Given the document below, determine if the summary is factually consistent with the document. A summary is factually consistent if all the dates and times in the summary are presented the same way as in the document.

Document: Public Services Minister NAME_1 said NAME_2 needed a leader to win elections, not "return to the politics of the 1970s or 1950s". NAME_3 ministers NAME_4 and NAME_5 support NAME_6, while three NAME_2 AMs back NAME_7. No AMs have publicly come out in support of NAME_8. First Minister NAME_9 has not named his preferred candidate, but has said veteran left-winger Mr NAME_10 would be an "unusual choice" for the party. On Wednesday, NAME_11 said he understood the "romantic appeal of anti-austerity politics", but said NAME_2 had to be able to win power to change things. At the general election in May, NAME_2 had "appeared both pro-austerity and economically incompetent, which was a hell of an achievement", he added. "NAME_2 must either be in the business of bringing change or else it is worthless," he said. Declaring his support for Ms NAME_12, NAME_11

Summary: 1. NAME_3 Ministers NAME_13 and NAME_5 support NAME_6, while four Labor members support NAME_7.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document with respect to dates and times?
Options: "Yes" or "No"

Answer:


 Do not include the following keywords: date, change, name_7, name_12
user