being removed or rewritten. A previous allegation, made in a report by the Hillsborough Independent Panel (HIP) in 2012, claimed SYP officers were instructed not to write about their actions on the day in pocket notebooks "in contrast to professional training". But the IOPC claims it obtained more than 8,000 pocket notebooks from relevant periods, 359 of which were found to include entries related to the disaster, meaning there is conflicting evidence regarding the allegation. The new report also found no evidence that supporters' behaviour caused "or in any way contributed" to the disaster. And though police suggested at the time that there was an "unprecedented level of alcohol consumption" at the game, the report found that most third-party accounts, as well as images and video, did not support the claim. Nonetheless, the authors said, "some of the earliest" evidence collected by police seemed to be focused on alcohol consumption, with officers taking photos of bins and collecting rubbish nearby. But the decision to check the blood alcohol level of the deceased was not influenced by the police, the evidence showed; it was the decision of coroner Dr Stefan Popper. Another claim that supporters had burned a police horse with cigarettes was debunked as "not only improbable, but implausible". Irvine Patnick, then Conservative MP for Sheffield Hallam, was identified as the source of stories which painted the supporters in a negative light, having repeated accounts he'd heard from police officers. The families of the dead Police treated the deceased in a way that "lacked compassion" and were "unnecessarily rigid", the report found. It was found that Dr Popper insisted that those coming to identify the dead be shown photos of the bodies, even when documents found on the deceased might have spared them this. Some families said they were not allowed to touch their loved ones, the report said, with police on one occasion saying the bodies were "property of the coroner". Many said they were asked by police about their loved ones' consumption of alcohol, or whether they'd had a ticket for the game. Investigating the investigators In August 1989, West Midlands Police (WMP) were asked to investigate the conduct of their sister force and undertake a police disciplinary investigation into complaints that had been made against SYP officers. How they carried out this investigation is examined in the IOPC report. It states that when WMP officers were alerted to SYP accounts of the disaster being amended, "they did not take action" to prevent it. Many supporters described being extensively quizzed about alcohol by WMP, the authors wrote. And though "very few comments" about alcohol were found in the statements collected, the investigators nonetheless "appear to have reached a view that alcohol was a key factor in the disaster". WMP also ran criminal records checks on 94 of those who died, the report said. Twenty-two victims had been under the age of 18, with the youngest 10 years old. The IOPC did say that the force "for the most part" interviewed witnesses "professionally", and that it adhered to "the professional standards of the time" when investigating complaints. But it ultimately made several criticisms of WMP, including failing to approach key witnesses and failing to gather its own statements from SYP officers. Shifting the blame In its damning final section, the report found SYP had attempted to deflect blame from the disaster away from police, "based on the consistent patterns" in the force's actions. It further found that SYP had consistently tried to find and promote evidence of drunken behaviour among fans. The authors wrote: "SYP consistently and intentionally presented unsubstantiated evidence. It also altered the evidence of officers before it was submitted, by amending their accounts." There was no evidence, however, that WMP had tried to deflect blame away from police, though their investigation was "flawed and narrow", and its officers had a "fixed view of the evidence before they started". The police officers named in the report The IOPC named 12 officers who would have had a case of gross misconduct to answer if they had still been with their respective forces. CC Peter Wright, SYP, who faced six allegations, for:• adopting a defensive approach in interacting with the Taylor Inquiry• seeking to minimise SYP's culpability for the disaster and deflect blame towards Liverpool supporters through engagement with the media and MPs ACC Walter Jackson, SYP, who faced two allegations, for:• failing to plan adequately to prevent the disaster taking place• failing to organise and direct junior-ranking police officers to help save lives Supt David Duckenfield, SYP, who faced 10 allegations, for:• failing to plan adequately to prevent the disaster• failing to control a dangerous build-up of supporters• failing to control the movement of supporters subsequent to the opening of Gate C• failing to monitor crowd numbers in pens• failing to act when it became obvious pens were too full, despite having an excellent viewpoint• failing to respond to the developing tragedy and being slow to coordinate the rescue operation• failing to act when people were in distress• lying about his order to open Gate C, suggesting supporters had forced the gate Supt Bernard Murray, SYP, who faced five allegations, for:• failing to plan adequately in order to prevent the disaster• failing to prevent a dangerous build-up of supporters outside the gates• failing to control the movement of supporters following the opening of Gate C• failing in the way he responded to events that unfolded in Pens 3 and 4• failing to monitor crowd numbers in Pen 3 and 4• failing to respond to the developing tragedy and being slow to coordinate the rescue operation• failing to organise and direct junior-ranking police officers to save lives Supt Roger Marshall, SYP, who faced two allegations, for:• failing to take any steps to control the flow of supporters and manage the situation• requesting gates be opened, giving supporters unlimited and uncontrolled access to the football groundCh Insp Norman Bettison, SYP, who faced two allegations, for:• deliberate dishonesty about his involvement in the disaster during his application for and appointment to Chief Constable of Merseyside Police in 1998• providing misleading and inaccurate press statements, minimising his role to one on the periphery of the post-disaster investigations carried out by SYP - including during his time as chief constable of both Merseyside and West Yorkshire Police DCI Alan Foster, SYP, who faced one allegation, for:• directly or indirectly bringing undue pressure to bear upon those SYP officers who refused to make alterations to their original accounts Insp Harry White, SYP, who faced one allegation, for:• failing in his supervisory duties and responsibility regarding the management of the build-up of the crowd on the inner concourse, and in his subsequent response to the unfolding situation PS John Morgan, SYP, who faced two allegations, for:• failing to supervise his serial at a key time prior to the match, because he was unnecessarily absent from his area of responsibility• failing to take any action in response to the crowd coming through Gate C after the gate was opened at 2.48pm and 2.52pm PC David Scott, SYP, who faced one allegation, for:• lying about a police horse being burnt with cigarettes by Liverpool supporters ACC Mervyn Jones, WMP, who faced two allegations, for:• failing to investigate SYP effectively• being biased against supporters in favour of SYP Det Ch Supt Michael Foster, WMP, who faced six allegations, for:• failing to investigate SYP effectively• being biased against supporters in favour of SYP Another officer, Supt Roger Greenwood of SYP, faced one allegation of misconduct, for:• failing in the way he responded to events that unfolded in Pens 3 and 4• failing to organise and direct junior-ranking police officers to help save lives

But now, the public have spoken and settled the matter once and for all: Die Hard is not a Christmas film. That's according to 44% of those who responded to a new poll by the British Board of Film Classification, anyway. They narrowly outnumbered the 38% who argued that the Bruce Willis blockbuster is festive - with another 5% declaring it's their favourite Christmas movie of them all. A further 17%, who presumably have been embroiled in this debate before and want a quiet life, said they were unsure. Willis himself waded into the row back in 2018, when he declared during a comedy roast: "Die Hard is not a Christmas movie. It's a goddamn Bruce Willis movie!" He has also found an ally in Home Alone star Macaulay Culkin, who was booed by an audience after sharing his opinion last month. "It's just a movie set at Christmas," he said. "If you set it at St Patrick's Day, the exact same movie. But you set Home Alone at St Patrick's Day…" Culkin kind of has a point there. What's the Christmas number one? Thankfully, other questions in the BBFC's poll weren't as divisive - with respondents asked to crown their favourite Christmas film of all time. Incidentally, Home Alone came out on top with 20% of the vote. That's streets ahead of Love Actually, which was in second place on 9%. (If Alan Rickman had been nicer to Emma Thompson, it would have easily won.) It's A Wonderful Life was third and chosen by 8%, with Elf fourth on 7%. Read more offbeat news:Runaway reindeer sparks emergency rescue operationOxford Dictionary publisher reveals Word of the Year The research also revealed that 43% believe it's acceptable to start watching Christmas movies from the beginning of December - with 13% turning on their favourite festive films from the start of November. Meanwhile, 8% admitted enjoying Christmas movies all year round… presumably when they're home alone.

Some 37% told a YouGov-Sky News poll that Ms Reeves made out things were worse than they really are. This is much higher than the 18% who said she was broadly honest, and the 13% who said things were better than she presented. This comes in an in-depth look at the public reaction to the budget by YouGov, which suggests widespread disenchantment in the performance of the chancellor. Just 8% think the budget will leave the country as a whole better off, while 2% think it will leave them and their family better off. Some 52% think the country will be worse off because of the budget, and 50% think they and their family will be worse off. This suggests the prime minister and chancellor will struggle to sell last week's set-piece as one that helps with the cost of living. Some 20% think the budget worried too much about help for older people and didn't have enough for younger people, while 23% think the reverse. The poll found 57% think the chancellor broke Labour's election promises, while 13% think she did not and 30% are not sure. Some 54% said the budget was unfair, including 16% of Labour voters. And it arguably gets worse… This comes as the latest Sky News-Times-YouGov poll showed Labour and the Tories are now neck and neck among voters. The two parties are tied on 19% each, behind Reform UK on 26%. The Greens are on 16%, while the Liberal Democrats are on 14%. This is broadly consistent with last week, suggesting the budget has not had a dramatic impact on people's views. However, the verdict on Labour's economic competence has declined further post-budget. Asked who they would trust with the economy, Labour are now on 10% - lower than Liz Truss, who oversaw the 2022 mini-budget, and also lower than Jeremy Corbyn in the 2019 election. The Tories come top of the list of parties trusted on the economy on 17%, with Reform UK second on 13%, Greens on 8% and Lib Dems on 5%. Nearly half, 47%, don't know or say none of them. Only 57% of current Labour voters say the party would do the best job at managing the economy, falling to 25% among those who voted Labour in the 2024 election. Some 63% of voters think Ms Reeves is doing a bad job, including 20% of current Labour voters, while just 11% of all voters think she is doing a good job. A higher proportion - 69% - think Sir Keir Starmer is doing a bad job.

The Ukrainian has broken his silence about his next career move, confirming that he wants to put his WBC, WBA and IBF belts on the line against Wilder. Usyk has been absent from the ring since his stoppage of Daniel Dubois in their July rematch, but the two-time undisputed world heavyweight champion is now targeting the American, who had a lengthy reign as the WBC champion. Whittaker obliterates Gavazi with first-round stoppageTKV claims British heavyweight title with brutal points win over ClarkeNot got Sky? Get Sky Sports or stream with no contract on NOW Speaking at the WBC convention in Thailand, Usyk told Boxing King Media: "I want to fight Deontay Wilder. I think it's interesting. "This is a world champion guy, this is a very famous guy, this is a strong guy. "He is one of the great heavyweights of the last 10 years." Wilder, who returned to the ring with a seventh-round stoppage of Tyrrell Anthony Herndon in June, would be open to a fight against Usyk. "Usyk is a great champion," Wilder's co-manager Shelly Finkel told Sky Sports. "We have plans for next year and we'd like Oleksandr Usyk to be part of them. "If we receive the right offer, we would be open to that fight." The Alabama fighter could receive the chance to become a world champion again, a decade after he dethroned Bermane Stiverne to become WBC champion in January 2015. Usyk became the undisputed world heavyweight champion for a second time after he halted Dubois in the fifth round at Wembley Stadium. The unbeaten 38-year-old vacated the WBO belt last week and Britain's Fabio Wardley was elevated as the new WBO champion. But Usyk has vowed to unify all four major titles again in the future, telling the WBC convention: "Some people are saying I'm not undisputed champion anymore. Well, that is only temporary."