Connect with us

முக்கியச் செய்திகள்

Unhappy Labour MPs aren't ready to oust Starmer yet

Published

on

Labour is trailing in the polls and the prime minister's personal ratings have plumbed the depths.

The party is facing losses in forthcoming elections: losing control of Wales, shedding councillors in England, and going into reverse in Scotland.

To put the tin lid on it, the prime minister has been on the back foot over his appointment of Lord Mandelson to the job of ambassador to the US, and the subsequent sacking of senior civil servant, Sir Olly Robbins, in a row over security vetting.

So the question being asked around Westminster is not 'should there be a Labour leadership contest?' – but 'why is such a contest not expected on 8 May', the day after the expected electoral drubbing?

One Labour MP, Jonathan Brash, has called for Sir Keir to resign, and to set a timetable for his departure. Some others have agreed with this privately.

Nonetheless it is significant that no-one is publicly echoing Brash's call and the prevailing mood seems to be against an imminent leadership challenge.

One long-standing Labour MP has his take: "Keir Starmer is basically dead, isn't he? And because people think it is inevitable that he won't lead us into the next election, there isn't the rush."

While there are some noises about having a so-called caretaker leader, many MPs would be reluctant to do this.

As one of them put it: "We have to be sure that when there is a contest we can have a candidate who can lead us in to the next election."

They added that it would be disastrous for trust if the party 'chopped and changed', and trying to find that candidate who can re-inspire the party, never mind the voters, is proving elusive.

The one thing left and right seem to agree on is that there is no obvious leader-in-waiting who is currently in Parliament.

One MP from the centre-left of the party said: "The PLP (Parliamentary Labour Party) thinks the situation is terminal – but we have thought that since February. We don't have an option in Wes [Streeting] because of the Mandelson thing – despite his data dump of the text messages with him.

"And there is a growing 'stop Ange' [Angela Rayner] mood because we don't think she'd win an election."

An MP further to the left said that Rayner, the former deputy leader, was "compromised" by her tax affairs and by "taking up lucrative speaking engagements".

Meanwhile, a minister drew a lesson from Labour's Scottish leader Anas Sarwar's call for Sir Keir's resignation in February: it could have fired the starting gun on a leadership contest, but culminated in declarations of loyalty from ministers.

"What it proved was neither Wes nor Angie were ready for it. I was waiting for a call (from Steeting's team) and it never came," they said.

And a Labour figure whose career can be traced back to the Blair era said that after days of damaging headlines about Lord Mandelson, people were angry.

"We will tank in the elections. But we are back where we were a week ago. There is no easy mechanism (to remove a leader) and there is no obvious candidate."

However, one potential candidate is still being spoken about by MPs. As one former frontbencher put it: "The problem is that the solution isn't in Westminster."

They were, of course, talking about Andy Burnham, who was blocked from standing as a candidate for Westminster in the Gorton and Denton by-election earlier this year.

"He is the person who just about everyone could live with – unless you are Wes Streeting."

Another potential Burnham supporter was more downbeat. He recognised that the Greater Manchester mayor would need to stand in a "very safe seat" given Labour's polling, and that a supportive MP would have to stand down.

Burnham would also need the approval of Labour's ruling body, the National Executive – the composition of which could move in his favour this summer.

But one MP's analysis would have convinced Sir Keir that he was right – from the point of view of political survival – to have vetoed the mayor's candidacy.

"If Andy had been back (in Westminster) things would have moved by now," they said.

Some MPs are more fatalistic. A minister told us: "Starmer is seriously unpopular. I think we are going to lose the next election. The only way we win is if people feel better off and I have not heard a serious argument from any possible candidate about how they could achieve that in such a short space of time."

Some are looking to those closest to Sir Keir to conduct the defenestration, just as Conservative PM Margaret Thatcher was told to leave, more than three decades ago

One MP told us: "Lots of cabinet ministers seem to know that he is not going to lead us in to the next election – the question is whether they want to force something to happen soon or to wait until it's too late."

But some MPs believe that ministers are taking an 'everyone for themselves' approach. One minister's assessment was that "they are on manoeuvres".

It has not gone unnoticed that Energy Secretary Ed Miliband distanced himself from the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson to the Washington job; and that Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper and Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden both criticised attempts by No10 to sound out an ambassadorial role for Matthew (now Lord) Doyle – the departing head of communications in 2025.

And several ministers have privately questioned the manner of Sir Olly Robbins's dismissal.

One influential Labour figure interpreted this as a sign of fraying loyalties, and said "serious cabinet ministers are not prepared to defend [the PM] or sully themselves".

Another MP said: "They are looking for life rafts. They are thinking six months ahead, and they are saying that they would still very much like to be in the cabinet. Someone else's cabinet."

An MP close to Miliband proffered a more straightforward explanation. "Ed just said: Stuff this, I'm telling the truth."

There had been talk of the PM regaining the initiative after the May elections not just with a programme of new legislation in the King's Speech, but by having a reshuffle.

That feels riskier now than it did before the latest Mandelson revelations. Disgruntled ex-ministers can prove dangerous.

Under the radar, the prime minister has been working hard to shore up his position with sceptical MPs.

There have been receptions for backbenchers, including trips to Chequers, his grace-and-favour country pile.

He is undertaking a round of meetings with regional groups of MPs and internal campaign groups. On Wednesday, he met the Red Wall group, whose members are largely in Reform-facing seats, to discuss how the party's industrial strategy can extend to small and medium sized towns.

Attendees report that such meetings are "constructive", MPs can be frank – and that Sir Keir listens more than he speaks.

And after the departure of Morgan McSweeney as chief of staff, some MPs who had felt cold-shouldered now report that they are having proper engagement with No 10.

Sir Keir's political director Amy Richards – formerly a long standing aide to Yvette Cooper – is being praised for dismantling what was seen by some as a boy's club behind the black door of No 10.

That said, we are told that members of the women's PLP are incandescent about the Doyle revelations, and they want to see more women promoted to prominent positions.

So even after the past week, a leadership melodrama seems far from certain.

Brutally bad results are – in a phrase used by several MPs – "priced in".

But often there is a difference between theory and practice. How will that loss of seats feel after elections next month? What will angry ex-councillors be saying to their MPs?

Some believe the emotional impact of electoral defeats could be too much to bear.

"People think they are ready for it but there is a real chance of things going crazy that weekend. Everything could collapse very fast," one MP says.

Another put it like this: "The PLP is like a tinderbox – it might just ignite in May."

But one MP recounted the fears of a

📰 மூல செய்தி (Source): https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c78lp5jw8yxo?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=rss

முக்கியச் செய்திகள்

Facing a seismic by-election, the people of Makerfield tell us what matters to them

Published

on

In a handful of former mining towns and villages in north-west England, there is a lot of frustration with the state of the UK.

It is common to hear people say "Britain is broken", "we are forgotten", and calls for "change".

This is the Makerfield constituency, where locals are being heard louder than ever before in the most consequential by-election in decades.

A constituency that made up 0.1% of voters at the last general election is not only picking a new MP on 18 June.

Voters here are also potentially choosing the next prime minister.

That is because Labour's candidate, Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, has said that if elected, he would seek to enter any Labour leadership contest to replace Sir Keir Starmer in Downing Street.

First, Burnham must defeat his main rival in Makerfield, local plumber Robert Kenyon, who is standing for Reform UK, an insurgent party that is also aiming to win power in Westminster.

Britain is "broken", Reform UK claims, while Burnham says the country has been on "the wrong path for 40 years".

But in the dozens of conversations I had with voters, residents, business owners and political campaigners in Makerfield, the mood was more nuanced than the rhetoric suggests.

So what exactly do they want to change – and what are the candidates promising to deliver?

At Rose's Cafe, in Ashton-in-Makerfield, the largest town in the constituency, regulars are munching on their breakfast barms.

In 2023, Yasmin Ratcliffe jumped at the chance to open the cafe here, rather than where she lives, in nearby Leigh.

With the local council spending £6.6m on regenerating the town, Ratcliffe feels it is a good time to expand her business.

"I feel like it's a much better town in Ashton," she tells me. "It's a lot busier than we thought, so the team's growing."

On some indicators Makerfield seems to be doing well, with wages above the national average and high levels of home ownership.

The Greater Manchester region in which Makerfield sits has also been growing, generating a genuine buzz around Manchester as a city. A boom in developments, service industry start-ups and university graduates, among other factors, has driven economic growth.

While Manchester's lure has pulled in many entrepreneurs, Chris Ratcliffe saw potential in Ashton.

In 2019, having worked as an engineer near Manchester for 10 years, he founded Langen, a motorcycle manufacturer, in the town. The company's first line of 100 motorbikes sold out.

"There's an element of me that wants to prove a point that we can do it here," he says.

But Manchester's rising tide has not lifted all boats in Makerfield.

In some ways, the constituency is divided between the better-off neighbourhoods of Ashton, Orrell, and Winstanley in the west, and the more deprived areas of Platt Bridge, Abram and Hindley in the east.

In these latter areas, perceptions of "broken Britain" are easier to find. The problems residents complain about feel more acute and intractable.

Take the notorious illegal dump that has been piling up in the village of Bickershaw since late 2024. Despite several complaints, a fire at the site last summer, and a criminal investigation, the towering mountain of waste remains.

Even at a distance – about a quarter of a mile away – the acrid smell torments my nostrils.

Nicha Rowson, who lives near the tip with her husband and two children, has had to put up with it for almost two years now.

"The rats were a big thing," she says, sitting below what is left of her kitchen ceiling, which was largely removed to deal with the infestation.

It is yet to be fixed – and her neighbours are going through similar ordeals with rats.

She feels the seemingly immovable mess is a symbol of a country that is not working and where "human beings aren't a priority".

I found a similarly damning assessment in Platt Bridge, where residents have suffered severe flooding twice in a decade.

In 2015, Dawn Royds was assured it was a one-off – "an act of God". She believed that until New Year's Day last year, when she woke to blue flashing lights.

"The kids had been playing with some toys the night before and they were just floating about," she says. "That was what got me."

A minister was dispatched to survey the devastation. And since 2024, the government says it has invested £2.65bn in flood defences nationwide – in 2026-27, £329,000 has been allocated to Platt Bridge and nearby areas.

Yet, Dawn is convinced it will happen again. For her, it is one example of why "Britain isn't Great Britain anymore".

More evidence of this attitude can be seen in polls and research. In a report last year, More in Common said "broken" was the most common word Britons used to describe the country.

That has been true of focus groups the think tank organised in Makerfield, too. "They said Britain isn't working," says Luke Tryl, executive director of More in Common. "That the status quo isn't working."

The paradox, Tryl adds, is that people have very high trust in their neighbours and often describe their local area as "good".

Tryl says although it is clear Britain is "creaking at the top", his research on public opinion suggests the foundations of community still appear to be strong.

Even so, Reform UK tells me the "Britain is broken slogan has just cut through across the country".

"It's not something that we need to keep pushing to instil in people's minds," a Reform UK source adds. "Most people just know that Britain is broken."

Instead, the party's candidate, Kenyon, is focusing on hyper-local issues such as opposing new housing developments on green-belt land, pitching himself as a "normal" local lad.

Out on doorsteps, Reform UK is trying to contrast this with what it describes as Burnham using Makerfield as "a stepping stone" to No 10. This is echoed on Ashton High Street by Lewis Ash, who tells me: "I don't want it to be a stepping stone for Andy Burnham."

In the same shopping precinct, Daniel Jones says he is sceptical of every candidate's intentions, saying they have "all [have] got their own agenda… to advance their career".

On the campaign trail, Burnham has been having three simultaneous conversations – one with locals, one with the Labour MPs who could help make him prime minister, and one with the nation as a whole.

The Labour veteran is trying to keep it local in Makerfield, preferring to talk about his ideas to ease the cost of living and linking them to his record as mayor of Greater Manchester – pointing to cheaper bus fares.

Having claimed to have knocked on every door in the constituency several times, as Reform UK has, team Burnham's approach is to send their candidate to speak to undecided voters personally, often about local issues.

His team says he is embracing difficult conversations with voters who are looking for change in a constituency that has elected Labour MPs for 120 years under previous boundaries – but where Reform UK won every ward in May's local elections.

Although I saw mostly Reform UK and Burnham signs and posters adorning the streets I walked, other parties are vying for votes as well.

The Green candidate Sarah Wakefield says she wants to offer more "hope" and "better solutions" to voters in Makerfield.

A former mayor of Wigan, Conservative candidate Michael Winstanley is positioning himself as a community champion, while Jake Austin, who is standing for the Liberal Democrats, claims his party has the best plans for reducing household living costs.

Local campaigners believe the by-election is on a knife edge, not least thanks to Restore Britain, a relatively new party led by former Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe.

In the few constituency opinion polls there have been, which should be treated with caution, Restore sits in third-place and has been buoyed to an extent by support on X from the richest man in the world, Elon Musk.

"People are fed up," says one Restore door-knocker, among a group of six activists wearing matching party-branded caps and T-

📰 மூல செய்தி (Source): https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg4dywykjeo?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=rss

Continue Reading

முக்கியச் செய்திகள்

Social media on trial: Four important cases to watch

Published

on

When social media started to take over the internet 20 years ago, it was widely hailed as a game-changing technology that would connect people across divides and make information more accessible.

Today, companies like Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, Google, owner of Youtube, and Snapchat, along with relatively newer platforms like TikTok, Discord and social gaming platform Roblox, are facing thousands of lawsuits in the US over claims that they have instead harmed users, children in particular.

Taken together, the outcome of the lawsuits, whether they ultimately settle out of court or end up with jury verdicts against companies, could change the way social platforms operate forever.

"It's created a stage that not only legal observers are watching, but regulators and lawmakers are watching closely as well," Eric Talley, a lawyer and professor at Columbia Law School, said.

Talley noted that the way this growing wave of lawsuits against platforms is feeding into broader public perception is likely to influence political elections for the next several years, impacting new and revised laws and regulations.

Many of the cases are going through courts in California, where all of the major social platforms are headquartered. Known as the "California effect", legal and policy changes enacted in the state tend to lead to nationwide changes.

"There's no denying anymore that there is an issue with child safety on the platforms," Alexis Shore Ingber, a communications law expert and a professor at Syracuse University, said. "We are seeing an inflection point. These cases are significant."

Already this year, Meta and YouTube notched an unprecedented loss in a case brought by a young woman who claimed she was addicted as a child to social media, contributing to her mental and emotional health struggles. The companies were ordered by a jury to pay her a combined $6m (£4.5m) in damages. Both firms said they disagreed with the verdict and intended to appeal.

Meta also lost a bigger case in New Mexico, brought by that state's attorney general accusing the company of essentially misleading the public that its platforms were safe for children despite known issues with young people being sexually exploited on them. Meta said it also plans to appeal against this verdict.

During the years these cases were brought and resolved, Meta has released changes to its platforms aimed at making them safer for young users.

But broader change to the platforms, how they are designed and function and even accessed, is likely to take years more, and more court rulings against them.

Between this year and next, Meta and the other major social platforms are poised to fight their way through more trials where juries could consider a host of claims by young users, their parents, school districts, and state attorneys who allege an array of ill effects from the way social media platforms are designed and operate.

Even a billionaire is prepared to take Meta to trial over its hosting of advertisements that scam people out of money.

The BBC looked through scores of cases in the US to find the handful of lawsuits against social media and social gaming companies that are on track for trial in the next year or so and could have a significant impact on the platforms' businesses and operations.

According to Adam J. Schwartz, a lawyer who also founded an online document review tool, the following lawsuits "are the bellwether cases that will set the tone and tenor for shaping the law in the future".

This sprawling multidistrict litigation (MDL) in California includes allegations from more than 1,000 school districts across the US.

Broadly, the schools accuse Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat and TikTok of being intentionally designed to be addictive, which has allegedly harmed children mentally and emotionally through their excessive use of platforms.

The schools claim that dealing with the ill effects of social media has cost them money and resources, and that the platforms should be deemed a "public nuisance" and held liable for impacting children's well-being.

Although a jury trial for certain of the school districts' claims is now set to begin in February, as the platforms recently settled with a school district that was to be the first trial, all of the cases could take a couple more years to resolve completely.

Should court outcomes go against the platforms, everything from the way platforms display user engagement to who they allow on the platforms could change.

A spokesman for YouTube said: "The allegations in these complaints are simply not true."

A spokeswoman for Snapchat said: "We fundamentally disagree with the allegations – we do not target schools."

Meta declined to comment and TikTok did not respond to a request for comment.

Attorneys for California and Colorado led a group of 29 states in filing in 2023 a lawsuit against Meta and Instagram. It is set to go to trial in August.

While it is also before the same judge as the MDL in California, the states are accusing Meta alone of violations of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, a federal law known as COPPA. The law was intended to protect children under 13 years old from being targeted by businesses operating online but was enacted in 2000.

Meta has already provided more than 2 million documents in the case, according to court records.

Should the states prevail in their claims, it is demanding that Meta better prevent users under 13 years old from using its platforms and remove data it has previously collected from underage users, along with a host of other changes.

Meta uses such data to do things like ad targeting and train its artificial intelligence (AI) models and tools.

A spokesman for the company declined to comment.

This case against Roblox and Discord was brought by a 13-year-old boy in state court in San Mateo, California. The boy claims he was recently groomed and solicited through both platforms by an adult sexual predator who was subsequently arrested for his crimes against more than two dozen children.

The lawsuit argues both platforms were defectively designed and engaged in false marketing about safety for young users and so should be held liable for the harm young John Doe came to.

Roblox, which is a gaming-focused platform with many social media features, and Discord tried to get the case into arbitration, which is a private legal process outside the court system. The court refused, but the case is currently on hold pending the companies' appeal against that decision.

Should Roblox and Discord lose their appeals, the case could go to trial later this year. A court verdict against the platforms may bring changes to age-gating and the ability of strangers to interact with young users through platform messages and chat spaces.

A spokeswoman for Discord declined to comment. A representative for Roblox did not respond to a request for comment.

Not all of the cases against social media platforms heading towards trial have to do with harms against children.

Dr Andrew Forrest, an Australian billionaire, sued Meta in California in 2022 over the company's alleged failure to combat scam advertisements tricking Australians into fake investments that allegedly proliferated on Facebook using his name and likeness.

With claims including misuse of his image and unjust enrichment, because Meta makes money from ads on its platform no matter their goal or outcome, Forrest's lawsuit could be one of the most significant.

He is asking the court to find that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act cannot be used as a defence by Meta in the case. Meta is arguing that it is protected from Forrest's claims by Section 230.

Enacted in 1996, Section 230, as it's usually referred, essentially gives legal immunity to platforms for anything that occurs on them.

If the court ultimately sides with Forrest, it could upend decades of defences by online platforms.

A spokesman for Meta declined to comme

📰 மூல செய்தி (Source): https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9q39l447l4o?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=rss

Continue Reading

முக்கியச் செய்திகள்

Knicks fans go wild as New York team makes biggest comeback in NBA Finals history

Published

on

A star-studded crowd saw the New York Knicks record the biggest comeback in NBA Finals history on Wednesday night, beating the San Antonio Spurs by one point in the last 1.2 seconds of the game, after trailing by 29 points.

It was game four of the feverish best-of-seven NBA Finals – the first finals the Knicks have hosted in 27 years.

The final score of 107-106 means the Knicks now enjoy a 3-1 lead and are just one win away from a famous series victory.

Famous and not so famous fans erupted in chants of "O-G! O-G!" for player OG Anunoby, who scored the winning three points. Taylor Swift, Timothee Chalamet and director Spike Lee were all watching in the Madison Square Garden stadium.

New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani posted on X in all caps, "SPEECHLESS", while Swift, who was wearing a T-shirt that said "Stevie Knicks" – a play on the name of the team and the Fleetwood Mac frontwoman – jumped for joy as she left the court, stopping to be twirled by one of the Knicks City Dancers.

Knicks coach Mike Brown OG Anunoby's move "has to be the most iconic shot in the history of New York basketball," Brown said. "It was just unbelievable."

This season has represented a stunning reversal of fortune for the Knicks who haven't been in the finals since 1999, when they lost to the Spurs. New Yorkers have been out in the streets celebrating each win.

"The city is electric," a fan told the BBC earlier in the week. New York has been decorated in a Knicks theme from the top of the Empire State Building to the paws of the marble lions outside the New York Public Library's Fifth Avenue branch.

"I can't say I've ever seen anything like this before because in 1999 I was 4 years old. I'm just trying to soak it all in," Resident Sol, 31, told the BBC earlier this week, saying he couldn't be more excited.

After Wednesday's result, the team need to win just one more game to win the national championship for the first time since 1973. Their first chance will come on Saturday night, when they will play Game five in San Antonio.

But comebacks can work both ways – San Antonio may be the new underdogs, but they could still win, if they take the next three matches.

📰 மூல செய்தி (Source): https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr47lyzr4q9o?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=rss

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 by 7Tamil Media, All rights reserved.