UKIP in the Ascendancy?

Nigel Farage has called the result an “earthquake in British politics” as his party charges into first place with almost 30% of the vote and 24 seats. Yet is this result, in a European election with a 34% turnout, an indication of the 2015 General Election? The answer: Not if history is anything to go by. Nobody is claiming that UKIP will beat the Tories or Labour in next year’s election, not even the party itself, the question is will it gain any seats, and if so, how many?

Remember back to 2009 when UKIP placed second in the European elections with 16.5% of the vote? Everyone predicted that in the 2010 General Election that UKIP would gain some seats in the House of Commons, especially considering voter hostility to both Labour and the Tories. Well in 2010 UKIP didn’t gain any seats and only received a paltry 3.1% of the vote. Obviously a lot has changed in five years, but I doubt Farage will cause an earthquake when the results of the 2010 election are revealed.

There was some good news though, support for the BNP crumbled into nothing! In the 2009 European elections the BNP managed to gain two MEPs, Nick Griffin in the North West and Andrew Brons in Yorkshire and the Humber. This time around both MEPs were handily defeated.

The Greens had a reasonable night, although their share of the vote actually decreased slightly they managed to gain one seat. This is particularly th

anks to the implosion of the Lib Dems, who slipped into fifth place and lost 10 of their 11 seats. This result, along with their obliteration in the council elections has meant many in Nick Clegg’s own party calling for his head.

Party	Vote	Change	Seats	Change	Pro or anti EU
UKIP	27.49%	+10.99%	24	+11	Anti
Labour	25.40%	+9.67%	20	+7	Pro
Conservative	23.93%	-3.80%	19	-7	Mixed
Greens	7.87%	-0.75%	3	+1	Pro
Liberal Democrats	6.87%	-6.87%	1	-10	Pro
SNP*	2.46%	+0.34%	2	0	Pro
Plaid Cymru*	0.71%	-0.13%	1	0	Pro
BNP	1.14%	-5.10%	0	-2	Anti

*The percentage of the vote is when you take all of Great Britain (not Northern Ireland). In Scotland the SNP got 29% of the vote and in Wales Plaid Cymru got 15%. 

Undoubtedly Eurosceptics did quite well, but the result was not as Eurosceptic as you might have been lead to believe. 42% of people voted for pro-EU parties, 31% for anti-EU parties and 25% on parties that have mixed attitudes to the EU.

A Victory for Euroscepticism?

So the results are now in, but what do the results of the European Parliamentary elections mean?

Well they are certainly the most important elections that the EU has held since voting to the European Parliament began in 1979. Eurosceptic parties did well across the continent, but in particular they did well in Greece, Italy, France, Britain and Denmark. In Greece the radically left-wing (and Eurosceptic) SYRIZA won the largest amount of seats whilst the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn won three seats. In France Marine LePen’s National Front managed to place first. In Italy Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Movement came in second to the pro-EU Democratic Party. In both Britain and Denmark Eurosceptic parties managed to beat out pro-EU left wing rivals to the top of the podium. Note: I will be doing separate posts on Greece, France and Britain, so I won’t write about them anymore in this post.

A lot of the media attention has been on the success of the far-right, but thankfully it has been largely exaggerated. In Hungary the neo-Nazi party, Jobbik, was hoping to increase the amount of seats it held in Europe from three. Fortunately it was unable to do so and in fact their share of the vote declined very slightly from 2009 (-0.48%). In Britain support for the BNP crumbled into nothing, France’s National Front isn’t truly far-right anymore. The only real success the neo-Nazis got was in Greece where Golden Dawn managed to gain three seats.

It is extremely important to note that the four largest European Parliament groups are all pro-EU and together they received 63.6% of the vote and 498 of the 751 seats in the European Parliament. Although the Eurosceptic parties did have their best night in European election history, don’t be fooled into thinking that they did far better than they actually did.

Parliamentary group	Vote	Change	Seats	Change	Pro or anti EU	Countries
EPP	24.2%	-8.33%	208	-59	Pro	12
S&D	24.4%	+1.62%	186	-2	Pro	5
Liberals	7.6%	-2.47%	58	-23	Pro	4
Greens	7.4%	+0.02%	46	-9	Pro	1
Left	6.1%	+2.09%	42	+7	Anti	1
EFD	5.2%	+0.28%	38	+9	Anti	2
Conservative	4.2%	-0.65%	45	-11	Mixed*	0
Other	21.0%	+7.45%	117	+88	Varies**	1

*They wish to repatriate powers from the EU, but do not wish to withdraw from the EU.

**As it is not a parliamentary group, the parties in this category do not have a defined political opinion. Yet most of the parties in this category are Eurosceptic.  

The Anti-EU vote includes all of the Left, EFD,
Conservatives and other

The difference between the 2009 and 2014 European elections
Colour represents the country's largest delegation
Purplish red - Left
Red - Socialists & Democrats
Light blue - EPP
Dark Blue: Conservatives
Purple: EFD
Green: Greens
Yellow: Liberals
Dark Grey: Even split or other

Britain - the Best Place to be Gay

Britain has been revealed to be the best place to be gay in Europe, according to the International Lesbian, Gay, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA). The organisation rates countries based on their treatment by the law, rather than by society at large. It rates countries based on five categories (the percentage indicates how much it contributes to the final score)

1.       Laws & policies against discrimination (25%)

2.       Family recognition (25%)

3.       Protection against hate speech/crime (20%)

4.       Legal gender recognition (15%)

5.       Respect of freedom of assembly, association & expression (10%)

6.       Asylum (5%)

Britain scored 82%, coming in well ahead of Belgium (78%) and Spain (73%). It should not surprise you that Russia had the poorest score of only 6%, marginally worse than Azerbaijan (7%) and Armenia (9%).  Malta wins the award of most improved country, the country added 22% to their old score of 35%, which means that they are now one of only fifteen countries to have a score greater than 50%. Montenegro also improved significantly over the past year, adding 20% to their score of 27%, meaning they are just short of 50%. Bulgaria was the third best improver, increasing from 18% to 30% (a change of 12%).

The mean score for Europe unfortunately only went up 3% from 33% to 36% and only 15 countries are above 50% (Austria, Croatia and Malta are the new members of this group). The split in Europe can be seen clearly when you look at non-EU versus EU countries. The average for the EU is 46% whereas for non-EU countries the average is a measly 24%.

Thankfully it looks likely that Europe’s improving rights for LGBTI* individuals will improve again for the 2015! Already there are bills pending or proposed in 15 countries that would improve the recognition of same-sex couples**.

Britain’s score of 82% is an improvement of 5% on 2013’s score. The improved score was as a result of increased recognition of same-sex families and gender identity. The legalisation of same-sex marriage in England & Wales, and Scotland was the most important factor here. Northern Ireland also finally equalised adoption rights for same-sex couples. There’s a certain irony to Britain being the world’s leading voice when it comes to LGBTI rights. When Britain colonised the world it brought with it its homophobic laws and ideas to places which previously had none. If you look at a map of the countries which still criminalise same-sex relationships, they tend to fall into two of the following categories: Muslim majority or former British territory. A legacy like this is embarrassing to say the least, but the best we can do it show how wrong we were and continue to lead the world on gay rights issues.

For more information visit ILGA's website: http://www.ilga-europe.org/home/publications/rainbow_europe

*lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans & intersex

**Full marriage bill pending in Andorra, Austria, Finland, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and Switzerland.

Civil union (or equivalent) bill pending in Croatia and Italy, proposed in Cyprus.

Other recognition of same-sex couples bill pending in Austria, Estonia, Germany, Greece and Poland, proposed in Albania, San Marino and Slovenia.

In Ireland same-sex marriage is to go to a referendum in 2015, highly likely to succeed.

Five Worst Bible Verses

I feel lucky to live in the United Kingdom, and although 58% of the country identified as Christian, religion does not get brought into politics very often. The only recent debate in which religion featured predominantly was the same-sex marriage debate. The same cannot be said of the United States in which Christianity features heavily in every debate. Religion should be a private affair, between you and your God, not with the rest of the country. As a irreligious person this might really anger you, so here are five bible verses that contradict the idea that the God of the bible is a loving God.

1.       God kills 42 children: 2:23-24

"Elisha left Jericho to go to Bethel, and on the way some boys came out of the town and made fun of him. "Get out of here, baldy!" they shouted. Elisha turned around, glared at them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and tore 42 of the boys to pieces."

That’s right, God killed 42 children just because they called his prophet bald.

2.       God condones slavery: 1 Timothy 6:1-2

“Those who are not slaves must consider their masters worthy of all respect, so that no one will speak evil of the name of God and of our teaching. Slaves belonging to Christian masters must not despise them, for they are their brothers and sisters. Instead they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their work are believers whom they love.”

Perhaps God would have been on the side of the Confederacy during the American Civil War, because apparently he’s perfectly fine with slavery.

3.       God on rape: Deuteronomy 22:28-29

“Suppose a man is caught raping a young woman who is not engaged. He is to pay her father the ‘bride price’ of fifty pieces of silver, and she is to become his wife, because he forced her to have intercourse with him. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”

This really gives you an insight into how women were once treated. They are the property of their father until they get married. Basically, according to this bible verse. If you have 50 silver pieces, you can rape any woman who is not married or engaged, you just have to marry her afterwards. Poor you. I tried to find out how much 50 silver pieces is in today’s money but ‘piece’ is a rather undefined amount and silver is significantly less valuable today than several millennia ago.

4.       Killing innocent babies: Psalms 137:8-9

“Babylon, you will be destroyed. Happy are those who pay you back for what you have done to us – who take your babies and smash them against a rock.”

Apparently murdering babies is cool with God. At this stage I’m not too sure if I’m reading the word of God or the word of Joffrey Baratheon.

5.       Human sacrifices: Judges 11:30-32

“Jephithah promised the Lord: If you give me victory over the Ammonites, I will burn as an offering the first person that comes out of my house to meet me when I come back from victory. I will offer that person as a sacrifice.”

If you read the rest of the verse he ends up sacrificing his daughter, at no point does God intervene and stop it. But it was all OK as his daughter was fine with it, the only thing she was upset about was that she would die a virgin.

In my opinion you have the right to follow any religion: even if I feel that the religion is full of hate and a poor source for ‘moral’ behaviour. That’s your choice. But you don’t get to try and enforce your religion on the rest of society.

When all Christians stop trying to force their religion on other people, I will stop pointing out the parts of the Bible that are really nasty.  

If you want to find even more bible verses that should be condemned, visit www.evilbible.com

Note: The bible I used for these quotes is the Good News Bible, published by “The Bible Societies/Collins” which is a division of HarperCollinsPublishers. I used the 2004 version.

In Defence of Homophobes

Gay rights has made great progress across the West in recent years. At the start of this century not a single jurisdiction recognised same-sex marriage, now 19 countries (or parts of them) recognise same-sex marriage. In the US 17 states still had sodomy laws that banned gay sex in 2000.

As a direct result, being homophobic is becoming increasingly unpopular, so much so that it is causing people to lose their jobs! Earlier today the news broke that two brothers, David and Jason Benham, had their show on HGTV (an American channel) cancelled before it even started. Why? Right Wing Watch published an article in which it accused them of being virulently homophobic, with evidence attached. This caused the collective outrage machine, also known as the internet, to attack the brothers and demand that HGTV cancel their show. Back in March Mozilla Firefox appointed Brendan Eich as its CEO. This angered many gay rights activists who were upset at a $1000 donation Eich had made back in 2008 to California’s Proposition 8 which banned same-sex marriage. They demanded Eich’s head, and with the serious threat of a boycott, he resigned on the 3^rd of April, he lasted just ten days.

So is it right to fire people for their opinions, especially when those opinions are shared by millions within their respective country? I say no, we all have opinions which others would be horrified by, how would we feel if we got fired because of our opinions. So long as it doesn’t affect the ability for you to do your job, and it’s not illegal, you shouldn’t be fired, in my opinion.

Sarah Palin was one of many conservative politicians
who rallied to Chick-fil-A's side in 2012.
source: hypervocal.com

There are other reasons why gay rights activists should be careful demanding boycotts and people’s heads on spikes. One would be the potential for backfire, particularly in the US. Remember in 2012 and the whole Chick-fil-A scandal? Gay rights groups got very angry over anti-same-sex marriage donations and statements made by the COO Dan Cathy and demanded a boycott. Big mistake. Many conservatives rallied to Chick-fil-A’s side going so far as to have a “Chick-Fil-A appreciation Day” in which people went to the restaurants to celebrate the company’s homophobia. The direct result of the “boycotts” was a 30% rise in Chick-Fil-A’s profits. Opps.

There is another potential problem: inconsistency. It’s very easy to demand the boycott of Mozilla Firefox when you already use Google Chrome, or refuse to watch HGTV when you’ve never even heard of the channel. It’s easy to say that you’ll never eat at Chick-fil-A when you’ve never previously visited the establishment. It’s easy in those situations because all you are is a “keyboard warrior*”, who is sacrificing zilch. When was the last time that you heard of a serious demand to boycott Saudi Arabian oil, as the country puts homosexuals to death? After all, that is a lot worse than banning gays from getting married. If you demand that Eich, Cathy or the Benham brothers lose their jobs over anti-gay comments or donations, then I can only assume that you make sure that none of your clothes come from Pakistan or Bangladesh as they throw homosexuals in prison. You should demand these boycotts, but you might find yourself short on allies as those boycotts would actually cost people money and require effort.

Mob action also harms the gay rights movement in another way, it makes us look like the homophobes we hate; people with a dogmatic world view who ferociously attack anyone with a dissenting opinion. You don’t convince people to your side of the debate by shouting them down or forcibly silencing them. You have to engage in a debate, only then can you win. Of course there will be people who cannot be swayed by logic or reason, but we don’t need them. So long as a solid majority can be persuaded to our viewpoint, we will win. You also have to remember that their companies employ thousands of other people. By boycotting a company which has a high-ranking employee who makes a homophobic statement, you harm all their employees who are not homophobic. Is this really fair? Of course not.

There is one group of people who this does not apply to: elected officials. Elected officials are supposed to represent the public, unlike CEOs or TV hosts, and hence losing their job for shocking opinions should be what happens. Remember the UKIP councillor from Henley-on-Thames, David Silvester, who blamed the recent floods in the UK on gays? UKIP was absolutely right to throw him out of the party.

I do understand why people want to fire homophobes, but I do fear that it could do more harm than good to the gay rights movement.

*I appreciate the irony of using this phrase as I am also a keyboard warrior. I love the work of many “keyboard warrior” organisations, such as Avaaz; I am a proud follower and donor. But I dislike it when people only sign petitions.

For a full list of countries who ban homosexuality, click here. Note there are two revisions, India now gives homosexuals a minor sentence and Brunei puts them to death.