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.

Getty
Show Hide image

Ukrainians now have more freedom of travel - but less freedom of thought

Ukraine's government is rightly concerned about Russian cyber aggression. But does that merit online censorship?

Ukrainians have sacrificed so much in their bid to be recognised as fellow Europeans. Their struggle to extricate themselves from Russian domination is written in the blood of the Euromaidan protestors and the toll of its military dead.

The slow progress of Ukraine’s emergence, into something resembling normality, passed another milestone on 17 May, when President Petro Poroshenko signed an agreement with the EU allowing for visa-free travel in 34 European countries. 

From Sunday 11 June Ukrainians with biometric passports will be able to travel in Europe and stay for 90 days within a 180 period. There are obvious economic benefits to the new agreement. Ukrainians will be free to travel and conduct business with much more efficacy. The new agreement will also reduce the insularity of Ukrainians, many of whom yearn for the cosmopolitanism they see in Western Europe. President Poroshenko was mindful of the symbolism of the agreement. He declared: "Ukraine is returning to the European family. Ukraine says a final farewell to the Soviet and Russian empire."

Perched on the periphery, Ukraine is now set to become more woven into the European mainstream. Ukrainians sense that the western door is slowly but inexorably opening, and that both recognition, and validation beckons. In this respect, it seems that there is much to celebrate.

However, as ever, Ukraine hangs uneasily in the balance between the old ways and the new. On 16 May, Poroshenko signed a decree blocking access to Russian social media websites Yandex, VKontakte and Odnoklassniki. Millions of Ukrainians sign in to these websites every day. Even Poroshenko himself uses them. Five Russian TV stations are already banned in Ukraine. Poroshenko says that "Ukrainians can live without Russian networks". And it is certainly a fact that Ukrainians have responded to the decree by turning away from the Russian platforms in great numbers. Ukrainian Facebook is growing by some 35 percent a day.

In the context of Ukraine’s continuing conflict with Russia, it is perhaps understandable that the government in Kiev wishes to limit Russian trolls, together with Russian state influence and misinformation. This is certainly also the case across the whole western world, which is keenly aware of Russian cyber aggression. Nevertheless, one must ask why countries such as Britain, France and Germany continue to allow their citizens to access Russian media platforms, when Ukraine does not. 

While the new travel freedoms for Ukrainians has unleashed optimism, the latest decree has indicated something a little darker about the future. President Poroshenko would do well to consider the actions of other European governments that he so ardently wishes to emulate. Closing down social networks is usually done by authoritarian regimes like North Korea, China and Saudi Arabia. But Poroshenko advocates democracy, and in democracy there is no place for such acts. It is surely a mark of a nation’s maturity to encourage freedom of thought, as well travel.

Mohammad Zahoor is the publisher of Ukrainian newspaper The Kyiv Post.

 

0800 7318496