Leaders: David Cameron now finds UKIP more than just an irritant | Drink-drive plan needs evidence

BY-ELECTIONS are almost inevitably bad news for governing parties, and the three contests this week were no exception.

But were the results in Rotherham, Middlesbrough and Croydon exceptional in announcing the arrival of the United Kingdom Independence party (UKIP) as a mainstream party, as its 
leader, Nigel Farage, claims?

Mr Farage’s reasoning is that in all three seats, his party finished well ahead of the Conservatives, scoring two second places and a third place. While the Tory vote slumped dramatically, UKIP’s rose impressively.

That gives Mr Farage an argument, but he has some way to go before he can claim a proven case. The shares of the vote his party received – ranging from a 20th in Croydon to an admittedly more solid fifth in Rotherham – do not speak of an unstoppable rising force. Compared with the more than half of the vote that George Galloway piled up in Bradford in a March by-election (and no-one thinks Mr Galloway’s Respect party is a major political force), and the distance Mr Farage has yet to travel becomes more 
apparent.

A second counter to Mr Farage is that all three seats were Labour-held, and in all three Labour increased its share of the vote. That should dispel, at least in the meantime, doubts about Ed Miliband’s leadership, and increase his credibility as leader of the 
Opposition.

Thirdly, in two seats only about a quarter (rising to a third in Rotherham) of the electorate could be bothered to go and vote. This does not suggest that the voters are either enormously roused by the UKIP message or absorbing it enthusiastically. What it seems to add up to is that with the Liberal Democrats now in government, voters are looking for some other means to give the big parties a kicking, and UKIP seems to be the likeliest option, though still not an entirely credible one.

Nevertheless, Mr Farage should not be dismissed, least of all by the Tories. These results do move him from being an itchy irritant to David Cameron to being a 
serious nuisance. The divide in the Prime Minister’s party over the EU is a major fault line, and Euro-sceptic MPs seem at times to be more interested in pressing their anti-EU cause than in preserving their party’s hold on power.

These results will make more Tories in marginal seats edgy about their chances of holding them, and will therefore strengthen the Euro-sceptics’ hand – against which Mr Cameron will doubtlessly argue that Labour is by far the more serious threat.

Alex Salmond will be watching this with interest. Though his case that an independent Scotland will gain automatic EU entry is still open to question, it is also possible, should an in-out of the EU debate gather speed in England, that rather different moods of opinion will take shape north and south of the Border. On such differences, Mr Salmond thrives.

Drink-drive plan needs evidence

New laws should be passed where there is an opportunity to be taken, or a

serious problem that needs fixing. They should not be made just to give the illusion of action, which could be the case with the Scottish Government’s proposal to reduce drink-driving limits.

No-one disagrees that drink-driving is a serious problem. Scotland sees too many cases of people being killed and injured on the roads because of it. But will cutting the amount of

alcohol that it is permissible to drink from 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrams really make a

difference?

The Law Society of Scotland thinks it may not. It argues that the vast majority of injury and death-causing accidents involving drink occur where drivers are well over, rather than slightly over, current limits. These people, the lawyers reckon, know they are over the limit and still drive, so a lower limit is not likely to make much difference.

Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, argues that reducing the limit will save 17 lives a year. The British Medical Association contends that those just over the current limit are ten times more likely to crash than people with no alcohol in their blood, while drivers just over the proposed lower limit will be only twice as likely to crash.

What seems to be missing from this debate is evidence from actual crash statistics. Is the Law Society right, that relatively few crash drivers have between 50mg and 80mg of alcohol in their blood? Figures from police records ought to be available to prove or disprove this claim. MSPs need to know whether the laws they are asked to pass will actually have an effect.