The Moonlit Perseids

This morning, I went out at 1/2 past 4, and the sky looked like (image from Heavens Above):

My aim was to see some of the Perseid meteors, which were at maximum last night. In about 20 minutes out there, I just couldn't count the number I saw. It was zilch, zero, none...

There were two problems. First of all, it was getting light. Secondly, the Moon makes the sky bright. If we look at the lunar phases around the Perseid maximum for this year and the next two we have (with the times being in British Summer Time/Central European Time):

Year	New Moon	First Quarter	Full Moon	Last Quarter
2014	3.13pm 25 August	1.50am 4 August	7.09pm 10 August	1.26pm 17 August
2015	3.53pm 14 August	8.31pm 22 August	11.43am 31 July	3.03am 7 August
2016	9.45pm 2 August	9.21pm 10 August	10.27am 18 August	4.41am 25 August

As we can see, this year the Perseid maximum was between Full Moon and Last Quarter - when the Moon will rise after sunset and still be up at sunrise. Next year it'll be just before the New Moon. In 2016 it will be between First Quarter and Full Moon - when the Moon will rise before sunset and have set by sunrise. As you can see, the area where the Perseids tend to be seen (such as Cassiopeia, Auriga, Aries, Triangulum, Pegasus, Andromeda, and Perseus itself) is higher in the morning sky, so in 2016 there would be a window of darkness between moonset and when it gets light.

There is an interesting cycle with the Moon. Some time back, I noted the synodic month - the period of 29.530589 days, the average time from New Moon to New Moon.

Now consider 3 calendar years. If they don't contain a leap year, then they have 1,095 days. If they do contain a leap year, then they have 1,096 days. 37 Synodic months is 1,092.631793 days - so this is 2 days 8 hours 50 minutes (or 3 days 8 hours 50 minutes) short of 3 years. So, if you have a New/Full Moon or First/Last Quarter on one day one year, then 3 years later on, you should expect it re-occur 2 to 4 days earlier. We see this as this year the New Moon is 25 August, and in 2017 the Great North American Solar Eclipse is on 21 August.

When it comes to meteors, ideally you need dark skies in the morning (most meteor showers come from parts of the sky that are higher in the morning than the evening). This means you the Moon to be setting during the night - the earlier after sunset the better. For that you need the Moon to be waxing - that period between New Moon and Full Moon (the 2016 conditions) - or for it to be so close to New that it doesn't get very high in the dawn sky (the 2015 conditions). As a rule of thumb, expect lunar conditions to repeat 3 years later - which is an OK rule of thumb as long as you don't use it for long periods. So, we should expect the 2017 Perseids to be affected by moonlight, the 2018 Perseids to be around New Moon and the 2019 Perseids to be between First Quarter and Full Moon.

Sorry Daily Mail, But Boris Won't Become Prime Minister Your Way

There is one thing about majority Government - whether under a single party or a coalition - and that is that it is quite boring. When you have a minority Government there is the excitement of whether this will be The Vote or The Rebellion which brings it all crashing to the ground and leads to the Prime Minister to make that trip to Buckingham Palace to ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament. And then the excitement of the election campaign itself...

Sometimes, the more excitable newspapers like to jazz it up a bit by talking about plots - and the Mail on Sunday is at it again, with an article on how Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, could become Prime Minister:

Supporters of Boris Johnson are plotting to install him as Tory leader by mounting a Commons ambush after next year’s General Election, The Mail on Sunday has learned.

A hard core of pro-Boris Tory MPs are privately vowing to force the Prime Minister to quit if he tries to form a second Coalition with the Lib Dems.

The Friends Of Boris (FOBs) then expect their man to sweep to victory in a party leadership contest before calling a second Election during the honeymoon period to capitalise on his popularity.

followed by:

With every major opinion pollster predicting the Conservatives will fall short of a majority at the Election, the pro-Johnson MPs are already ‘war-gaming’ their strategy after the May 7 vote next year.

The FOBs believe that up to 100 Tory MPs would vote with Labour against the Queen’s Speech of a second Coalition – enough in a hung Parliament to kill the agreement at birth and force Mr Cameron to resign, they say.

One leading pro-Boris Tory MP told this newspaper last night how he and his colleagues would combine with Labour to vote down any Tory-Lib Dem legislative programme in the Commons.

He said: ‘The best party strategists can hope for is a repeat of the 2010 result when we were the largest party but with no overall majority. But we won’t tolerate a second deal with the Lib Dems. So I, and many colleagues, would vote down a Coalition Queen’s Speech.

‘With Boris’s backing, as many as 100 of my colleagues would do so. That would be more than enough to defeat it and Cameron.’

The MP said that Mr Johnson would then be the unstoppable candidate in the resulting Tory leadership contest, saying: ‘Boris is unassailable – he would storm through the leadership race.’

Interesting article - although what is missing is the Daily Mail's obsession that Adam Afriye, MP for Windsor, aka "the British Obama", would be a stalking horse.

Yes, there is the excitement of stalking horses standing against Conservative leaders, with the aim of ensuring that the leader realises they are unpopular among their party's MPs and so resigns, leading the way for the real candidates to step in at the second round. The House of Commons' guide to Conservative leadership elections outlines what the rules have been for the past 16 years. None of this stalking horse giving their name and those of 2 supporters to the Chairman of the 1922 Committee business - that went out last century.

For Prime Minister David Cameron to be ousted as Conservative leader, 15% of Conservative MPs - and this is those in receipt of the Conservative whip (an important matter that I shall return to later) - need to write to the Chairman of the 1922 Committee to request a "no confidence" vote in the leader. Then there is the vote on that. If the leader wins, then the process cannot be repeated for another 12 months. If the leader loses, then there is a leadership election in which the defeated leader cannot be a candidate.

If there is more than one candidate by the deadline (which is noon on a Thursday) then there is a leadership election on the following Tuesday. Unlike the old system - the one with stalking horses - all candidates need to be in this first ballot. No longer can someone throw their hat into the ring after the first ballot. The days of biding your time and waiting for someone else to finish off the leader are long gone.

If there were 4 or more candidates, then the lowest-placed one drops out automatically (others may choose to) and doesn't go through to the next round (unless there is a joint lowest-place, in which case no candidate has to drop out). These ballots happen on Tuesdays and Thursdays until there is a vote with 3 candidates.

There is then a vote of the party membership between the top 2. If you look at previous results, then you will see firstly that the most obvious candidate does not always win, and secondly that the gap between second and third can be very small. Before suggesting that someone can "storm through" a leadership race, remember that storms can blow off-course.

So, consider the scenario where the Conservatives are the largest party in a hung Parliament. And rather than go for the uncertainty of a minority Government - however exciting this might be for headline writers who see politics as a game - Cameron revives the current coalition. This is followed by a backbench rebellion over the Queen's Speech in which the Government is defeated...

At this point, the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 comes into play. The last defeat on a King's Speech was the Conservative Government in January 1924, which had lost its overall majority in the previous month's election - but note that the actual motion was:

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—

Most Gracious Sovereign, "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament. But it is our duty respectfully to submit to your Majesty that Your Majesty's present advisers have not the confidence of this House."

The 2011 Act provides two circumstances when there can be an early election:

• More than two-thirds of the House of Commons (this would be 434 or more MPs) pass a resolution calling for an early election, or
• The House of Commons passes a motion stating “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government” and in the next 14 days does not pass a motion stating"“That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government”

The idea that Johnson can win the Conservative leadership election, go "Crikey, I'm Prime Minister" and rush off to Buckingham Palace to be asked to form a Government and then a few weeks later goes back to ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament is a pipe-dream. Yes, draw on all the 1974 examples you like, but 1974 is nearly half a century ago, and the law has changed.

Suppose that Johnson does lead a backbench rebellion, with around 100 MPs rebelling. Well, the Whips' Office won't sit there and do nothing. Very quickly there would be around 100 Independent MPs there. Without the Conservative whip, these cannot be among those whose letters to the Chairman of the 1922 Committee calling for a "no confidence" motion in Cameron are taken into account. He would effectively be back where he started from, leading a parliamentary party around the size of the one he inherited from Michael Howard back in December 2005.

Now consider the methods of the 2011 Act, beginning with the second. A quick "no confidence" motion in the Government is passed (maybe with Cameron asking a backbencher to introduce one), thanks to Labour and this new grouping of ex-Conservatives. The Explanatory Notes emphasise that the intention of the 14 day period is to allow an alternative Government to be formed without an election. But an intention isn't law. There is nothing to say that Cameron must resign as Prime Minister in these circumstances - just sit out the 14 days and agree with the Queen on a dissolution and election date.

The Scottish Parliament is a bit more advanced with this. As the Scotland Act 1998 makes clear, the First Minister must resign if the Parliament passes a "no confidence" motion in the Scottish Executive. This - together with the election of a First Minister-designate by the Parliament and dissolution if the Parliament fails to elect a First Minister-designate within the statutory timeframe - is something that needs to be copied at Westminster.

If Cameron does the correct thing after a "no confidence" motion and resigns, then the Queen would invite Ted Miliband, the Leader of the Opposition, to see if Labour could form a Government - either alone or as a coalition. In the 14 day period, the House of Commons either passes a confidence motion in the new Government - which means that Labour continues in office - or doesn't, in which case there is a general election, where those ex-Conservative MPs would not be able to stand as Conservative candidates. Yes, some might get re-elected as Independents, but others might lose badly, or see the Conservative vote split to allow Labour or the Liberal Democrats to win the seat. While rebelling on a "no confidence" motion might sound exciting, for many of these this would be career suicide.

So, the more sensible rebels would back Cameron in such a "no confidence" motion, to avoid the election where they lose their seats, and see him continue with the House's confidence.

What about the first method of the 2011 Act? The thing to note is that the end result would be very similar - if there is a general election, then the rebels would be ex-Conservative MPs standing. However, they need 434 or more MPs for this to work. If you are a grouping of around 100 MPs, then this is less than one-sixth of the membership of the Commons. To get the support for this, they need to win over around 330-340 MPs - which is more than half the membership. While some of these may come from minor parties who are not fans of the Conservatives, for it to work Labour need to be over the 300 MPs mark - and hence the largest party in Parliament, if not forming an overall majority on their own.

Now, if Labour is forming the Government then there cannot be a Conservative/Liberal Democrat Government putting forward a Queen's Speech for Johnson et al. to rebel over. But, if Labour were the largest party.....

Consider the situation where Labour becomes the largest party, but Cameron and the Liberal Democrats agree to form a new coalition. We already have had 4 years of Labour arguing that no-one voted for the Government, and these voices would become louder, and resonate more, if it appeared that Labour "won" the election by coming first, but was kept out of office by a horse-trading deal in smoke-free rooms. A chance for an early election would be grasped by both hands, and well, if there are ex-Conservative MPs opposed to Cameron who are willing to be useful idiots, then so much the better for Labour. We woz robbed, but here's your chance to right that wrong. Vote Labour.

Note that if there is an early election, then the Electoral Registration & Administration Act 2013 ensures that that election would be held on the same boundaries as May 2010 and May 2015 - boundaries which have a bias towards Labour.

In all this, there is another group which might be in the House of Commons, and which would benefit from there being an election in the months after the May 2015 general election. Even if their number of MPs is in single figures, the UK Independence Party could claim momentum. Nothing succeeds like success, and UKIP could go into a late 2015 or early 2016 election demonstrating that it can win seats.

I would add something to this. People my age and older can remember the Liberal/Social Democrat Alliance, from which the Liberal Democrats emerged. The Liberals provided the idealism and the inexperience, while the Social Democrats provided the former Labour Government ministers. If there is even a small UKIP set of MPs, this could set the stage for a newKIP, with UKIP playing the role of the Liberals and the ex-Conservatives the role of the Social Democrats. OK, pretty much unlikely, but this does seem to be the only set of circumstances in which rebelling on the Queen's Speech would not be career suicide.

Incidentally, the 2011 Act protects Conservative MPs who rebel on the Queen's Speech. By ensuring that Cameron cannot cut-and-run, this means that rebels can spend the following 4 years or so to build bridges again and get to the stage where the whip is returned to them.

One God Further - Anarchism Shows The Flaw In An Atheist Argument

I am sure that most of my readers support the political ideology that can be summed up as liberal democracy. Now, I don't mean supporting the Liberal Democrats, but that basic model of Western politics which has its emphasis on democracy and the rule of law.

Now take the anarchist. He will, like the person who has been brainwashed into supporting liberal democracy (which saturates society, with - and this is shocking - people being appointed to the House of Lords as representatives of certain sub-ideologies within the broad umbrella of liberal democracy), reject fascism and communism, but will go one ideology further - he will reject liberal democracy.

The thing is, the anarchist rejects fascism and communism for completely different reasons to those of the believer in liberal democracy. For the former, it is because he rejects all political ideologies; for the latter, it is because he has a strong belief that there is a political ideology that works, that is essential to the running of a free society, and that liberal democracy is an exclusive ideology, with fascism and communism being incompatible with its values.

We often hear an atheist argument that, like Christians, they are atheists with regards to Ra etc. but just go one god further.

As a Christian, Jesus makes an exclusivity claim. He is not there to be added on to existing ideologies (and I appreciate that there is a lot of syncretism around, and that even churches can play along with syncretism). Jesus is not there as another holy man, orbiting a central god with Buddha orbiting over there. Jesus is uniquely God.

A Christian rejects Ra because of Jesus's claim to exclusivity - Ra-worship is incompatible with being a Christian.

An atheist also rejects Ra, but for completely different reasons. That is because he rejects any deity.

This "we just go one god further" argument sounds plausible until you actually examine it in detail.

Scotland And The European Election Result

Earlier this year saw the eighth direct elections to the European Parliament, and Scotland saw the election of 2 Scottish National Party, 2 Labour, 1 Conservative and 1 UK Independence Party Members of the European Parliament.

At the May 2010 general election Scotland elected the following number of MPs:

• Labour - 41
• Liberal Democrat - 11
• Scottish National Party - 6
• Conservative - 1

If the European election results were repeated at a general election, then:

The Scottish National Party would gain 17 seats from Labour and 6 from the Liberal Democrats - a net gain of 23.

The Conservatives would gain 4 seats from the Liberal Democrats and 2 from Labour -a net gain of 6.

The Liberal Democrats would lose 4 seats to the Conservatives and 6 to the Scottish National Party - a net loss of 10.

Labour would lose 2 seats to the Conservatives and 17 to the Scottish National Party - a net loss of 19.

This would give a final result of:

• Scottish National Party - 29
• Labour - 22
• Conservative - 7
• Liberal Democrat - 1

The Liberal Democrats would have lost their deposit in 29 constituencies, the Greens in 6 and the Conservatives in 1. Labour, the Scottish National Party and UK Independence Party all achieved over 5% of the vote in every constituency in Scotland.

A proportional result (using the d'Hondt system) would give:

• Scottish National Party - 18
• Labour - 16
• Conservative - 10
• UK Independence Party - 6
• Green - 5
• Liberal Democrat - 4

At a constituency level we would have the following results:

Aberdeen North - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 32.50%
• Labour - 27.83%
• Conservative - 13.49%
• UKIP - 9.87%
• Green - 8.27%
• Liberal Democrat - 5.83%
• Others - 2.21%

SNP majority of 4.67% over Labour

Aberdeen South - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 25.49%
• Conservative - 23.75%
• Labour - 21.34%
• Liberal Democrat - 11.86%
• UKIP - 9.28%
• Green - 6.50%
• Others - 1.77%

SNP majority of 1.74% over Conservative

Aberdeenshire West & Kincardine - Conservative gain from Liberal Democrat

• Conservative - 29.63%
• SNP - 24.24%
• Liberal Democrat - 17.95%
• Labour - 11.18%
• UKIP - 9.97%
• Green - 5.09%
• Others - 1.95%

Conservative majority of 5.39% over SNP

Airdrie & Shotts - Labour hold

• Labour - 36.46%
• SNP - 34.72%
• UKIP - 11.09%
• Conservative - 7.32%
• Green - 5.33%
• Others - 3.12%
• Liberal Democrat - 1.95%

Labour majority of 1.74% over SNP

Angus - SNP hold

• SNP - 36.30%
• Conservative - 27.36%
• UKIP - 11.34%
• Labour - 11.07%
• Liberal Democrat - 6.12%
• Green - 5.58%
• Others - 2.23%

SNP majority of 8.94% over Conservative

Argyll & Bute - SNP gain from Liberal Democrat

• SNP - 28.41%
• Conservative - 18.93%
• Liberal Democrat - 18.87%
• Labour - 13.47%
• UKIP - 11.05%
• Green - 6.97%
• Others - 2.29%

SNP majority of 9.48% over Conservative

Ayr, Carrick & Cumnock - Labour hold

• Labour - 27.59%
• SNP - 26.67%
• Conservative - 24.28%
• UKIP - 10.94%
• Green - 5.10%
• Liberal Democrat - 3.04%
• Others - 2.38%

Labour majority of 0.91% over SNP

Ayrshire Central - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 27.86%
• Labour - 26.03%
• Conservative - 25.29%
• UKIP - 10.30%
• Green - 4.83%
• Liberal Democrat - 3.44%
• Others - 2.25%

SNP majority of 1.83% over Labour

Ayrshire North & Arran - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 33.36%
• Labour - 27.87%
• Conservative - 17.84%
• UKIP - 11.17%
• Green - 5.32%
• Others - 2.61%
• Liberal Democrat - 1.82%

SNP majority of 5.49% over Labour

Banff & Buchan - SNP hold

• SNP - 40.19%
• Conservative - 22.09%
• UKIP - 14.45%
• Labour - 8.65% (their lowest share of the vote in Scotland)
• Liberal Democrat - 7.04%
• Green - 4.75%
• Others - 2.83%

SNP majority of 18.11% over Conservative

Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk - Conservative gain from Liberal Democrat

• Conservative - 31.30%
• SNP - 20.80%
• Liberal Democrat - 15.12%
• UKIP - 13.27%
• Labour - 9.22%
• Green - 8.20%
• Others - 2.08%

Conservative majority of 10.50% over SNP

Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross - SNP gain from Liberal Democrat

• SNP - 29.62%
• Labour - 17.22%
• Liberal Democrat - 16.44%
• UKIP - 14.09%
• Conservative - 10.68%
• Green - 9.30%
• Others - 2.63%

SNP majority of 12.40% over Labour

Coatbridge, Chryston & Bellshill - Labour hold

• Labour - 45.90% (the highest share of the vote for any party in Scotland)
• SNP - 24.97%
• UKIP - 10.79%
• Conservative - 8.45%
• Green - 5.19%
• Others - 3.04%
• Liberal Democrat - 1.57%

Labour majority of 20.93% over SNP

Cumbernauld, Kilsyth & Kirkintilloch East - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 36.42%
• Labour - 33.49%
• UKIP - 10.99%
• Conservative - 7.80%
• Green - 6.38%
• Others - 2.65%
• Liberal Democrat - 2.27%

SNP majority of 2.93% over Labour

Dumfries & Galloway - Conservative gain from Labour

• Conservative - 32.00%
• SNP - 23.54%
• Labour - 21.07%
• UKIP - 13.91%
• Green - 4.82%
• Others - 2.53%
• Liberal Democrats - 2.14%

Conservative majority of 8.46% over SNP

Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale - Conservative hold

• Conservative - 32.80% (their highest share of the vote in Scotland)
• Labour - 18.15%
• SNP - 18.02%
• UKIP - 12.25%
• Liberal Democrat - 10.28%
• Green - 6.47%
• Others - 2.02%

Conservative majority of 14.66% over Labour

This seat is also the most Unionist seat. If you take the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats and UKIP to be the Unionist parties, then they have 73.49% of the vote between them. If you consider the Nationalist vote to be the SNP and Greens, then these parties have 24.50% of the vote between them. Indeed, across Scotland, 58 constituencies would see the combined Unionist vote ahead of the combined Nationalist.

Dunbartonshire East - SNP gain from Liberal Democrat

• SNP - 25.44%
• Labour - 21.99%
• Conservative - 18.13%
• Liberal Democrat - 16.18%
• UKIP - 9.68%
• Green - 6.95%
• Others - 1.63%

SNP majority of 3.45% over Labour

Dunbartonshire West - Labour hold

• Labour - 38.04%
• SNP - 32.24%
• UKIP - 10.53%
• Conservative - 8.10%
• Green - 6.67%
• Others - 2.52%
• Liberal Democrat - 1.89%

Labour majority of 5.80% over SNP

Dundee East - SNP hold

• SNP - 41.00%
• Labour - 21.18%
• Conservative - 18.69%
• UKIP - 8.82%
• Green - 5.80%
• Liberal Democrat - 2.63%
• Others - 1.88%

SNP majority of 19.81% over Labour

Dundee West - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 39.94%
• Labour - 29.33%
• UKIP - 9.28%
• Conservative - 8.34%
• Green - 6.64%
• Liberal Democrat - 4.45%
• Others - 2.03%

SNP majority of 10.61% over Labour

Dunfermline & West Fife - Labour hold

• Labour - 36.63%
• SNP - 26.40%
• Conservative - 12.43%
• Liberal Democrat - 8.81%
• UKIP - 7.76%
• Green - 5.82%
• Others - 2.13%

Labour majority of 10.23% over SNP

East Kilbride, Strathaven & Lesmahagow - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 34.25%
• Labour - 31.21%
• Conservative - 13.66%
• UKIP - 10.19%
• Green - 6.83%
• Others - 2.52%
• Liberal Democrat - 1.34%

SNP majority of 3.04% over Labour

East Lothian - Labour hold

• Labour - 29.29%
• SNP - 24.38%
• Conservative - 20.88%
• UKIP - 9.91%
• Green - 8.09%
• Liberal Democrat - 5.70%
• Others - 1.74%

Labour majority of 4.90% over SNP

Edinburgh East - Labour hold

• Labour - 29.97%
• SNP - 26.40%
• Green - 16.91%
• Conservative - 11.31%
• Liberal Democrat - 7.16%
• UKIP - 6.63% (their lowest share of the vote in Scotland)
• Others - 1.62%

Labour majority of 3.58% over SNP

Edinburgh North & Leith - Labour hold

• Labour - 24.12%
• SNP - 22.05%
• Green - 20.95% (their highest share of the vote in Scotland)
• Conservative - 17.57%
• Liberal Democrat - 6.93%
• UKIP - 6.73%
• Others - 1.64%

Labour majority of 2.07% over SNP

Edinburgh South - Labour hold

• Labour - 23.19%
• Conservative - 21.30%
• SNP - 19.66%
• Green - 18.92%
• Liberal Democrat - 8.75%
• UKIP - 6.74%
• Others - 1.44%

Labour majority of 1.90% over Conservative

This is the seat in Scotland with the lowest winning share of the vote

Edinburgh South West - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 23.68%
• Labour - 23.19%
• Conservative - 22.84%
• Green - 13.92%
• UKIP - 7.85%
• Liberal Democrat - 6.94%
• Others - 1.58%

SNP majority of 0.49% over Labour

Edinburgh West - Conservative gain from Liberal Democrat

• Conservative - 24.95%
• SNP - 23.92%
• Liberal Democrat - 16.32%
• Labour - 13.35%
• UKIP - 11.61%
• Green - 8.14%
• Others - 1.70%

Conservative majority of 1.02% over SNP

Falkirk - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 33.20%
• Labour - 29.86%
• Conservative - 12.91%
• UKIP - 12.72%
• Green - 5.97%
• Others - 2.84%
• Liberal Democrat - 2.51%

SNP majority of 3.35% over Labour

Fife North East - Conservative gain from Liberal Democrat

• Conservative - 23.24%
• SNP - 21.28%
• Liberal Democrat - 19.50%
• UKIP - 15.27% (their highest share of the vote in Scotland)
• Labour - 10.53%
• Green - 8.25%
• Others - 1.92%

Conservative majority of 1.96% over SNP

Glasgow Central - Labour hold

• Labour - 32.60%
• SNP - 30.06%
• Green - 14.37%
• UKIP - 9.71%
• Conservative - 8.63%
• Others - 2.64%
• Liberal Democrats - 2.00%

Labour majority of 2.54% over SNP

Glasgow East - Labour hold

• Labour - 43.96%
• SNP - 29.43%
• UKIP - 11.30%
• Conservative - 6.81%
• Green - 4.67%
• Others - 2.57%
• Liberal Democrat - 1.28%

Labour majority of 14.53% over SNP

Glasgow North - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 27.33%
• Labour - 26.92%
• Green - 20.92%
• Conservative - 8.71%
• UKIP - 8.52%
• Liberal Democrat - 5.24%
• Others - 2.36%

SNP majority of 0.41% over Labour - this is the seat with the smallest majority in Scotland

Glasgow North East - Labour hold

• Labour - 43.15%
• SNP - 26.45%
• UKIP - 11.71%
• Green - 9.99%
• Conservative - 4.52% (their lowest share of the vote in Scotland)
• Others - 2.94%
• Liberal Democrat - 1.24%

Labour majority of 16.70% over SNP

Glasgow North West - Labour hold

• Labour - 35.20%
• SNP - 26.94%
• Green - 16.07%
• UKIP - 8.23%
• Conservative - 8.14%
• Liberal Democrat - 3.15%
• Others - 2.27%

Labour majority of 8.26% over SNP

Glasgow South - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 30.48%
• Labour - 28.18%
• Conservative - 14.74%
• Green - 11.01%
• UKIP - 7.57%
• Liberal Democrat - 5.90%
• Others - 2.12%

SNP majority of 2.30% over Labour

Glasgow South West - Labour hold

• Labour - 39.70%
• SNP - 32.86%
• UKIP - 12.11%
• Green - 5.68%
• Conservative - 5.66%
• Others - 2.80%
• Liberal Democrat - 1.19%

Labour majority of 6.83% over SNP

Glenrothes - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 37.77%
• Labour - 36.91%
• Conservative - 7.66%
• UKIP - 6.79%
• Green - 6.42%
• Others - 2.35%
• Liberal Democrat - 2.10%

SNP majority of 0.86% over Labour

Gordon - SNP gain from Liberal Democrat

• SNP - 34.53%
• Conservative - 19.32%
• Liberal Democrat - 13.36%
• UKIP - 11.51%
• Labour - 11.37%
• Green - 7.21%
• Others - 2.69%

SNP majority of 15.21% over Conservative

Inverclyde - Labour hold

• Labour - 35.88%
• SNP - 28.77%
• Conservative - 14.17%
• UKIP - 9.29%
• Liberal Democrat - 4.79%
• Green - 4.58%
• Others - 2.52%

Labour majority of 7.11% over SNP

Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey - SNP gain from Liberal Democrat

• SNP - 31.30%
• Liberal Democrat - 17.07%
• Conservative - 16.17%
• Labour - 15.44%
• UKIP - 10.74%
• Green - 7.30%
• Others - 1.97%

SNP majority of 14.23% over Liberal Democrat

Kilmarnock & Loudoun - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 35.64%
• Labour - 30.00%
• Conservative - 15.74%
• UKIP - 9.51%
• Green - 4.50% (their lowest share of the vote in Scotland)
• Others - 2.44%
• Liberal Democrat - 2.17%

SNP majority of 5.64% over Labour

Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath - Labour hold

• Labour - 38.38%
• SNP - 27.84%
• UKIP - 11.39%
• Conservative - 10.68%
• Green - 5.70%
• Liberal Democrat - 3.92%
• Others - 2.09%

Labour majority of 10.55%

Lanark & Hamilton East - Labour hold

• Labour - 32.59%
• SNP - 28.87%
• Conservative - 16.74%
• UKIP - 12.91%
• Green - 5.12%
• Others - 2.66%
• Liberal Democrat - 1.10% (their lowest share of the vote in Scotland)

Labour majority of 3.72% over SNP

Linlithgow & Falkirk East - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 32.87%
• Labour - 28.98%
• Conservative - 13.71%
• UKIP - 12.46%
• Green - 6.22%
• Others - 2.92%
• Liberal Democrat - 2.85%

SNP majority of 3.89% over Labour

Livingston - Labour hold

• Labour - 34.15%
• SNP - 33.12%
• UKIP - 11.72%
• Conservative - 8.74%
• Green - 6.07%
• Liberal Democrat - 3.36%
• Others - 2.84%

Labour majority of 1.03% over SNP

Midlothian - Labour hold

• Labour - 31.19%
• SNP - 28.90%
• Conservative - 13.16%
• UKIP - 10.68%
• Green - 8.61%
• Liberal Democrat - 5.17%
• Others - 2.28%

Labour majority of 2.29% over SNP

Moray - SNP hold

• SNP - 33.87%
• Conservative - 24.25%
• UKIP - 13.58%
• Labour - 13.10%
• Green - 7.13%
• Liberal Democrat - 5.34%
• Others - 2.73%

SNP majority of 9.62% over Conservative

Motherwell & Wishaw - Labour hold

• Labour - 41.25%
• SNP - 27.39%
• Conservative - 10.98%
• UKIP - 10.68%
• Green - 5.13%
• Others - 3.01%
• Liberal Democrat - 1.55%

Labour majority of 13.86% over SNP

Na H-Eileanan An Iar - SNP hold

• SNP - 43.60% (their highest share of the vote in Scotland)
• Labour - 24.27%
• UKIP - 11.16%
• Conservative - 10.03%
• Green - 6.59%
• Liberal Democrat - 3.20%
• Others - 1.16%

SNP majority of 19.34% over Labour

This is the only constituency where the combined Nationalist vote (50.19%) is more than the combined Unionist vote (48.65%)

Ochil & South Perthshire - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 31.37%
• Conservative - 25.51%
• Labour - 19.72%
• UKIP - 10.26%
• Green - 5.68%
• Liberal Democrat - 5.56%
• Others - 1.89%

SNP majority of 5.86% over Conservative

Orkney & Shetland - Liberal Democrat hold

• Liberal Democrat - 34.68% (their highest share of the vote in Scotland)
• SNP - 17.13% (their lowest share of the vote in Scotland)
• Green - 12.18%
• UKIP - 11.95%
• Conservative - 11.84%
• Labour - 10.23%
• Others - 2.00%

Liberal Democrat majority of 17.54% over SNP

Paisley & Renfrewshire North - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 31.21%
• Labour - 30.68%
• Conservative - 13.67%
• UKIP - 11.90%
• Green - 7.04%
• Others - 2.95%
• Liberal Democrat - 2.56%

SNP majority of 0.53% over Labour

Paisley & Renfrewshire South - Labour hold

• Labour - 38.82%
• SNP - 28.38%
• Conservative - 11.89%
• UKIP - 9.24%
• Green - 5.47%
• Liberal Democrat - 3.92%
• Others - 2.29%

Labour majority of 10.44% over SNP

Perth & North Perthshire - SNP hold

• SNP - 34.65%
• Conservative - 26.84%
• Labour - 12.11%
• UKIP - 9.97%
• Liberal Democrat - 8.09%
• Green - 6.75%
• Others - 1.59%

SNP majority of 7.81% over Conservative

Renfrewshire East - Conservative gain from Labour

• Conservative - 27.85%
• Labour - 26.39%
• SNP - 22.72%
• UKIP - 10.21%
• Green - 7.03%
• Liberal Democrat - 4.12%
• Others - 1.68%

Conservative majority of 1.46% over Labour

Ross, Skye & Lochaber - SNP gain from Liberal Democrat

• SNP - 29.47%
• Liberal Democrat - 23.59%
• Conservative - 12.82%
• UKIP - 12.41%
• Green - 10.36%
• Labour - 8.85%
• Others - 2.51%

SNP majority of 5.88% over Liberal Democrat

Rutherglen & Hamilton West - Labour hold

• Labour - 40.29%
• SNP - 24.83%
• Liberal Democrat - 9.48%
• UKIP - 8.92%
• Conservative - 7.74%
• Green - 5.72%
• Others - 3.01%

Labour majority of 15.46% over SNP

Stirling - SNP gain from Labour

• SNP - 28.88%
• Labour - 22.49%
• Conservative - 22.16%
• Green - 10.51%
• UKIP - 8.76%
• Liberal Democrat - 5.71%
• Others - 1.50%

SNP majority of 6.40% over Labour

One thing that is striking is the marginal nature of many seats. There are 14 constituencies where the gap between the first and third parties is less than 10%:

1. Edinburgh South West - 0.84% (SNP/Lab/C)
2. Ayrshire Central - 2.56% (SNP/Lab/C)
3. Edinburgh North & Leith - 3.17% (Lab/SNP/Grn)
4. Ayr, Carrick & Cumnock - 3.31% (Lab/SNP/C)
5. Edinburgh South - 3.53% (Lab/C/SNP)
6. Fife North East - 3.74% (C/SNP/LD)
7. Aberdeen South - 4.15% (SNP/C/Lab)
8. Renfrewshire East - 5.12% (C/Lab/SNP)
9. Glasgow North - 6.41% (SNP/Lab/Grn)
10. Stirling - 6.73% (SNP/Lab/C)
11. Dunbartonshire East - 7.31% (SNP/Lab/C)
12. East Lothian - 8.41% (Lab/SNP/C)
13. Edinburgh West - 8.62% (C/SNP/LD)
14. Argyll & Bute - 9.55% (SNP/C/LD)

In 5 of these case, the gap between the first and fourth parties is also less than 10%:

1. Edinburgh South - 4.27% (Lab/C/SNP/Grn)
2. Edinburgh North & Leith - 6.56% (Lab/SNP/Grn/C)
3. Fife North East - 7.97% (C/SNP/LD/UKIP)
4. Dunbartonshire East - 9.26% (SNP/Lab/C/LD)
5. Edinburgh South West - 9.76% (SNP/Lab/C/UKIP)

There is one more thing to note about these constituency results. The UKIP share of the vote doesn't change dramatically from constituency to constituency, and this is a property of how the figures are calculated.

We have two sets of data for each council area:

• The number of votes won by each party at the European election
• The number of votes won by each party in each ward at the last local elections

These are used to break down the European result by ward. For example, suppose a council area is split between two constituencies, with 60% of its electors in constituency A and 40% in B. It might seem logical to split each party's vote this way - so if a party won 10,000 votes, assume 6,000 were cast in constituency A and 40% in constituency B.

However, when we examine the local election results, we find that at the last local elections, one party won 75% of its local election vote in the part of the council area lying in constituency A. It would be sensible to reflect this in how we split the European result - so, assume 7,500 of its votes were cast in constituency A and 25% in constituency B.

It seems obvious to say this, but you can only vote for those who are actually standing. In a European election, everyone in Scotland can vote for the parties on the Scotland ballot paper. It doesn't matter whether you're in Selkirkshire or Ross-shire, you have the same set of candidates. At the General election, the main parties will contest practically every seat.

Now, not every party contests every seat in local elections. So we make an assumption that if someone supported party X, but X wasn't contesting the local election in their ward, they would choose to stay at home rather than vote for another party. In each ward, for each party that stands, we work out its share of the vote (as this is Single Transferable Vote, we consider first preferences) as a proportion of the electorate. We assume that if party X had stood in a ward which it didn't, then its vote would have been equivalent to its share in the contested ward where it achieved its worst result. For example, in a council area, X's worst result is 1.5% of the electorate in one ward. So, if there is a ward it didn't contest, with an electorate of 5,000, we assume that if it had stood, it would have won 75 votes (1.5% of 5,000) there.

For the generic "Others", we would, in the example above, put 60% of their vote in constituency A and 40% in constituency B. And likewise if a party didn't contest any wards in a council area.

For Scotland, the local results used are from May 2012 - when UKIP didn't contest all that many wards. This explains why their vote doesn't vary much. There may be pockets of support (look at the Greens in Glasgow's constituencies, for example) - the strong result in Fife North East can be explained by the influence of the East Neuk & Landward ward. The next local elections are May 2017 (assuming Scotland is still part of the UK), and it is likely that, now that UKIP has its first MEP, it will make a push to gain seats in the Scottish Parliament in May 2016 and then focus on local elections the following year. When I break the May or June 2019 European elections down into Westminster constituencies, there will be more data to use.

Whatever Happened To Kirkintilloch West?

I have been having a look at the Scottish European election results and I just want to note something about the name of Dunbartonshire East constituency - there are some constituencies, such as Ipswich and Poole, which might give the impression that they contain the town in question.

The Ipswich constituency contains 81% of Ipswich itself, while the remainder lies in Suffolk Central & Ipswich North. The Poole constituency contains 64% of Poole, with the remainder split between Bournemouth West and Dorset Mid & Poole North.

Yet, this doesn't get reflected in constituency names - there is no Ipswich South, Bournemouth West & Poole East or Poole South.

Only 45% of the Norwich North constituency lies in Norwich itself, with the remainder split between the Norfolk towns of Hellesdon, Sprowston and Thorpe St Andrew. However, here it would be tricky to come up with an accurate name - you either come up with a long-winded thing like Norwich North, Sprowston, Thorpe St Andrew & Hellesdon, or you rely on a short name which reflects a minority of the constituency.

Every Boundary Commission has a trade-off between accuracy and simplicity when it comes to constituency names.

In Yorkshire it gets interesting. You would not be surprised that Bradford East (Liberal Democrat), Bradford South (Labour) and Bradford West (held since a by-election in March 2012 by Respect - The Unity Coalition) are in Bradford. Yet they only make up 59% of Bradford - with the remainder being in two constituencies, Keighley (Conservative) and Shipley (also Conservative), making Bradford unique among British cities by having MPs for 4 parties representing it.

Next door, only 63% of Leeds lies in constituencies with the city mentioned in their name - Leeds Central, Leeds East, Leeds North East, Leeds North West and Leeds West. However, there are 7 constituencies lying totally in Leeds, with Elmet & Rothwell (Leeds to the east of Leeds East) and Pudsey (Leeds to the west of Leeds West). There is also an eighth constituency - Morley & Outwood - which covers the southern part of Leeds but also parts of Wakefield.

When it comes to the city of Wakefield, only 28% lies in the constituency of that name. The other two Wakefield constituencies - Hemsworth and Normanton, Pontefract & Castleford - both contain more of Wakefield than the Wakefield constituency does!

A major factor is the way local government has developed, with cities such as Bradford, Leeds or Wakefield extending into rural and semi-urban areas, absorbing areas with town names.

There is a constituency containing the name Kirkintilloch East - yet you would look in vain for another constituency with Kirkintilloch in its name. But there nearly was...

Prior to the May 2005 general election, the Boundary Commission for Scotland drew up new constituencies for Scotland, following the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Act 2004 decoupling the Scottish Parliament constituencies from the House of Commons ones.

Prior to that, there had been constituencies such as Clydebank & Milngavie; Coatbridge & Chryston; Cumbernauld & Kilsyth and Strathkelvin & Bearsden.

There is no town or city called "Strathkelvin" - it was the name of a District Council set up by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and then abolished under the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994, which ensured that all of Scotland was covered by unitary authorities - the anti-devolutionist Conservative government unwittingly doing something that has to be done prior to devolution (to avoid there being three tiers of local/regional government.

Strathkelvin was basically the towns of Bishopbriggs, Chryston and Kirkintilloch and the villages around them (so even the "Strathkelvin & Bearsden" constituency name was inaccurate, as the Chryston area was not in the constituency). Under the 1994 reforms, this area was split between the council areas of East Dunbartonshire (Bishopbriggs, Kirkintilloch) and North Lanarkshire (Chryston). Clydebank & Milngavie was another constituency split between council areas - the Clydebank area ended up in West Dunbartonshire, while Milngavie joined with Bishopbriggs and Kirkintilloch.

When the Boundary Commission drew up its proposals for 2005 (which are still in force), it suggested a Bishopbriggs, Bearsden & Kirkintilloch West, reflecting the fact that Kirkintilloch would be split across constituencies. The name wasn't totally accurate - convenience strikes again - as there was no mention of Milngavie. But the Commission settled on Dunbartonshire East - again, not totally accurate as it is smaller than the council area.

What Would The Apostle Paul Make Of Me Stuffing My Face At My Desk?

Well, he seems quite clear about it, and it is a sin I struggle with:

Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. (Phil. 3:19)

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. (Gal. 5:16-24)

While the Galatians passage doesn't specifically mention gluttony, tie it in with Philippians and you see that this is a desire of the flesh - it comes under idolatry, as for a glutton their god is situated in their stomach.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (I Cor 6:9-11)

So, there we have it. Short and simple.

Except that's not what I'm talking about. There is a lot in the New Testament about eating which is not about gluttony, but about respect. If we go back to Galatians 5, we find that the Apostle Paul talks about freedom:

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. (v.13)

We're free in Christ - but this isn't an excuse to please ourselves, but to serve others. And one way to serve is to avoid stumbling blocks.

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honour of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honour of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honour of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written,

“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.”

So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.

Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.

Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. (Rom. 14)

Note that Paul is not saying vegetarians have a weak faith. I remember when I started working for Methodist Homes for the Aged and being shocked that meat was being served. I explained that up till then, all the Methodists I had know had been vegetarians. As a result, I had simply assumed that Methodists put meat in the same category as alcohol - something to be avoided.

And can I also say - if someone does hold a different opinion to you, don't smugly assume they are the "weaker brethren". They might be right, and you wrong; or it might not matter either way.

Why does Paul talk about meat? Well, we can look at what he wrote to the Corinthians:

Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that “all of us possess knowledge.” This “knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up. If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, he is known by God.

Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from Whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things and through whom we exist.

However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble. (I Cor. 8)

This was an issue in Corinth at the time - all meat sold in the market had been sacrificed to idols. While some Christians would know that these idols were nothing, others could think that a Christian eating such food was engaging in worship of idols, and was adopting Syncretism. That could then lead to a Christian thinking "oh, so it's OK for me to worship X alongside Jesus". With halal meat being served more in the United Kingdom, this could become an issue that will become more relevant as time goes on.

It's not just about food - really it is anything that could lead a Christian to go back to something that was an idol for them, regardless of whether it was an idol for us. I remember a conversation with one Christian man recently - his church had been holding meetings in a pub, as part of outreach to men. Now, I am teetotal, but I don't force that on other Christians. But, he mentioned, there is a slight concern - what about men who were alcoholics before becoming Christians? Christian men can enjoy a pint with their mates, but it just takes one drink for an ex-alcoholic to begin the journey to no longer being an ex-alcoholic. The sight of his brothers sipping beer could be too much for him, and so he goes to the bar....

But what I'm thinking of isn't gluttony. Nor is it meat sacrificed to idols. It's something else Paul wrote about:

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the Gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings. (I Cor. 9:19-23).

A tricky verse - Paul is not calling for us to be chamaeleon Christians (or Karma Chamaeleon Christians when reaching out to Hindus).

I have recently started a new job. When in a workplace, there can be huge religious differences. Some places you get the twenty-/thirty-somethings who see Christianity as a relic from the last century and have a world which is post-post-Christian (in a post-Christian society there are still vestiges of Christian heritage). Or, even tougher, the people who are Christians because "this is a Christian country" and "the Queen is Head of the Church of England", and all you need is to be "respectable", not do anything seriously wrong and make sure you do a good turn every day, and you've passed. Or you get the adherents of Christmasianity who want to convert everyone.

And then there is the different environment, one which I am in again. And it's the one I prefer, if I am totally honest. It's the one where you see the turban and the khimār, the colourful shalwar kameez, or where someone shows off her henna tattoo skills.

It's the world where Christianity is just another minority faith.

It's the environment where you work late on a Thursday, ask a passing colleague for help with a case, and his response is to say that he'll help when he's back from prayers.

It's the multi-cultural world.

It's the world that the early Church had to exist in.

What's this got to do with food? Well, it's about food and respect.

I have found myself with Muslim friends. Christianity has developed a reputation for being quite wussy and there are groups - primarily Christian Vision for Men - who are keen to develop a male-friendly expression of Christianity. What I notice about Muslims I have got to know is that there is that combination of rejecting the laddish lifestyle that often seems an essential part of being male ("Don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do?") and at the same time being macho. There is no contradiction between holding a faith and being masculine - something the church has lost.

Currently it is Ramadam. So for them it is a time of fasting. Through conversations I have learned that it involves a lot of self-discipline, and is tough.

And I snack at my desk.

I'm not the only one, but what temptation does it throw in the path of a faster when he sees people snacking around him?

Now, if it were Christians fasting, then it would be clear cut. Respect that. But when it comes to Muslims? I am leaning towards Paul's "all things to all people" line and thinking that I will not eat around them. Just respecting what they are doing without joining in or agreeing with the faith in which they are doing it.

How To Select The Commission President

With the choice now having been made, I have given some thought as to how the President of the European Commission should be chosen for 2019 onwards.

The key thing to keep in mind is that there needs to be a balance between the centre (the directly-elected European Parliament) and the member states (represented in the European Council).

What I think is also needed is a third leg to this - bringing the member states in via their national Parliaments. I have already outlined how the European Parliament should have a bicameral structure with Senators drawn from Members of National Parliaments (MNPs). And maybe it is time for MNPs, as well as Heads of Government, to have a say.

With this in mind, I note the One Member One Vote reforms of the mid-nineties in electing the Labour party leader and deputy leader. This is done using the Alternative Vote, with there being three equal sections in the Electoral College - the parliamentary party, trade unions & socialist societies, and constituency parties.

The first thing to do is to look at the number of Members of the European Parliament that each nation has, and its voting strength in the European Council and Council of Ministers:

Country	MEPs	Council
Germany	96	29
France	74	29
Italy	73	29
United Kingdom	73	29
Spain	54	27
Poland	51	27
Romania	32	14
Netherlands	26	13
Belgium	21	12
Czech Republic	21	12
Greece	21	12
Hungary	21	12
Portugal	21	12
Sweden	20	10
Austria	18	10
Bulgaria	17	10
Denmark	13	7
Finland	13	7
Slovakia	13	7
Croatia	11	7
Ireland	11	7
Lithuania	11	7
Latvia	8	4
Slovenia	8	4
Cyrpus	6	4
Estonia	6	4
Luxembourg	6	4
Malta	6	3
Total	751	352

One country to look at is Ireland, and the method for nominating its President, who can be nominated one of three ways:

• At least 20 members of the Oireachtas (which is comprised of 166 members of the Dáil Éireann and 60 of the Seanad Éireann)
• At least 4 councils
• Self-nomination in the case of a President who has served once

At the moment, the European Council can only nominate one candidate at a time, by Qualified Majority Voting. One change could be for there to be a genuine election, with member nations nominating. If we look at the Irish example, then with there being 352 votes in the European Council, 20/226 of this is 31 votes.

Now, no country can muster 31 votes on its own - the Big Four would all need the support of just 1 other country. Allowing a candidate to be nominated by 31 Council votes would mean that the European People's Party and the Party of European Socialists would cross that hurdle. The Alliance of Liberals & Democrats for Europe tend to lead Governments in small nations, and both they and the Alliance of European Conservatives & Reformists would not pass the threshhold on their own. Remember, though, that there are wildcard members of the Council, who could throw their weight behind a minor party, or maybe a coalition Government could use its Council votes to nominate a candidate from the junior partner.

Note that I said nomination should come from the member nations. In Ireland, there will be party political councillors who nonetheless, help give their council's nomination to an Independent candidate. They are not saying they support that person - they are just saying they think that person should be on the ballot.

In addition, it seems normal for Commission Presidents to serve 2 terms.

With this in mind, I suggest the nomination requirements should be:

• 31 or more votes in the European Council
• Resolutions from 4 or more national Parliaments
• Self-nomination from the sitting Commission President if he or she is in their first term

Note that in this nomination process, there is no role for MEPs.

When it comes to the actual voting, then there should be a weighting of votes. MEPs, MNPs and the European Council each have one-third of the votes.

To see how this would work in practice, consider the United Kingdom. The European Parliament as a whole would have 1/3 of the vote. As 3 x 751 is 2,253, each MEP's vote would be worth 1/2,253 of the whole in the Electoral College. Between them, the United Kingdom MEPs would have 73/2,253 of the total Electoral College vote - equivalent to 3.24% of the whole.

Between them, our MPs would also have 73/2,253 of the whole vote. With 650 MPs, this works out as each MP's vote having a weight of 73/1,464,450. That is just under a twenty-thousandths of the total vote in the Electoral College.

Finally, we look at the Prime Minister. As we have 29 votes in the European Council, his vote would have a weight of 29/(3 x 352) = 29/1,056 of the whole Electoral College. This would be equivalent to 62 MEPs or 551 MPs.

One complaint from Eurosceptics is that MEPs are "federalist" and would support candidates with a "federalist" agenda. As this system would give national Parliaments equal weighting with the European Parliament, MNPs can form a natural counterbalance to MEPs (and indeed, two-thirds of the votes in the Electoral College would be exercised by national politicians). For the more enthusiastic Europhiles, this would give a Commission President with a stronger mandate, elected in a process involving more than one candidate, drawn from national Parliaments, national Governments and the European Parliament.