From The Times and The Sunday Times, this is the story.
I'm Manvina Rana.
For some, it was a power move.
A show of strength.
a sign that Secure Starmer was still in charge.
And he'd managed to block the man most likely to dislodge him by preventing Andy Burnham from fighting a bi-election that could have brought him back into Parliament.
There's no question of me and Andy not working very well together.
He's doing an excellent job as the Mayor of Manchester.
But having an election for the Mayor of Manchester when it's not necessary would divert our resources away from the elections that we must have and that we must fight and win.
But for most, including many in his own party, it was the opposite.
A sign of utter weakness, poor leadership and terminal, unstoppable decline.
There'll be a lot of bloodletting in the parliamentary Labour Party as a result of this decision.
I think it's incredibly disappointing.
It makes Keel weak by trying to be seen to be trying to block somebody from standing on the basis he might challenge him as leader.
I think they've made a huge mistake.
I think they've kind of underestimated how damaging it will be.
Keel Sturmer now needs to consider his own position as leader at this party.
Has Keir Starmer ensured his own survival at the top?
Or has he hastened the end of his term in number 10?
How soon might a leadership challenge come?