Ed Miliband - On Borrowed Time?

You know, I really feel sorry for Nick Clegg. He's spent the best part of the past year acting as a teflon coating for David Cameron, and since Thursday's elections, he's doing exactly the same thing for Ed Miliband. Because it is only the fact that the Liberal Democrats did so badly on Thursday that hides the fact that it was also a very difficult and disappointing set of results for the Labour leader.

Let's look at the best result for Miliband Minor - the fact that the Labour party have gained seats and, indeed, overall control of some councils. As things stand (Saturday at ten to two, fact fans) Labour have gained 800 seats and 26 councils. Yet the vast majority of those gains have been at the expense of the Liberal Democrats, and taking votes from them at the moment really is like taking candy from a baby. But what should be worrying Miliband - what should really be worrying him - is the result for the Tories. Over the past year, they have been heading up a coalition pursuing, for many, deeply unpopular and divisive policies. In fact, hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets to protest against those policies. The results at their first electoral test in government? 81 new councillors, and 4 new councils. Far from struggling to hold onto their territory, they have actually gained ground since taking power. Ultimately, Miliband Minor needs to be able to take on the Tories properly if he wants to be installed at Number 10. There's no evidence here that he will be able to do it. In fact, the council results suggest all he has managed to do is win some seats that the Labour party should never have lost in the first place from a massively unpopular third party.

And the council results are the best for him of the day.

Because in Wales, Labour have made some gains, but still seem unable to take control outright. And Wales - Labour's heartland, again where they should never have lost popularity at all - is a crucial sign of the well-being of the party in general. These election results suggest that they health of that party is damaged at the very least. But that's nothing compared to what happened North of the Border in Scotland.

There, the Labour party appear to have handed overall control of the Scottish parliament to the SNP on a silver platter. And this is Scotland, for fuck's sake, where the last Labour Prime Minister was born. If they can't win here, then they are going to struggle to make any headway whatsoever in far more hostile parts of the UK. Furthermore, what is particularly damaging to Miliband Minor is that he campaigned in Scotland, and he's been rewarded with a big fat "fuck you" from the Scottish voters.

He also campaigned for AV, and guess what happened there? Oh, the movement was defeated conclusively at the polls. Miliband Minor seems to have inherited that inverted Midas Touch of his former boss - everything he touches turns to shit. In fact, this t-shirt (via Guido) seems very harsh but also extremely apt:

With results like these, I'd be surprised if Ed Miliband is still leading the Labour party come the next election. In fact, his best bet to lead Labour into that election would be if the coalition collapsed right now. Of course, he could do something extraordinary to turn his fortunes around, but he gives no indications that he is willing to do so, or even that he feels he needs to do so. He's just waiting for the electoral pendulum to swing back to Labour and install him as PM. These results show that just isn't happening.

In fact, we could use this as a litmus test of how serious the Labour party is about winning the next election: they will show they are serious when they get a credible leader, capable of communicating and coming up with some sort of genuinely different, and popular, policies. In other words, when they get a leader other than Ed Miliband.

From the BBC:

Other bills put before the (Scottish) parliament include a minimum pricing strategy aimed at stopping high-strength alcohol being sold for "pocket money prices", without affecting premium products like Scotch whisky.

On face value, this seems to be a clear bid by the SNP for the votes of the middle classes. Maybe it will be a banner in their next election campaign: For The Posh Drinkers, Against The Winos In The Park. Which, I suppose, would be sound politics. After all, the middle class imbibers of Scotch whisky are far more likely to vote SNP than the tramp contingent who are reliant for happiness on cans of Spesh. Not least because those tramps are highly unlikely to vote at all.

Yet the key part of this proposal appears to be in the phrase "pocket money prices". The minimum pricing strategy is "clearly" aimed at those who would spend their pocket money on booze. Kids. Now - and by all means correct me if I am wrong - I'm fairly sure that there are laws, even in Scotland, to stop kids from buying booze. So surely the price of booze would be irrelevant if that law was enforced. After all, kids are legally banned from buying the stuff. Still, why enforce one law when you can weigh down the statute book with another one?

Besides, there is something else at play here. Because this sort of law affects everyone who might buy booze, rather than just kids. If you go into a supermarket or a pub in Scotland if this policy is passed, then you know there will be a minimum amount you have to spend if you want to have a drink with an alcoholic content. On one level, this is typical of the sort of policy pursued by ineffectual teachers - the group punishment, dolled out to all because they cannot control the few. But it is the underlying assumption that is so worrying. Here, we have a government making value judgments about what is good for its citizens. And also what is bad. Booze, it appears, falls resolutely in the latter camp.

It isn't - despite the rhetoric - about protecting kids. Likewise, even if the initial policy doesn't hit the consumer of more premium booze brands, you get bet your bottom dollar that it is a sliding scale towards slapping all drinkers square in the face. Once you've created a law to restrict the sale of drink in one way, you have the precedent to easily apply similar laws to affect it in other ways. And whilst the actions of the Scottish government do not directly affect England, you can be sure that the puritanical prude in charge of this country would have no issue whatsoever with attacking drinkers. Just as his government has had no issue with attacking other groups whose actions it does not approve of.

In an interesting and well-worth reading article at the Kitchen, the Filthy Smoker concludes that:

This is not a coincidence, this is a co-ordinated effort which, I suspect, will come to a head when MPs return to Parliament in October. At every turn there is Don Shenker, Ian bastard Gilmore and all the rest of the tax-it, ban-it, cover-it-up brigade. There is definitely something afoot.

Amen. This proposal from the Scottish Government is yet another in a long line of ongoing attacks in the United Kingdom on those who drink. And I dread to think what the dreadful Brown administration has planned for us next.