Labour party

Labour MPs didn't pick Ed Miliband as Labour leader; they preferred his brother. Labour members didn't pick Ed Miliband as Labour leader; they preferred his brother too. It was the union bloc that delivered the crown unto Ed — spearheaded by the votes, support and influence of the country's largest trade union, Unite. Which is what makes Len McCluskey's article for the Guardian today so dangerous for the Labour leader. McCluskey, you'll remember, is the head of Unite — and he's not happy with how things are going now that Miliband has closed the ground, rhetorically at least, between his party's fiscal stance and the coalition's.

Ed Miliband's poll ratings are going from bad to disastrous at the moment. Last week his YouGov approval rating dropped to its worst ever, with just 20 per cent of respondents saying he's doing a good job, and 66 per cent saying he's doing a bad one. And today they slip even further. Again 20 per cent say he's doing ‘well’, but now 69 per cent say ‘badly’: And, most worryingly for the Labour leader, the number of Labour voters giving him the thumbs down (49 per cent) now outnumbers those giving him the thumps up (46 per cent). That's compared to the 95 per cent of Tories who think Cameron's doing well, and the 72 per cent of Lib Dems for Clegg.

Even as Ed Balls embraces the need for austerity today, he takes a very different position to the coalition on why it’s necessary. The government has always blamed the need for cuts on the ‘awful economic inheritance’ bequeathed it by Labour. Balls, on the other hand, puts the blame squarely at George Osborne’s door. In his Fabian Society speech, he said: ‘George Osborne’s economic mistakes mean more difficult decisions on tax, spending and pay.’ His argument is that, by cutting ‘too far and too fast’, the coalition has caused the economy to stagnate and thereby created the need for more austerity. Labour has, of course, long been trying to shift the blame for the cuts away from themselves and onto the coalition.

With Scottish independence very much the issue of the week, we thought you might enjoy this Spectator leader from 1979, arguing for a 'No' vote in that year's referendum on Scottish devolution: To preserve the Union, 24 February 1979 ‘So, Sir, you laugh at schemes of political improvement?’ ‘Why, Sir, most schemes of political improvement are very laughable things.’ The Scotland Act, which comes before the judgement of the Scottish people on Thursday, is certainly laughable. Would that it were no more than that.

It gets worse for Ed Miliband in the polls today. After revealing last week that just 20 per cent of the public think he's doing well as Labour leader, YouGov now find that only 17 per cent think he'd make the best Prime Minister. That's his lowest score yet, and it compares to 41 per cent for David Cameron. But the way those numbers break down may be even more worrying for Ed. Only half of current Labour supporters say he'd be the best PM, and a minority — just 43 per cent — of 2010 Labour voters pick him. By contrast, Cameron has the backing of 97 per cent of Tory voters. Of course Miliband's personal ratings have been poor for a long time, but they're now worse than ever.

The exchange about rail fares in PMQs earlier was, it's true, not one for the photo album. But the way it's resolved itself this afternoon has been considerably more diverting. You see, it turns out that David Cameron was right: Labour did arrange for these fare increases when in government. And, what's more, Ed Miliband was wrong: the coalition didn't ‘reverse’ the cap on fares that Labour then conveniently introduced in the run up to the general election. That cap was limited to one year by the Labour government itself. It was always intended that it would expire on 1 January 2011, at which point — barring a new cap — the train companies could go back to the hyper-inflated fares they'd imposed previously. And that's what happened.