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.

New Statesman
Show Hide image

Quiz: Can you identify fake news?

The furore around "fake" news shows no sign of abating. Can you spot what's real and what's not?

Hillary Clinton has spoken out today to warn about the fake news epidemic sweeping the world. Clinton went as far as to say that "lives are at risk" from fake news, the day after Pope Francis compared reading fake news to eating poop. (Side note: with real news like that, who needs the fake stuff?)

The sweeping distrust in fake news has caused some confusion, however, as many are unsure about how to actually tell the reals and the fakes apart. Short from seeing whether the logo will scratch off and asking the man from the market where he got it from, how can you really identify fake news? Take our test to see whether you have all the answers.

 

 

In all seriousness, many claim that identifying fake news is a simple matter of checking the source and disbelieving anything "too good to be true". Unfortunately, however, fake news outlets post real stories too, and real news outlets often slip up and publish the fakes. Use fact-checking websites like Snopes to really get to the bottom of a story, and always do a quick Google before you share anything. 

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.