Will Labour shun the front-runner for once?

David Miliband would be the first leading candidate to miss out on the leadership since Denis Healey

It's worth noting that, should David Miliband fail to become Labour leader, he would be the first front-runner not to win the crown since Denis Healey lost to Michael Foot in 1980. The party opted for the odds-on favourite at each of the past three Labour leadership elections, while in 2007, of course, Gordon Brown was so widely supported that it didn't bother to have one.

In 1983, Neil Kinnock, who endorsed Ed Miliband at the weekend, easily saw off his rivals, winning 71.3 per cent of the vote, with Roy Hattersley trailing on 19.3 per cent, Eric Heffer on 6.3 per cent and Peter Shore on 3.2 per cent.

In 1992, John Smith demolished Bryan Gould, securing 91 per cent of the vote to Gould's 9 per cent. And in 1994, after striking a deal with Gordon Brown, Tony Blair had little trouble defeating Margaret Beckett and John Prescott. The future prime minister won 57 per cent of the vote to Prescott's 24.1 per cent and Beckett's 18.9 per cent.

By contrast, the Tories have often opted for insurgent candidates, disastrously so in the case of William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith, and more successfully in the case of David Cameron.

I think we can say with some certainty that the next Labour leader will be named Miliband, but otherwise there's a welcome element of uncertainty to this contest, the most competitive for 30 years.

Here are the latest odds from Betfair:

David Miliband 4/5

Ed Miliband 3/1

Andy Burnham 10/1

Ed Balls 12/1

Diane Abbott 43/1

John McDonnell 549/1

Special offer: get 12 issues of the New Statesman for just £5.99 plus a free copy of "Liberty in the Age of Terror" by A C Grayling.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

The problems with ending encryption to fight terrorism

Forcing tech firms to create a "backdoor" to access messages would be a gift to cyber-hackers.

The UK has endured its worst terrorist atrocity since 7 July 2005 and the threat level has been raised to "critical" for the first time in a decade. Though election campaigning has been suspended, the debate over potential new powers has already begun.

Today's Sun reports that the Conservatives will seek to force technology companies to hand over encrypted messages to the police and security services. The new Technical Capability Notices were proposed by Amber Rudd following the Westminster terrorist attack and a month-long consultation closed last week. A Tory minister told the Sun: "We will do this as soon as we can after the election, as long as we get back in. The level of threat clearly proves there is no more time to waste now. The social media companies have been laughing in our faces for too long."

Put that way, the plan sounds reasonable (orders would be approved by the home secretary and a senior judge). But there are irrefutable problems. Encryption means tech firms such as WhatsApp and Apple can't simply "hand over" suspect messages - they can't access them at all. The technology is designed precisely so that conversations are genuinely private (unless a suspect's device is obtained or hacked into). Were companies to create an encryption "backdoor", as the government proposes, they would also create new opportunities for criminals and cyberhackers (as in the case of the recent NHS attack).

Ian Levy, the technical director of the National Cyber Security, told the New Statesman's Will Dunn earlier this year: "Nobody in this organisation or our parent organisation will ever ask for a 'back door' in a large-scale encryption system, because it's dumb."

But there is a more profound problem: once created, a technology cannot be uninvented. Should large tech firms end encryption, terrorists will merely turn to other, lesser-known platforms. The only means of barring UK citizens from using the service would be a Chinese-style "great firewall", cutting Britain off from the rest of the internet. In 2015, before entering the cabinet, Brexit Secretary David Davis warned of ending encryption: "Such a move would have had devastating consequences for all financial transactions and online commerce, not to mention the security of all personal data. Its consequences for the City do not bear thinking about."

Labour's manifesto pledged to "provide our security agencies with the resources and the powers they need to protect our country and keep us all safe." But added: "We will also ensure that such powers do not weaken our individual rights or civil liberties". The Liberal Democrats have vowed to "oppose Conservative attempts to undermine encryption."

But with a large Conservative majority inevitable, according to polls, ministers will be confident of winning parliamentary support for the plan. Only a rebellion led by Davis-esque liberals is likely to stop them.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

0800 7318496