Meta, the parent company for Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, plans to introduce new face scanning tech while people are distracted by current political turbulence. The Trump-adjacent corporation plans to package the feature in new smart glasses. An internal Meta document seen by the New York Times (NYT) says:

We will launch during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns.

The media outlet provides further info on what the tech would allow:

The feature, internally called “Name Tag,” would let wearers of smart glasses identify people and get information about them via Meta’s artificial intelligence assistant.

Smart glasses are typically paired with AI, enabling voice activated interaction with the specs. Users can instruct the device to send a text message, take a photo or record a video. Some models feature an LED that changes colour to indicate the wearer is recording.

Meta: disaster capitalism following in ICE’s wake

The cynical internal memo likely references the tumult currently sweeping the US amidst the mass criminality carried out by the brownshirts of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Trump’s personal paramilitary goons have been violating laws left and right as they beat and kill their way around the US, under the pretext of an immigration crackdown.

ICE have already made extensive use of face scanning tech. Meta’s glasses would represent another privacy violating move, capturing massive amounts of personal data which may ultimately find its way into the hands of an authoritarian state. Meta has form when it comes to handing over info about customers to governments.

Metadata – which shows who called who and when – has been used by authorities, including seemingly by so-called ‘Israel’ for its genocide in Gaza. WhatsApp records are one means used by the terrorist entity to determine which Palestinians are marked for death in its genocidal AI programs Lavender and Where’s Daddy. Paul Biggar of Tech for Palestine put a series of questions to Meta about how they should be policing rogue regimes like ‘Israel’ using its data. These included:

How will Meta prevent private information being used by governments to kill WhatsApp users and their families?

Will Meta immediately rescind access to any WhatsApp information from the Israeli government, army and law enforcement?

It appears no answer was forthcoming. Meta’s plan to roll out the tech during politically chaotic times has echoes of the ‘shock doctrine’ described by author Naomi Klein. It outlines a process of ‘disaster capitalism’ in which natural disasters or political upheaval are seized upon by corporations to ram through major changes that benefit them.

It represents another example of practices first deployed by hegemonic powers abroad, only to be revisited upon a population at home. Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been an eager licker of the Trump boot, and clearly sees this as an opportune time to introduce the privacy violating tech.

Corporate and state surveillance powers must be opposed

A previous version of the glasses were able to successfully identify faces and reveal huge amounts of personal info about those it scanned. Two Harvard students paired the specs with a smartphone app they created, enabling them to almost instantaneously identify strangers.

The scan was then sent to the app, which trawled the internet for information about people, bringing back details like their job and home address within seconds. A built-in version of this tech would be even more powerful, creating even greater privacy concerns.

The British government intends to extend its use of facial recognition tech, going from 10 vans with the system, to 50. Civil rights groups are challenging this in the courts, describing it as “stop and search on steroids“. The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) are looking into its use, which would be a disaster in a region where violation of rights by state authorities has previously had devastating consequences.

Fascism is often described as the fusion of corporate and state power. Both these power centres are ramping up their ability to surveil us, enabling them to amass enormous power. The prospect of them uniting to utterly crush dissent will be an ever more tempting prospect. Their efforts to advance spying powers must therefore be snuffed out in their infancy.

Featured image via the Canary

Photo by Richard Stachmann on Unsplash

How parents can support children with ADHD to sleep better

1. Keep bedtime consistent

2. Focus on light

3. Consider nervous system input earlier in the day

4. Try quiet, focused activities before bed

5. Let them offload their worries

6. Gently help kids back to bed

6. Consider their sleep quality

A note for parents struggling with the long evenings

We’re accustomed to bringing an umbrella with us wherever we go, and we know that bringing an extra layer ‘just to be safe’ is mandatory.

But when the seasons start to shift from winter to spring, even the most savvy dressers can be caught sweating their face off on public transport because they grabbed the wrong coat before dashing out of the door.

If you’re in the market for a layer that works when it’s a bit chilly out, instead of freezing cold, give these seriously stylish trench coats a look in.

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the 2019 general election.

The Labour government is moving leftwards.

Whether Keir Starmer survives as Prime Minister or not, a shift in direction is inevitable.

It has been evident ever since the retreat on welfare cuts that the Parliamentary Labour Party was to the left of its frontbench and – given a fight between the two – the PLP was capable of prevailing.  Abolition of the two child benefit gap was to follow, as was a second autumn budget with hefty tax increases, necessary in part to pay for higher welfare spending.

Since then, of course, Starmer’s position has weakened.  When a Prime Minister is on the brink, the expedient approach is to focus on party management, and Starmer is nothing if not expedient.  He is often dismissed as being remarkably unpolitical, which is true, but he has also demonstrated repeatedly a very political willingness to be ruthless and flexible.

These characteristics were to the fore in the departure of Morgan McSweeney as his chief of staff.  McSweeney was central to Labour’s election campaign and to the operation of the government.  In both roles, he pursued a political strategy – adopted tentatively by Starmer – which involved resisting a drift towards the left.  Even with McSweeney, the Government has drifted leftwards, without him the current will be irresistible for Starmer.

This all assumes that Starmer stays.  If he does not, a Labour leadership race will focus on a membership who thinks that the problem is that the Government is too right-wing.  There will be calls for bigger government, wealth taxes, a more generous welfare state, and nationalisations.  Whereas recent Conservative leadership elections involved members asking themselves who was best placed to beat Nigel Farage, Labour members will worry more about losing votes to Zack Polanski.  It would be a brave and unsuccessful Labour leadership candidate who will set forward a manifesto focused on making the country more economically dynamic, competitive, and business-friendly.

All of this can be contrasted with how Labour fought the last election and, as a consequence, the mandate they received.  It is true to say that Labour’s campaign was deliberately unmemorable and risk-free in the manner, to use Roy Jenkins’ phrase, of ‘a man carrying a priceless Ming vase across a highly polished floor’.  It is also true to say that the media put Labour under little scrutiny, reflecting the public’s sentiment that it was time for a change but with a weary incuriosity as to what that change may involve.  Nonetheless, Labour went to great lengths to demonstrate that it was not going to be a government of the left.

There were promises not to increase the rates of income tax, VAT, and national insurance.

There was also a promise to keep the corporation tax rate at 25 per cent, part of an energetic effort to keep business opinion onside.  Fiscal responsibility was at the heart of Rachel Reeves’ pitch to the electorate.  There were some totemic tax increases on the wealthy (VAT on school fees, reforms on the tax treatment of non-doms and private equity bosses) but if higher spending on public services was going to be necessary, it would come from higher levels of growth.  How this was going to happen was kept vague (it turned out that this was not because they had a secret plan but that they did not know themselves) but the impression was left that the answer would be more about pragmatism and competence than the implementation of socialism.

Party management also demonstrated that Labour had moved on from its recent history.

Jeremy Corbyn had been thrown out of the party he had only recently led and was forced to run as an independent.  The early days of the campaign were full of stories of how Team Starmer had determinedly excluded Corbynistas from standing as candidates, giving the impression that the future PLP would be made up of centrist loyalists.  The splits and factions of the Tory years would be put behind us.  Starmer might not be charismatic but he had command of his Parliamentary colleagues.  At last, we would have a grown-up in charge that could worry about the concerns of the country, not his party.

It worked.

Even though Labour lost votes and a handful of seats to the Greens and the Gaza independents, it won votes from former Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, higher earners and older and middle-aged voters that had been wary of the party in 2019.  It also succeeded in making the General Election a referendum on the Tories, which helped encourage tactical voting that made the anti-Tory vote remarkably efficient.  Many centrists voted against the Conservatives rather than against Labour.  Tory-minded voters – disillusioned with their traditional party but who could not bring themselves to vote Labour or Liberal Democrat – were sufficiently reassured to stay at home.  Starmer had discovered that there were electoral advantages in stirring up apathy.

This reality is likely to be forgotten in the next few weeks.

The internal Labour debate is all about the disappointment within the electorate about Labour’s lack of boldness and radicalism and that if only that could be corrected the Government would be more popular.  There are certainly left-wing voters who feel betrayed by the realities of a Labour government, but these are generally the same left-wing voters who feel constantly betrayed by reality.  If Starmer goes, how will they feel in a couple of years about Rayner, Miliband or Burnham or whoever they get as his successor? Betrayed, I would wager.  Only one Labour Prime Minister has ever won a second workable majority, and he did not do so relying heavily on flaky left-wing voters.

What Labour should worry about more are those voters who had been reassured that Labour would govern sensibly enough, solve problems, tread lightly on their lives and unite the country.  Business opinion – open to Labour in 2024 and encouraged by the focus on economic growth – has moved decisively away from them.  There is no sign of the Labour Party, in its current frame of mind, is making much of an effort to win that support back.

For those of us that want a country that is well-placed to succeed in a highly uncertain world, there is nothing to celebrate here.  Hard-headed decisions are needed to control public spending, reform public services, and improve competitiveness.  The Labour left is incapable of delivering on any of those fronts.  If Labour fails dismally, the country might react by taking a punt on the populist right, even more woefully prepared for the rigours of government.

The better option for the country is that the Conservative Party fills the breach; that it offers an attractive alternative to those reluctant 2024 Labour voters and Tory abstainers that had been reassured that the left had been repelled and that Starmer could be trusted.  Business opinion – dismayed at Boris Johnson’s hostility over the costs of Brexit and Liz Truss’s fiscal irresponsibility – is open to being wooed by the Conservatives once again and should be the first priority.

For the rest of this Parliament, Labour is going to govern as a different party to the one that was elected in 2024.  Part of their 2024 coalition of support will be lost as a consequence.  It will be that part of its coalition which is more focused on economic growth, more supportive of the private sector, and more sceptical of socialism.  In other words, a move to the left will mean that more centrist voters will be up for grabs.  It is a huge opportunity that the Conservative Party cannot afford to miss.

Whether Keir Starmer survives as Prime Minister or not, a shift in direction is inevitable.  It has been evident ever since the retreat on welfare cuts that the Parliamentary Labour Party was to the left of its frontbench and – given a fight between the two – the PLP was capable of prevailing.  Abolition of the two child benefit gap was to follow, as was a second autumn budget with hefty tax increases, necessary in part to pay for higher welfare spending.

Since then, of course, Starmer’s position has weakened.  When a Prime Minister is on the brink, the expedient approach is to focus on party management, and Starmer is nothing if not expedient.  He is often dismissed as being remarkably unpolitical, which is true, but he has also demonstrated repeatedly a very political willingness to be ruthless and flexible.

These characteristics were to the fore in the departure of Morgan McSweeney as his chief of staff.  McSweeney was central to Labour’s election campaign and to the operation of the government.  In both roles, he pursued a political strategy – adopted tentatively by Starmer – which involved resisting a drift towards the left.  Even with McSweeney, the Government has drifted leftwards, without him the current will be irresistible for Starmer.

This all assumes that Starmer stays.

If he does not, a Labour leadership race will focus on a membership who thinks that the problem is that the Government is too right-wing.  There will be calls for bigger government, wealth taxes, a more generous welfare state, and nationalisations.  Whereas recent Conservative leadership elections involved members asking themselves who was best placed to beat Nigel Farage, Labour members will worry more about losing votes to Zack Polanski.  It would be a brave and unsuccessful Labour leadership candidate who will set forward a manifesto focused on making the country more economically dynamic, competitive, and business-friendly.

All of this can be contrasted with how Labour fought the last election and, as a consequence, the mandate they received.  It is true to say that Labour’s campaign was deliberately unmemorable and risk-free in the manner, to use Roy Jenkins’ phrase, of ‘a man carrying a priceless Ming vase across a highly polished floor’.  It is also true to say that the media put Labour under little scrutiny, reflecting the public’s sentiment that it was time for a change but with a weary incuriosity as to what that change may involve.  Nonetheless, Labour went to great lengths to demonstrate that it was not going to be a government of the left.

There were promises not to increase the rates of income tax, VAT, and national insurance.  There was also a promise to keep the corporation tax rate at 25%, part of an energetic effort to keep business opinion onside.  Fiscal responsibility was at the heart of Rachel Reeves’ pitch to the electorate.  There were some totemic tax increases on the wealthy (VAT on school fees, reforms on the tax treatment of non-doms and private equity bosses) but if higher spending on public services was going to be necessary, it would come from higher levels of growth.  How this was going to happen was kept vague (it turned out that this was not because they had a secret plan but that they did not know themselves) but the impression was left that the answer would be more about pragmatism and competence than the implementation of socialism.

Party management also demonstrated that Labour had moved on from its recent history.  Jeremy Corbyn had been thrown out of the party he had only recently led and was forced to run as an independent.  The early days of the campaign were full of stories of how Team Starmer had determinedly excluded Corbynistas from standing as candidates, giving the impression that the future PLP would be made up of centrist loyalists.  The splits and factions of the Tory years would be put behind us.  Starmer might not be charismatic but he had command of his Parliamentary colleagues.  At last, we would have a grown-up in charge that could worry about the concerns of the country, not his party.

It worked.  Even though Labour lost votes and a handful of seats to the Greens and the Gaza independents, it won votes from former Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, higher earners and older and middle-aged voters that had been wary of the party in 2019.  It also succeeded in making the General Election a referendum on the Tories, which helped encourage tactical voting that made the anti-Tory vote remarkably efficient.  Many centrists voted against the Conservatives rather than against Labour.  Tory-minded voters – disillusioned with their traditional party but who could not bring themselves to vote Labour or Liberal Democrat – were sufficiently reassured to stay at home.  Starmer had discovered that there were electoral advantages in stirring up apathy.

This reality is likely to be forgotten in the next few weeks.  The internal Labour debate is all about the disappointment within the electorate about Labour’s lack of boldness and radicalism and that if only that could be corrected the Government would be more popular.  There are certainly left-wing voters who feel betrayed by the realities of a Labour government, but these are generally the same left-wing voters who feel constantly betrayed by reality.  If Starmer goes, how will they feel in a couple of years about Rayner, Miliband or Burnham or whoever they get as his successor? Betrayed, I would wager.  Only one Labour Prime Minister has ever won a second workable majority, and he did not do so relying heavily on flaky left-wing voters.

What Labour should worry about more are those voters who had been reassured that Labour would govern sensibly enough, solve problems, tread lightly on their lives and unite the country.  Business opinion – open to Labour in 2024 and encouraged by the focus on economic growth – has moved decisively away from them.  There is no sign of the Labour Party, in its current frame of mind, is making much of an effort to win that support back.

For those of us that want a country that is well-placed to succeed in a highly uncertain world, there is nothing to celebrate here.  Hard-headed decisions are needed to control public spending, reform public services, and improve competitiveness.  The Labour left is incapable of delivering on any of those fronts.  If Labour fails dismally, the country might react by taking a punt on the populist right, even more woefully prepared for the rigours of government.

The better option for the country is that the Conservative Party fills the breach; that it offers an attractive alternative to those reluctant 2024 Labour voters and Tory abstainers that had been reassured that the left had been repelled and that Starmer could be trusted.  Business opinion – dismayed at Boris Johnson’s hostility over the costs of Brexit and Liz Truss’s fiscal irresponsibility – is open to being wooed by the Conservatives once again and should be the first priority.

For the rest of this Parliament, Labour is going to govern as a different party to the one that was elected in 2024.  Part of their 2024 coalition of support will be lost as a consequence.  It will be that part of its coalition which is more focused on economic growth, more supportive of the private sector, and more sceptical of socialism.  In other words, a move to the left will mean that more centrist voters will be up for grabs.

It is a huge opportunity that the Conservative Party cannot afford to miss.

Claire Coutinho is the MP for East Surrey and Shadow Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.

Last year, Ed Miliband went to Beijing to strike an energy deal with China on behalf of the British taxpayer. The Government say the deal will ‘enhance cooperation on renewables and grid modernisation’.

‘Enhance cooperation’ how, exactly? We don’t know. Because unlike the energy deals I signed with Korea, Germany, and Ireland when I was Energy Secretary – or indeed the agreements Ed Miliband has struck with other countries – the details of this China deal remain hidden from the public.

It is the Conservatives who have been chasing down the details on this dodgy deal for many months, just like we did on Peter Mandelson and the Government’s disastrous Chagos deal. However, Ed has taken evasion to a whole new art form. When I asked him why he would not publish the deal in the House this week, he called the question a ‘wacky conspiracy theory.’ When the ever-forensic Bradley Thomas questioned him the next day during a Select Committee, he dodged the question over 17 times. Hardly the look of a Government which has recently committed to transparency, is it?

In fact, in response to a Freedom of Information request, Miliband’s Department has used the exact same line that Keir Starmer tried to use to keep the Mandelson documents under lock and key. After months of questions, they retreated behind an opaque plea for diplomacy, arguing that publishing the deal would ‘prejudice relations’ with Beijing.

Let that sink in. Ed Miliband’s own department thinks that if the British public sees his secret energy deal with the Chinese Communist Party, then it might damage his relationship with China.

This is an incredibly serious issue. Just last week Norway’s security services joined the chorus of intelligence warnings about the West’s reliance on Chinese renewable technology. Undocumented ‘kill-switches’ were found in solar farm equipment in the United States. The Five Eyes security alliance has publicly warned about Chinese state-sponsored hackers seeking to “destroy” Western energy systems in the event of conflict.

Worse still, when it comes to solar panels, critical minerals or batteries, there is one global dominant player: China. Last year’s trade wars showed us that China was more than willing to use its vice-like hold on the world’s critical mineral supplies as a bargaining tool.

As Ed shuts down the North Sea, plugs up our gas wells, and ships in ever more solar panels, he likes to say that every wind turbine and solar panel gives us energy security. But if Ed’s plan to make Britain’s energy system completely reliant on Chinese components is successful, what will we do in the event of a conflict? As the former Head of MI6 rightly said, when it comes to national security, Labour’s energy plans are “completely crazy”.

There are wider concerns too. We Conservatives forced Labour to stop Great British Energy from buying slave-made solar panels. No such promise has been made for the Government’s recent £15 billion Warm Homes Plan. Conservative peer Lord Moynihan asked why this was last week, and once again he received no answer from the Labour front bench.

What is Ed Miliband hiding? Did his secret energy deal include commitments not to raise concerns about plans to import solar panels made by Chinese slaves? Did it involve promises to maintain our dependence on Chinese supply chains? Did Ed promise to share data about our power grid that could be exploited to cause blackouts? We simply do not know, because Ed Miliband will not tell us.

This is in fact a pattern of behaviour across the Labour Government and by this Secretary of State. Ed Miliband is embarking on the most radical change in energy policy in half a century, yet he ducks questioning in the Commons, hides behind meaningless soundbites on the media, and has never, ever, published a forecast of what his radical plans will do to people’s energy bills.

When I was Energy Secretary, I ordered a true costing of renewables, because I believe our priority as a country should be to make our electricity cheap. I demanded that every policy be brought to me with a Bills Test, a clear explanation of what the impact will be on people’s energy bills. Ed has cancelled that work. He doesn’t want to know the truth, because his plans are not based on fact, but quasi-religious fervour.

He said this week that the Labour Party should stand up to the powerful. But he should remember that he is the one with power, and he treats scrutiny as if it is a joke.

He signed a secret energy deal with China on the public’s behalf. If he truly believed it was in the public’s interest, he should publish it and let them see for themselves.

Cllr Paul Swaddle OBE is the Leader of the Conservative Group on Westminster City Council

With less than 100 days to go until election day, Westminster faces a clear choice about the direction of our city.

Labour has failed to keep our streets safe and our city clean. It has wasted £27 million on a failed housing contractor. It has ignored local people on the pedestrianisation of Oxford Street, surrendering to Sadiq Khan’s vanity project. And it has backed Labour in government as they pursue a politics of envy by threatening ordinary family homes in Westminster with a Family Home Tax.

But there is an alternative. A Conservative reset that will listen and stand up for residents, crack down on crime, clean up our city and restore proper financial management.

When I speak to local people about what has changed since Labour came to office at Westminster City Council in 2022, a clear pattern emerges: they feel less safe as crime spirals.

Phone thefts, public disorder and shoplifting have got worse while robbery, drug use and violence are frequent occurrences. People want to feel confident walking home at night, safe using their phone in public and able to enjoy local parks and high streets without intimidation or persistent nuisance.

This is the clearest evidence of Same Old Labour’s failure to keep people safe. Plenty of slogans, but no leadership or grip of residents’ concerns and a Labour council comfortable with decline.

Labour runs Westminster the same way Sadiq Khan runs London: slow to act, weak on enforcement and quick to blame everyone but themselves.

Anti-social behaviour hotspots are allowed to fester, theft feels normalised, and a lack of enforcement sends a message that rules no longer matter. Labour is managing decline rather than tackling it.

Westminster deserves leadership that acts with urgency. That is why Westminster Conservatives are putting safe streets at the centre of our plan. I have already announced a dedicated Cabinet Member for Enforcement to restore grip and accountability. This is just the start of a tougher, more focused approach to keeping our streets safe.

Strong policing is vital, but so is enforcement that shapes the public realm.  

The chaos of dangerous and obstructive dockless bikes blocking pavements is one example. Residents and families should not have to navigate a jungle of bikes left without consequence.

The only action Westminster Labour has taken is to bend to Conservative calls to begin fining dockless bike operators. But even this is not enforced. Labour promised over £1 million of fine revenue but has barely generated £5,000. This is the reality of a weak Labour council that cannot deliver on its promises as unpaid fines pile up and dockless bikes remain littered on our streets.

The same pattern appears when Labour is asked to stand up for Westminster.

Labour councillors surrendered control of Oxford Street to City Hall and prevented scrutiny by classifying the decision as minor. Local people and businesses deserved a serious debate about accessibility, transport and the future of our local high street. Instead, Westminster Labour took away their right to representation and surrendered to Sadiq Khan’s pet project.

Value for money is a test of competence. Westminster Labour have failed that test.  

Westminster residents are now being asked to pay the price for Labour’s financial mismanagement as council tax is expected to rise by 75 per cent over the next four years. At the same time, the Labour Cabinet has given itself a 45 per cent pay rise while presiding over weak oversight, including the Geoffrey Osborne scandal, where Labour signed off a contract with a failing contractor that cost residents £27 million and should never have been approved.

People rightly ask how they can be expected to pay more when Labour cannot demonstrate basic financial discipline. Labour led Westminster is trapping local people in the Same Old Labour nightmare: higher bills to pay for failure and drifting decline due to absent leadership.

Labour at every level is also holding Westminster families to ransom.

The proposed Family Home Tax is being sold as fairness. But in Westminster, where nearly 4,000 family homes are at risk, it would hit residents, pensioners and families who have worked hard to put down roots. Labour-led Westminster Council has stood by while its government pursues a politics of envy by lining up local families for a Family Home Tax and putting party loyalty ahead of Westminster residents.

On top of all this are pressures local people experience every day. Illegal short-term lets are running rife while enforcement is neglected and the homelessness crisis has spiralled with Westminster now recording the highest number of rough sleepers in the UK.

Tackling this demands an approach that supports vulnerable people while addressing the organised exploitation that often sits behind street homelessness. Yet Labour offers more rhetoric than solutions and allows residents’ concerns to worsen rather than take the tough decisions needed to turn it around.

The Conservative alternative: safe streets, a clean city and real action

Westminster Conservatives’ vision is rooted in one principle: local people deserve safe streets, a clean city and real action. That means a relentless focus on crime and disorder, stronger enforcement and a council that uses every lever to support policing and reduce repeat offending. It means treating antisocial behaviour as a priority and taking firm action where rules are ignored.

It also means restoring trust by listening. Westminster Conservatives are building our Plan for Westminster 2026 around the real concerns residents raise and what works in practice, from cracking down on illegal short-term lets to transparent decision making that respects local voices. We will back our businesses, high streets, and demand value for money with disciplined procurement.

My ambition is about being honest with local people on how Labour is failing Westminster. It is to listen to residents and to deliver a Conservative council that acts on its promises. In Westminster, that starts with a Conservative reset focused on safe streets and a clean city that is delivered through real action.

Share your thoughts with me and my team: www.westm.news/Listening