David Miliband wins leadership “primaries”

Two constituency votes favour David, but Brother Ed isn’t far behind.

David Miliband has won his second Labour leadership "primary" in Edinburgh East, securing 39 per cent of the vote. Ed Miliband came second with 34 per cent, and Andy Burnham was the only other candidate to make it into double figures.

This vote was held by the Labour MP for Edinburgh East, Sheila Gilmore, as a way of determining her constituents' intentions before casting her own vote. A similar ballot has also been held in Bassetlaw, and resulted in the local MP, John Mann, switching his support from Ed Miliband (whom he initially nominated) to David after 50.3 per cent of those balloted opted for the elder brother. David also scored well on second preferences, a good sign going into the ballot itself. Another primary is planned for Dudley North.

These so-called primaries will have little meaning in the long run, but in August's political drought they provide something of an indication of how the candidates are perceived. As Mehdi Hasan pointed out weeks ago, the leadership contest is very much a two-horse race.

More interesting, perhaps, is Ed Balls's mediocre showing in these ballots. He came a poor third in Bassetlaw and has now been beaten into fourth place by Andy Burnham in Edinburgh East. Tthis is only going to prompt further discussion about whether Balls will withdraw from the race and back one of the Miliband brothers, perhaps as a way of securing the post of shadow chancellor, as Jim Pickard over at FT Westminster suggests.

All we can really infer from these primaries, then, is that neither Miliband has opened up a particularly strong lead yet, and that the other three candidates have yet to mount a serious challenge.

Caroline Crampton is assistant editor of the New Statesman. She writes a weekly podcast column.

Photo:Getty
Show Hide image

There's something missing from our counter-terrorism debate

The policy reckoning that occured after the 2005 terrorist attacks did not happen after the one in 2016. 

“Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department, says Wernher von Braun.” That satirical lyric about Nazi rocket scientists has come to mind more than few times watching various tech giants give testimony in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee, one of the underreported sub-plots of life at Westminster.

During their ongoing inquiry into hate crime in the United Kingdom, committee chair Yvette Cooper has found a staggering amount of hate speech being circulated freely on the largest and most profitable social media platform. Seperately, an ongoing investigation by the Times has uncovered how advertising revenue from Google and YouTube makes its way straight into the coffers of extremist groups, ranging from Islamist extremists to white supremacists and anti-Semites.

One of the many remarkable aspects of the inquiry has been the von Braunesque reaction by the movers and shakers at these tech companies. Once the ad revenue is handed out, who cares what it pays for? That’s not my department is the overwhelming message of much of the testimony.

The problem gains an added urgency now that the perpetrator of the Westminster attacks has been named as Khalid Masood, a British-born 52-year-old with a string of petty convictions across two decades from 1982 to 2002. He is of the same generation and profile as Thomas Mair, the white supremacist behind the last act of domestic terrorism on British shores, though Mair’s online radicalisation occurred on far-right websites, while Masood instead mimicked the methods of Isis attacks on the continent.  Despite that, both fitted many of the classic profiles of a “lone wolf” attack, although my colleague Amelia explains well why that term is increasingly outmoded.

One thing that some civil servants have observed is that it is relatively easy to get MPs to understand anti-terror measures based around either a form of electronic communication they use themselves – like text messaging or email, for instance – or a physical place which they might have in their own constituencies. But legislation has been sluggish in getting to grips with radicalisation online and slow at cutting off funding sources.

As I’ve written before, though there  are important differences between these two ideologies, the radicalisation journey is similar and tends to have the same staging posts: petty criminality, a drift from the fringes of respectable Internet sub-cultures to extremist websites, and finally violence.  We don’t yet know how closely Masood’s journey follows that pattern – but what is clear is that the policy rethink about British counter-terror after the July bombings in 2005 has yet to have an equivalent echo online. The success of that approach is shown in that these attacks are largely thwarted in the United Kingdom. But what needs to happen is a realisation that what happens when the rockets come down is very much the department of the world’s communication companies. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.