Generate an appropriate single-sentence summary for the given text such that it includes the main topic of the text.
One example: By Marianna SpringSpecialist disinformation reporter, BBC News The adverts show the Democratic Party challenger with an earpiece, and say that he refused to have his ears checked for devices prior to the debate. The Biden campaign rejected the claims. The Trump campaign adverts ask: "Why won't Sleepy Joe commit to an ear test?" and "Who is in Joe's ear?" Accusations that presidential candidates have received debate help via hidden hearing devices are familiar, albeit unproven. Such allegations have been levelled against both Republican and Democratic candidates in the past. Prior to Tuesday's debate, the rumour about Mr Biden's supposed earpiece was circulating on several social networks, and was being promoted by the Trump campaign. At least 15 versions The advertising campaign was launched after the debate, and also promotes two other baseless but widely shared rumours about Mr Biden. One suggested he asked for breaks during the debate, and another accused him of refusing a "drug test". The photo featured in the advert is not from Tuesday's debate. It was first shared online in September 2019. In a number of the adverts, it has been doctored to show Mr Biden wearing wireless Apple headphones. This was not the case in the original image. Some versions circle the ear featuring the headphone. By Wednesday evening, there were at least 15 different versions of the advert, and according to Facebook's Ad Library, they had reached at least 10 million users. Facebook has pledged to label posts containing voting misinformation and point users towards accurate information ahead of the election. However its policy does not involve fact-checking political speech, including in advertisements. The company declined to comment about the latest Trump ad campaign. Rumour origins Hours before the debate, the claims went viral on Facebook and YouTube. Identical memes were pushed by a number of popular Facebook pages with names such as US Conservative and Unhinged Left. They claimed "Joe Biden should be inspected for a hidden earpiece as well as submit to a drug test before the debate". These memes are subject to fact-checks - and some have had warning labels applied to them on Facebook. The claims were picked up by Fox News and other conservative news outlets. They were further amplified by supporters of QAnon, an unfounded a conspiracy theory that claims President Trump is fighting a secret war against elite Satan-worshipping paedophiles. Those who believe in QAnon are known for promoting political disinformation on social media which targets opponents of the president. They shared close-up pictures of Mr Biden's ears, alleging a listening device was visible. During the debate, some also shared photos of a fold in Mr Biden's shirt, claiming it was caused by a wire, and of a supposed device on his wrist, where he wears a rosary in memory of his late son Beau. Nothing new Conspiracy theories about secret listening devices have been recycled in presidential election campaigns for the past two decades. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton faced similar unfounded claims ahead of the 2016 presidential election. In 2004, rumours circulated among left-wing sites and blogs that President George W Bush was being aided by a secret earpiece. None of those allegations were found to be true. Even if a candidate did wear an earpiece, any advantage would be questionable. As TV and radio presenters can attest, listening to someone while simultaneously talking during the back-and-forth of a live event is a difficult skill to master.
Solution is here: US President Donald Trump's re-election campaign is running hundreds of Facebook advertisements pushing an unfounded conspiracy theory that Joe Biden cheated during the first US presidential debate.
Explanation: This is a relevant summary for the given paragraph. It also contains explicit phrases from the given text

Now, solve this: Emily MaitlisPolitical editor, BBC Newsnight At stake? Labour's complicated and intimate relationship with the trade unions. Newsnight understands he is ready to unveil his long-awaited proposals to transform it. One senior party figure described it as "potentially bigger than Clause 4". Another, with serious concerns about Mr Miliband's proposals - and a taste perhaps for the dramatic - said "it could alter the course of history". Mr Miliband has been under pressure over the unions' grip on the Labour Party - exerted both through the £8m they contribute to party coffers each year and their role in choosing Labour leaders - since he beat his brother to the party leadership, largely thanks to the votes of unions who currently account for one-third of the electoral college that chooses Labour leaders. 'Fundamental change' And last summer, after the disaster that kept giving that was Falkirk - when Unite was accused of attempting to rig the process to select a Labour candidate in the by-election - Ed Miliband stood tall and declared it was time for change. He promised two key things: that union members would in future be asked to make a deliberate choice to back the party - what is termed "opt-in" support - as opposed to the automatic levy on each union member. And he accepted that there could be wider questions asked about the size of the union vote at party conference and the make-up of Labour's electoral college. Newsnight understands that the final arrangements for the reforms are being finalised right now - before they go to the National Executive Committee this weekend for approval. We've learnt that the way Labour leaders are elected will fundamentally change. Under the reforms, I understand that the party will move to a so-called one member, one vote system for choosing the Labour leader. MPs and MEPs, who currently have a third of the votes in the leadership election, will be relegated to a role in shortlisting candidates, a move likely to cause a backlash among Labour MPs. Each of the roughly 200,000 Labour members will get a single vote in choosing the leader, but so will a new class of so-called associate members - paying a membership fee of just £3 a year. And here's the catch: any trade unionist will be able to activate their right to become an associate member and vote in this election. And there are some 2.7m of them. What consequences will this have? Some senior figures who worry about the unions' grip on the party fear that a move aimed at diminishing organised-Labour's influence could end up handing them even more power than they had before: although they will lose their block votes, some fear that the unions will use their formidable organisation machines to register large numbers of associate members, and then attempt to influence their votes. As one party figure put it: "If just one in 10 trade unionists becomes an associate member, the unions will effectively control a majority of votes in a Labour leadership election." Another former minister said: "We'll be a laughing stock." 'Five-year process' But supporters of the reform insist the suggestion that the unions would be able to exert greater pressure in the new system is naïve because union members take relatively little notice of the endorsements of their leaders. One party insider said there has been a fierce debate within the Miliband circle between those who believe that the reforms are a key test of his leadership and that a failure to introduce radical change would substantially damage his credibility - and those who feel he risks putting the party's financial viability at risk by allowing union members to opt out of their so-called political levy contributions to the party. "They say you just can't crater the party's finances," said one insider. What of the opt-in funding mechanism? Much is still unclear here although it is understood it would be very difficult for Ed Miliband to go back on his words last summer where he declared "in the 21st Century it doesn't make any sense for anyone to be affiliated to a political party unless they have chosen to do so". But in order to stop the coffers running dry in one fell swoop, it's understood the plan will be rolled out over a five-year process . One senior figure concerned over the proposed changes told me: "There is a real irony that what started out as a reform to diminish union influence could end up as a reform which diminishes MP influence and increases union influence."
Solution:
Crunch time for Ed Miliband, who is on the brink of making what could be the biggest decision of his leadership so far.
Generate an appropriate single-sentence summary for the given text such that it includes the main topic of the text.
One example: By Marianna SpringSpecialist disinformation reporter, BBC News The adverts show the Democratic Party challenger with an earpiece, and say that he refused to have his ears checked for devices prior to the debate. The Biden campaign rejected the claims. The Trump campaign adverts ask: "Why won't Sleepy Joe commit to an ear test?" and "Who is in Joe's ear?" Accusations that presidential candidates have received debate help via hidden hearing devices are familiar, albeit unproven. Such allegations have been levelled against both Republican and Democratic candidates in the past. Prior to Tuesday's debate, the rumour about Mr Biden's supposed earpiece was circulating on several social networks, and was being promoted by the Trump campaign. At least 15 versions The advertising campaign was launched after the debate, and also promotes two other baseless but widely shared rumours about Mr Biden. One suggested he asked for breaks during the debate, and another accused him of refusing a "drug test". The photo featured in the advert is not from Tuesday's debate. It was first shared online in September 2019. In a number of the adverts, it has been doctored to show Mr Biden wearing wireless Apple headphones. This was not the case in the original image. Some versions circle the ear featuring the headphone. By Wednesday evening, there were at least 15 different versions of the advert, and according to Facebook's Ad Library, they had reached at least 10 million users. Facebook has pledged to label posts containing voting misinformation and point users towards accurate information ahead of the election. However its policy does not involve fact-checking political speech, including in advertisements. The company declined to comment about the latest Trump ad campaign. Rumour origins Hours before the debate, the claims went viral on Facebook and YouTube. Identical memes were pushed by a number of popular Facebook pages with names such as US Conservative and Unhinged Left. They claimed "Joe Biden should be inspected for a hidden earpiece as well as submit to a drug test before the debate". These memes are subject to fact-checks - and some have had warning labels applied to them on Facebook. The claims were picked up by Fox News and other conservative news outlets. They were further amplified by supporters of QAnon, an unfounded a conspiracy theory that claims President Trump is fighting a secret war against elite Satan-worshipping paedophiles. Those who believe in QAnon are known for promoting political disinformation on social media which targets opponents of the president. They shared close-up pictures of Mr Biden's ears, alleging a listening device was visible. During the debate, some also shared photos of a fold in Mr Biden's shirt, claiming it was caused by a wire, and of a supposed device on his wrist, where he wears a rosary in memory of his late son Beau. Nothing new Conspiracy theories about secret listening devices have been recycled in presidential election campaigns for the past two decades. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton faced similar unfounded claims ahead of the 2016 presidential election. In 2004, rumours circulated among left-wing sites and blogs that President George W Bush was being aided by a secret earpiece. None of those allegations were found to be true. Even if a candidate did wear an earpiece, any advantage would be questionable. As TV and radio presenters can attest, listening to someone while simultaneously talking during the back-and-forth of a live event is a difficult skill to master.
Solution is here: US President Donald Trump's re-election campaign is running hundreds of Facebook advertisements pushing an unfounded conspiracy theory that Joe Biden cheated during the first US presidential debate.
Explanation: This is a relevant summary for the given paragraph. It also contains explicit phrases from the given text

Now, solve this: Emily MaitlisPolitical editor, BBC Newsnight At stake? Labour's complicated and intimate relationship with the trade unions. Newsnight understands he is ready to unveil his long-awaited proposals to transform it. One senior party figure described it as "potentially bigger than Clause 4". Another, with serious concerns about Mr Miliband's proposals - and a taste perhaps for the dramatic - said "it could alter the course of history". Mr Miliband has been under pressure over the unions' grip on the Labour Party - exerted both through the £8m they contribute to party coffers each year and their role in choosing Labour leaders - since he beat his brother to the party leadership, largely thanks to the votes of unions who currently account for one-third of the electoral college that chooses Labour leaders. 'Fundamental change' And last summer, after the disaster that kept giving that was Falkirk - when Unite was accused of attempting to rig the process to select a Labour candidate in the by-election - Ed Miliband stood tall and declared it was time for change. He promised two key things: that union members would in future be asked to make a deliberate choice to back the party - what is termed "opt-in" support - as opposed to the automatic levy on each union member. And he accepted that there could be wider questions asked about the size of the union vote at party conference and the make-up of Labour's electoral college. Newsnight understands that the final arrangements for the reforms are being finalised right now - before they go to the National Executive Committee this weekend for approval. We've learnt that the way Labour leaders are elected will fundamentally change. Under the reforms, I understand that the party will move to a so-called one member, one vote system for choosing the Labour leader. MPs and MEPs, who currently have a third of the votes in the leadership election, will be relegated to a role in shortlisting candidates, a move likely to cause a backlash among Labour MPs. Each of the roughly 200,000 Labour members will get a single vote in choosing the leader, but so will a new class of so-called associate members - paying a membership fee of just £3 a year. And here's the catch: any trade unionist will be able to activate their right to become an associate member and vote in this election. And there are some 2.7m of them. What consequences will this have? Some senior figures who worry about the unions' grip on the party fear that a move aimed at diminishing organised-Labour's influence could end up handing them even more power than they had before: although they will lose their block votes, some fear that the unions will use their formidable organisation machines to register large numbers of associate members, and then attempt to influence their votes. As one party figure put it: "If just one in 10 trade unionists becomes an associate member, the unions will effectively control a majority of votes in a Labour leadership election." Another former minister said: "We'll be a laughing stock." 'Five-year process' But supporters of the reform insist the suggestion that the unions would be able to exert greater pressure in the new system is naïve because union members take relatively little notice of the endorsements of their leaders. One party insider said there has been a fierce debate within the Miliband circle between those who believe that the reforms are a key test of his leadership and that a failure to introduce radical change would substantially damage his credibility - and those who feel he risks putting the party's financial viability at risk by allowing union members to opt out of their so-called political levy contributions to the party. "They say you just can't crater the party's finances," said one insider. What of the opt-in funding mechanism? Much is still unclear here although it is understood it would be very difficult for Ed Miliband to go back on his words last summer where he declared "in the 21st Century it doesn't make any sense for anyone to be affiliated to a political party unless they have chosen to do so". But in order to stop the coffers running dry in one fell swoop, it's understood the plan will be rolled out over a five-year process . One senior figure concerned over the proposed changes told me: "There is a real irony that what started out as a reform to diminish union influence could end up as a reform which diminishes MP influence and increases union influence."
Solution:
user
Crunch time for Ed Miliband, who is on the brink of making what could be the biggest decision of his leadership so far.
assistant
Generate an appropriate single-sentence summary for the given text such that it includes the main topic of the text.
One example: By Marianna SpringSpecialist disinformation reporter, BBC News The adverts show the Democratic Party challenger with an earpiece, and say that he refused to have his ears checked for devices prior to the debate. The Biden campaign rejected the claims. The Trump campaign adverts ask: "Why won't Sleepy Joe commit to an ear test?" and "Who is in Joe's ear?" Accusations that presidential candidates have received debate help via hidden hearing devices are familiar, albeit unproven. Such allegations have been levelled against both Republican and Democratic candidates in the past. Prior to Tuesday's debate, the rumour about Mr Biden's supposed earpiece was circulating on several social networks, and was being promoted by the Trump campaign. At least 15 versions The advertising campaign was launched after the debate, and also promotes two other baseless but widely shared rumours about Mr Biden. One suggested he asked for breaks during the debate, and another accused him of refusing a "drug test". The photo featured in the advert is not from Tuesday's debate. It was first shared online in September 2019. In a number of the adverts, it has been doctored to show Mr Biden wearing wireless Apple headphones. This was not the case in the original image. Some versions circle the ear featuring the headphone. By Wednesday evening, there were at least 15 different versions of the advert, and according to Facebook's Ad Library, they had reached at least 10 million users. Facebook has pledged to label posts containing voting misinformation and point users towards accurate information ahead of the election. However its policy does not involve fact-checking political speech, including in advertisements. The company declined to comment about the latest Trump ad campaign. Rumour origins Hours before the debate, the claims went viral on Facebook and YouTube. Identical memes were pushed by a number of popular Facebook pages with names such as US Conservative and Unhinged Left. They claimed "Joe Biden should be inspected for a hidden earpiece as well as submit to a drug test before the debate". These memes are subject to fact-checks - and some have had warning labels applied to them on Facebook. The claims were picked up by Fox News and other conservative news outlets. They were further amplified by supporters of QAnon, an unfounded a conspiracy theory that claims President Trump is fighting a secret war against elite Satan-worshipping paedophiles. Those who believe in QAnon are known for promoting political disinformation on social media which targets opponents of the president. They shared close-up pictures of Mr Biden's ears, alleging a listening device was visible. During the debate, some also shared photos of a fold in Mr Biden's shirt, claiming it was caused by a wire, and of a supposed device on his wrist, where he wears a rosary in memory of his late son Beau. Nothing new Conspiracy theories about secret listening devices have been recycled in presidential election campaigns for the past two decades. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton faced similar unfounded claims ahead of the 2016 presidential election. In 2004, rumours circulated among left-wing sites and blogs that President George W Bush was being aided by a secret earpiece. None of those allegations were found to be true. Even if a candidate did wear an earpiece, any advantage would be questionable. As TV and radio presenters can attest, listening to someone while simultaneously talking during the back-and-forth of a live event is a difficult skill to master.
Solution is here: US President Donald Trump's re-election campaign is running hundreds of Facebook advertisements pushing an unfounded conspiracy theory that Joe Biden cheated during the first US presidential debate.
Explanation: This is a relevant summary for the given paragraph. It also contains explicit phrases from the given text

Now, solve this: Emily MaitlisPolitical editor, BBC Newsnight At stake? Labour's complicated and intimate relationship with the trade unions. Newsnight understands he is ready to unveil his long-awaited proposals to transform it. One senior party figure described it as "potentially bigger than Clause 4". Another, with serious concerns about Mr Miliband's proposals - and a taste perhaps for the dramatic - said "it could alter the course of history". Mr Miliband has been under pressure over the unions' grip on the Labour Party - exerted both through the £8m they contribute to party coffers each year and their role in choosing Labour leaders - since he beat his brother to the party leadership, largely thanks to the votes of unions who currently account for one-third of the electoral college that chooses Labour leaders. 'Fundamental change' And last summer, after the disaster that kept giving that was Falkirk - when Unite was accused of attempting to rig the process to select a Labour candidate in the by-election - Ed Miliband stood tall and declared it was time for change. He promised two key things: that union members would in future be asked to make a deliberate choice to back the party - what is termed "opt-in" support - as opposed to the automatic levy on each union member. And he accepted that there could be wider questions asked about the size of the union vote at party conference and the make-up of Labour's electoral college. Newsnight understands that the final arrangements for the reforms are being finalised right now - before they go to the National Executive Committee this weekend for approval. We've learnt that the way Labour leaders are elected will fundamentally change. Under the reforms, I understand that the party will move to a so-called one member, one vote system for choosing the Labour leader. MPs and MEPs, who currently have a third of the votes in the leadership election, will be relegated to a role in shortlisting candidates, a move likely to cause a backlash among Labour MPs. Each of the roughly 200,000 Labour members will get a single vote in choosing the leader, but so will a new class of so-called associate members - paying a membership fee of just £3 a year. And here's the catch: any trade unionist will be able to activate their right to become an associate member and vote in this election. And there are some 2.7m of them. What consequences will this have? Some senior figures who worry about the unions' grip on the party fear that a move aimed at diminishing organised-Labour's influence could end up handing them even more power than they had before: although they will lose their block votes, some fear that the unions will use their formidable organisation machines to register large numbers of associate members, and then attempt to influence their votes. As one party figure put it: "If just one in 10 trade unionists becomes an associate member, the unions will effectively control a majority of votes in a Labour leadership election." Another former minister said: "We'll be a laughing stock." 'Five-year process' But supporters of the reform insist the suggestion that the unions would be able to exert greater pressure in the new system is naïve because union members take relatively little notice of the endorsements of their leaders. One party insider said there has been a fierce debate within the Miliband circle between those who believe that the reforms are a key test of his leadership and that a failure to introduce radical change would substantially damage his credibility - and those who feel he risks putting the party's financial viability at risk by allowing union members to opt out of their so-called political levy contributions to the party. "They say you just can't crater the party's finances," said one insider. What of the opt-in funding mechanism? Much is still unclear here although it is understood it would be very difficult for Ed Miliband to go back on his words last summer where he declared "in the 21st Century it doesn't make any sense for anyone to be affiliated to a political party unless they have chosen to do so". But in order to stop the coffers running dry in one fell swoop, it's understood the plan will be rolled out over a five-year process . One senior figure concerned over the proposed changes told me: "There is a real irony that what started out as a reform to diminish union influence could end up as a reform which diminishes MP influence and increases union influence."
Solution:
Crunch time for Ed Miliband, who is on the brink of making what could be the biggest decision of his leadership so far.