AG百家乐在线官网

Bailey - what perfect timing for this question.

This morning we reported on an in-depth new poll that showed it's Reform UK that would end up with the most seats in parliament if a general election was held right now.

YouGov carried out its first Multilevel Regression and Post-stratification (MRP) poll since the last general election. It's based on thousands of people, and links voters and characteristics to help with its projection.

It is not a forecast, but an estimate of what could happen. The next election is not set to happen until 2029, and it's incredibly unlikely we'll get one before then given Labour's big majority.

With a sample size of 11,500 people, here's what the poll found:

• Reform would win 271 seats;
• Labour would win 178;
• Liberal Democrats would have 81;
• The Tories would slump to 46.

That would leave us with a hung parliament.

Thanks for your question, Gill.

Our political reporter Ben Bloch writes:

Of course, the primary way politicians are held to account by the public is through elections - at the very local level right up to general elections, which take place every five years at a maximum.

In between elections, the government is accountable to parliament, and we can see that process in action now. MPs on all sides are threatening to vote against the government鈥檚 bill, including over 120 Labour MPs, who have been hearing from their own constituents in recent weeks.

Ministers cannot make such huge changes unilaterally - they need the approval of parliament, and it is not clear they will get it in this case.

Watch: What are Labour's benefit cuts?

What was in Labour's manifesto?

Labour was clear in their manifesto at the general election it would reform welfare, and has not strayed from that, in principle.

The party pledged to:

• "Create plans to support more disabled people and those with health conditions into work";
• Devolve funding and powers to local authorities to create a more "joined-up" approach to help get more people into work;
• Introduce a "right to try" guarantee, to allow disabled people to try work for a certain period without losing their benefits;
• Reform the Work Capabilities Assessment;
• Overhaul the government鈥檚 approached to Jobcentres.

It is worth nothing that in their manifesto, Labour said they were "committed to championing the rights of disabled people and to the principle of working with them, so that their views and voices will be at the heart of all we do".

MPs and groups representing people with disabilities say not enough, if any, consultation work has been done, however.

The scale and specifics of the cuts to achieve the goals Labour set out were not set out in the manifesto, however. It is now parliament's job to scrutinise the specifics of the legislation.

Thanks for your question, Sam.

All decisions on cuts and spendings are political choices, of course, but don't forget there's already been one significant slashing of the foreign aid budget and that didn't go down well with Labour backbenchers either.

Keir Starmer announced earlier this year the overseas aid budget would drop from 0.5% of GDP to 0.3% to fund a defence spending boost.

He had criticised the Tories when they dropped it from 0.7% to 0.5% under Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak, and his development minister Anneliese Dodds (once his shadow chancellor) resigned when the prime minister announced his own cut - to be in place by 2027.

She wasn't the only Labour MP left disappointed by his decision, which caught plenty of them by surprise.

Hello there, Tammi. You speak for a lot of people in our comments box today when it comes to the government's welfare plans.

Our political reporter Ben Bloch writes:

There are two planks to the government's argument that its welfare legislation will get more people into work.

Firstly, it believes those people deemed capable of work will be "incentivised" to get a job if their benefits are cut.

Secondly, ministers argue there is a vast package of measures to help people into work.

Those include:

• A "right to try" initiative, giving people the opportunity to try working, without the risk of losing their benefits during a certain period;
• By 2029/30, over 拢1bn will be invested in "personalised employment and health support for individuals on out of work benefits";
• Everyone affected by the changes to the health element of universal credit will be offered support from "a dedicated Pathways to Work adviser";
• Everyone affected by the overall reforms will be contacted and offered a "conversation" about their needs, goals, and aspirations - with "health and skills support".

Simultaneously, the government is already overhauling Jobcentres to more effectively help people who are unemployed into work, especially young people.

But disabled groups say the loss of the personal independence payment (PIP) and health top-up on universal credit will put enormous pressure and stress on people with debilitating health conditions, and will push many thousands who cannot work into poverty.

Thanks for your question, Alfred - you weren't the only one to ask one along these lines.

Our political reporter Faye Brown says: 

One of the key criticisms of the Labour rebels is the provisions in the welfare bill have not been formally consulted on with disabled people or co-produced with them. 

Disability groups want the government to scrap its proposals and work with them to create a National Disability Strategy to address barriers to employment.

That's not to say an impact assessment hasn't been done.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) estimates another 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, could be pushed into relative poverty in the financial year ending 2030 because of the proposed cuts.

Ministers say this will be offset by measures to get people into work, but it's not clear what those are and how it will help those set to lose benefits, many of whom are already in work.

The government has launched a review into boosting the employment of disabled people and people with long-term health conditions, to be led by Sir Charlie Mayfield. They plan to engage with representative groups as part of this.  

However, the recommendations won't come until the autumn, and rebels want the government to hold off on the cuts until then. 

Thanks for your question, Ethan.

You weren't the only one to ask this, given our report yesterday that ministers have gone as far as to warn rebels they could force a leadership contest against the PM if they defeat the government next week.

Our political reporter Ben Bloch writes:

This is a very unlikely scenario. Many rebels have explicitly said they do not want to bring down the government, and by extension, Starmer's premiership - they want to force a U-turn on these benefit cuts.

If the government does lose the second reading vote on the welfare bill on Tuesday, it will certainly severely weaken the government, but it is incredibly unlikely to lead to its imminent collapse (famous last words!).

But let's indulge a bit. Bearing in mind it is Labour members who choose their leader, not the country at large, here are the most popular candidates, according to a survey earlier this month by LabourList.

Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester mayor, is by far the most popular figure among Labour members. He has made headlines speaking up for greater investment outside London and the South East. 

The problem? He is not an MP nor a peer, and so to replace Starmer as PM, he would have to be appointed to the House of Lords, or win a parliamentary seat in a by-election.

Angela Rayner is comfortably the second most popular choice for next Labour leader - and holds a distinct advantage over Burnham as she actually has a seat in the Commons, and is already deputy PM. 

But among the public, she is one of the most unpopular cabinet ministers. It is also unclear whether she would actually stand, having told Sky News she would "never" do so.

Wes Streeting has made no secret of his leadership ambitions, and his plain-speaking style has led to him being touted as a future PM. 

But the health secretary is only the third most popular choice for future leader - and only just. He is known to be from the right of the party, and it is not clear if he would be able to attract broad appeal among members.

Thanks for your question, Linda.

Our political reporter Tim Baker has looked into this one:

As part of the process of introducing the legislation, the government had an impact assessment done.

It found 370,000 new claimants, and 430,000 potential new claimants, may not qualify or lose out on personal independence payments (PIP).

Some 150,000 people are also expected to lose out on carers' allowance.

A separate assessment, which was released alongside the spring statement, estimates that 250,000 extra people - including 50,000 children - could be in relative poverty by the end of the decade.

The government argues these figures don't account for the cash its putting into employment support as part of the welfare reforms.

Additionally, the Child Poverty Action Group says its research has identified 870,000 children in families that receive PIP - 290,000 of whom are already below the poverty line.

Thanks to everyone who's submitted a comment this afternoon - we've assembled some of our politics reporters to answer your questions about the government's welfare reforms and the rebellion facing the PM.

Stay with us for the next hour or so.

By Will Charley, political reporter

New polling suggests the public are overwhelmingly opposed to the government's planned cuts to disability benefits. 

Findings by More In Common found just 27% of people support the proposed changes to the benefit system.

Some 60% of people said the government should look at other ways to save money, and 52% said the cuts will increase pressure on the NHS.

Ministers confirmed today they are pushing ahead with plans for a crunch vote in the Commons on the Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill next Tuesday.

That's despite more than 120 Labour MPs publicly signing an amendment, which would kill the bill.

The polling, carried out with charity Disability Rights UK, also found 51% of people believe the cuts will worsen the health of disabled people. 

The results also found:

• 67% of PIP recipients say they specifically use some or all of their payment to support their ability to be physically active
• 51% of PIP recipients say losing their payments would make them less active
• More than one third (34%) of benefits recipients fear they would participate less in the community

Mikey Erhardt, the charity's policy lead, told Sky News: "Our research with More In Common should provide MPs with all the evidence they need to vote against the changes proposed in this bill.

"The risk to public health and the NHS that will arise from these cuts is huge and hasn't yet even been recognised by the government."

Watch: Why is the government cutting benefits?

Cuts 'would be devastating'

Another national charity opposing the cuts is Sense.

James Watson-O'Neil, the charity's chief executive, said the cuts "would be devastating for disabled people" and risk pushing "hundreds of thousands into poverty and isolation".

He added: "Disabled people are telling us they鈥檙e worried they won鈥檛 be able to heat their homes, put food on the table, or afford the therapies they rely on. These are not luxuries鈥攖hey are basic needs."

Sense is calling on people to write to their local MP urging them to vote against the bill. All 650 MPs have now heard from at least one constituent, on behalf of the charity, it added.