Reinfeldt has added that he's resigning as party leader and expects that they will be in opposition for the next 4 years. He gave a hat-tip to Cameron (and Obama) as people he'd enjoyed working with. He didn't (so far as I noticed) comment on what the centre parties ought to do.
Thanks NP - yes I thought he said something like that, the body language wasn't someone who was carrying on!
So will Lofven try and peel off the Centre (or Libs?) to give him conf & supply so he's not at the mercy of the SD's?
BTW we count only nine polls with fieldwork end-date 8th to 12th,
fieldwork end Survation 12th September 2014 YouGov 12th September 2014 YouGov 11th September 2014 Populus 11th September 2014 Opinium 11th September 2014 YouGov 10th September 2014 YouGov 9th September 2014 Ipsos-MORI 9th September 2014 YouGov 8th September 2014
Ah OK, Populus and Ashcroft are omitted as fieldwork ended on 7th.
But in that case you need to wait for tomorrow to announce the week's ELBOW - in order to include the Populus and Ashcroft which will be announced tomorrow morning and afternoon - otherwise these will never be included.
Fear not, MikeL! They will be included, we'll just need to update our Excel file and the resulting figures!
BTW we never use the "headline" party-wise tallies, as we have found that looking at the tables and using the actual samples used and the relevant weighted "total voters" sometimes - rarely - gives figures that are at variance.
Case in point:
YouGov (end-date 10th Sep) had a headline Lab tally of 38%, but looking at the tables revealed it was actually 38.65%!
@ Charles - Arian are heretics, not Christians. The fact that someone claims to be something doesn't make it true
They were Christians up until the point a rival doctrine declared them not to be so. Just because someone claims someone else is not something does not make it true either, there is no single authority on what makes someone a christian, and if modern christianity has evolved considerably from its earliest beginnings, when it appears there was considerable disagreement on some fundamental questions, what makes one a heretic today might not have then and might not in the future, hence all the many 'back to the basics' movements through history which reject the churches of their time for what they think is the intended 'pure' and 'true' faith which has been lost.
There are many things about some modern christian denominations which would have not been acceptable hundreds or thousands of years ago. That's why someone's self identification of christianity makes more sense to me than the reverse (they may well not be 'mainstream' however), because the cut off point of what makes a true christian, however divergent from one denomination to another, can always be shifted, from nicenean to chalcedonian and so on and so on.
'God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.'
Can you give any examples of substance where modern Christian denominations have moved away from this? In belief, not method of demonstrating or exercising that belief.
You quoted 1 out of 107 questions and responses.
For instance, Q6 would exclude the Arians.
I know. But I was asking about modern Christian denominations. I agree with you! (Or vice versa)
Charles speaking a lot of crap about heresy and Christianity on the previous thread. Just because you had a Roman Emperor on your side doesn't make your side right.
IIRC, you're a atheist, aren't you? (It may be @RichardT)
But as far as I'm concerned, it's up to the main recognised Christian faiths to decide whether they view another group as being part of the same faith as them
And who determines which ones are 'main' enough to decide that? Is it judged by number of adherents? Restorationists are not permitted to seek an early time and still be within the umbrella of the same faith, despite earlier denominations making their own changes as they wanted? Interesting distinctions at play, but then without such things we would not have so many denominations within single faiths of course.
There was even a Crusade against the Cathars - not out somewhere in the Mid-east, but in France!
If I've added up correctly, it looks like the centre-left's lead over the centre-right is going to be about 4 points, which is about half of what most of the recent opinion polls were saying.
Suggests a significant number of SD votes came from previous centre-left voters.
If the Royal Family doesn't get involved in politics why do they have to have so many meetings with Ministers?
The Queen meets the PM weekly. That is very often - what on earth are they talking about if it isn't day to day political matters? If the Queen just needed to be kept broadly up to date surely fortnightly would do?
And a week or two ago, Cameron had a meeting with Prince Charles the very day before or after he met the Queen. What was that for? Couldn't the Queen inform Prince Charles of anything important?
The impression I get is that the Royal Family are involved a very great deal - even if they aren't actively interfering they are taking up huge amounts of people's time.
Cameron has a busy and important job to do - is it really a sensible use of his time to be seeing the Queen and Prince Charles on consecutive days? If the Royal Family isn't taking part in any decisions why does so much time need to be spent with them?
""No indirect passive aggressive mentions either please"
Like what? I'm not quite sure what you are referring to.
I would have sent this as a personal message, but we all know how you will just publish the PM on the main board a few weeks later, out of context, in an attempt to prove some farcical point."
Ummm... I don't want to take sides here, but maybe he meant just like the last sentence I quoted..
That was hardly passive-aggressive. It is factual, and explains why I have to mention it on this board rather than PM him directly.
Besides, it is hard to avoid mentioning someone when your post is in reply to theirs. I think he was referring to mentions in other, unrelated, posts ...
You did say in that sentence that we all knew he'd reveal a private message, do it out of context, and to make a farcical point. If they're all facts, maybe I misread the passive part..
They're all facts. I'm not sure where you're going with the 'passive' part.
Ho hum. I'm off to bed.
I didn't know Isam would reveal a private message and he doesn't always make out of context and/or farcical points. That's them "facts" dealt with.
On the "passive" part, if you take it away from passive-aggressive you're left with ........? You normally post stuff I agree with, and I wanted Isam to answer your questions - I'd love to know what Ukippers would have as their red lines on immigration. But that line seemed, to me at least, quite unnecessarily rude.
I did answer. I said if the kids were under 18, fine, but no state benefits and this hypothetical highly skilled indian engineer with six children could apply for citizenship after 5-6 years.
If the Royal Family doesn't get involved in politics why do they have to have so many meetings with Ministers?
The Queen meets the PM weekly. That is very often - what on earth are they talking about if it isn't day to day political matters? If the Queen just needed to be kept broadly up to date surely fortnightly would do?
And a week or two ago, Cameron had a meeting with Prince Charles the very day before or after he met the Queen. What was that for? Couldn't the Queen inform Prince Charles of anything important?
The impression I get is that the Royal Family are involved a very great deal - even if they aren't actively interfering they are taking up huge amounts of people's time.
Cameron has a busy and important job to do - is it really a sensible use of his time to be seeing the Queen and Prince Charles on consecutive days? If the Royal Family isn't taking part in any decisions why does so much time need to be spent with them?
I totally agree. It's a totally unsubstantiated rumour, but I heard (can't even remember where) that the Privy Council before the last election favoured a coalition. And that's exactly what happened. Don't have a go at me, I'm not endorsing this view.
Why on earth is John Bickley getting it in the neck from the Guardian and from Labour? His comments seem perfectly reasonable:
Bickley is quoted in the leaflet as saying that his father was a Labour trade unionist and worked hard to give his family a good start in life.
"The Labour party of today would be unrecognisable to him," Bickley wrote. "They have betrayed ordinary working people through their love affair with immigration, political correctness and multi-culturalism.
"Labour's betrayal is no more apparent than with the young white working-class girls of Rotherham and Rochdale where rather than upset immigrant communities, years of abuse were ignored and complaints swept under the carpet.
"Meanwhile, the Tories have stood idly by as immigration has driven wages down, created housing shortages and made the life of ordinary people tougher every day."
Naturally, I wouldn't agree with the last of those points, but he hasn't said anything unpleasant, incendiary or objectionable there, they are all reasonable political opinions.
He also comes over as very reasonable in this interview from a local paper:
The mischievous-but-not-necessarily-realistic bit of my brain is thinking that the two by-elections on 9th October 2014 might be like the two which happened on 28th April 1977.
Grimsby: marginal Labour, unexpectedly held Ashfield: safe Labour, unexpectedly lost to Conservative
What if the Conservative Party managed to hold Clacton (like in Newark) but then UKIP sneaked through to gain Heywood & Middleton instead?
Unlikely. But more exciting than being bludgeoned to death with a cucumber.
I remember that night's by election special. The cameras were at Grimsby and Austin Mitchell with his anti EEC stance hung on at a time when Labour was doing badly at the polls [ IMF and all that ]. Ashfield results came late and Robin Day's mouth almost fell off. Hattersley was in the studio and immediately said all those mid term stuff.
If the Royal Family doesn't get involved in politics why do they have to have so many meetings with Ministers?
The Queen meets the PM weekly. That is very often - what on earth are they talking about if it isn't day to day political matters? If the Queen just needed to be kept broadly up to date surely fortnightly would do?
And a week or two ago, Cameron had a meeting with Prince Charles the very day before or after he met the Queen. What was that for? Couldn't the Queen inform Prince Charles of anything important?
The impression I get is that the Royal Family are involved a very great deal - even if they aren't actively interfering they are taking up huge amounts of people's time.
Cameron has a busy and important job to do - is it really a sensible use of his time to be seeing the Queen and Prince Charles on consecutive days? If the Royal Family isn't taking part in any decisions why does so much time need to be spent with them?
I totally agree. It's a totally unsubstantiated rumour, but I heard (can't even remember where) that the Privy Council before the last election favoured a coalition. And that's exactly what happened. Don't have a go at me, I'm not endorsing this view.
For the record I don't think the whole Privy Council ever meets - I think there are literally hundreds of Privy Councillors, maybe even a thousand.
Whenever the Privy Council officially meets it's just a tiny number of these people.
Apparently the big name coming out for Better Together is David Beckham
Saw that kicking about.. No pun intended.
He's a good signing (groan). But really he is -there's a bit of a connection there too, as he's launched a new whisky with Simon Fuller and Diageo recently.
Christopher Chope has told the BBC that there are enough back bench Conservative MPs in Parliament who are against more powers going to Scotland in the event of a No vote and who would vote against such a move.
Chope was discussing more powers on BBC Radio 4 when he was asked if he accepted that Westminster had now lost the power to veto further devolution as outlined by Gordon Brown this week. The MP replied: "No, I don't accept anything has been lost. If there is a No vote then it will be the status quo".
Challenged by the presenter that it would not be no change, Chope replied: "It will be, because we can't change the constitution without the approval of the United Kingdom Parliament and that seems to have been lost in this debate."
Tory MPs haven't won a majority in Westminster since the election of 1992. So not likely to be in a position to do that.
But its the Conservatives in government not Gordon Brown.
Therefore its not Gordon Brown who will be making decisions.
But on something like this all party leaders will probably reach agreement. It won't be tory backbenchers deciding either, so no concerns there either.
Cameron isn't going to be making any decision which a majority of Conservatives oppose.
HM Queen is already Monarch of 15 INDEPENDENT Commonwealth realms, as well as the UK itself.
Canada Australia New Zealand Jamaica Antigua Bahamas Barbados Belize Grenada Papua New Guinea St Kitts St Lucia St Vincent Solomon Islands Tuvalu
Do British Overseas Territories not count?
Nope, because they are NOT independent (and same applies to Jersey, Guernsey and Man).
Where is Tudalu BTW?
Tuvalu. It's a Pacific island nation. Most of the other English-speaking Pacific nations are republics, dependencies of the UK/Aus/NZ or of the USA.
The sun still never sets on the British empire. Although I think an upcoming eclipse is going to briefly cause that to happen in a few years time for the first time in a very long while.
Apparently the big name coming out for Better Together is David Beckham
Saw that kicking about.. No pun intended.
He's a good signing (groan). But really he is -there's a bit of a connection there too, as he's launched a new whisky with Simon Fuller and Diageo recently.
I think he will be. He's popular with various streams of people.
If the Royal Family doesn't get involved in politics why do they have to have so many meetings with Ministers?
The Queen meets the PM weekly. That is very often - what on earth are they talking about if it isn't day to day political matters? If the Queen just needed to be kept broadly up to date surely fortnightly would do?
And a week or two ago, Cameron had a meeting with Prince Charles the very day before or after he met the Queen. What was that for? Couldn't the Queen inform Prince Charles of anything important?
The impression I get is that the Royal Family are involved a very great deal - even if they aren't actively interfering they are taking up huge amounts of people's time.
Cameron has a busy and important job to do - is it really a sensible use of his time to be seeing the Queen and Prince Charles on consecutive days? If the Royal Family isn't taking part in any decisions why does so much time need to be spent with them?
The Queen doesn't "not get involved in politics". The Queen and her family never vote or stand for political office and she must remain politically neutral.
Charles speaking a lot of crap about heresy and Christianity on the previous thread. Just because you had a Roman Emperor on your side doesn't make your side right.
IIRC, you're a atheist, aren't you? (It may be @RichardT)
But as far as I'm concerned, it's up to the main recognised Christian faiths to decide whether they view another group as being part of the same faith as them
And who determines which ones are 'main' enough to decide that? Is it judged by number of adherents? Restorationists are not permitted to seek an early time and still be within the umbrella of the same faith, despite earlier denominations making their own changes as they wanted? Interesting distinctions at play, but then without such things we would not have so many denominations within single faiths of course.
I'd say the main ones are the Orthodox tradition, the Catholics and the Anglican Communion.
The definition of whether a faith is "Christian" or not should be whether one of the three main traditions accepts that they are part of the same communion (i.e. will they let them take Eucharist).
At the time it was a decision of the Council of Nicea which represented the collective view of all Christians at the time. There's a reasonable case for allowing the main groups in a given faith to determine who belongs to that faith and who doesn't.
That's like saying someone wasn't a Marxist because they, or their doctrines were condemned by Comintern. Plainly absurd.
No: Marxism is a doctrine adherence with which can be objectively validated.
Christianty is a question of a faith with no objective definition. It's up to the leaders of that faith to decide who is a member.
Why on earth is John Bickley getting it in the neck from the Guardian and from Labour? His comments seem perfectly reasonable:
Bickley is quoted in the leaflet as saying that his father was a Labour trade unionist and worked hard to give his family a good start in life.
"The Labour party of today would be unrecognisable to him," Bickley wrote. "They have betrayed ordinary working people through their love affair with immigration, political correctness and multi-culturalism.
"Labour's betrayal is no more apparent than with the young white working-class girls of Rotherham and Rochdale where rather than upset immigrant communities, years of abuse were ignored and complaints swept under the carpet.
"Meanwhile, the Tories have stood idly by as immigration has driven wages down, created housing shortages and made the life of ordinary people tougher every day."
Naturally, I wouldn't agree with the last of those points, but he hasn't said anything unpleasant, incendiary or objectionable there, they are all reasonable political opinions.
He also comes over as very reasonable in this interview from a local paper:
Charles speaking a lot of crap about heresy and Christianity on the previous thread. Just because you had a Roman Emperor on your side doesn't make your side right.
IIRC, you're a atheist, aren't you? (It may be @RichardT)
But as far as I'm concerned, it's up to the main recognised Christian faiths to decide whether they view another group as being part of the same faith as them
I'm an agnostic.
What sort of weaselly word is "recognised" here? Recognised by who? If the Catholic Church and the Orthodox church wanted to unrecognise the Protestants, would that then mean the Protestants are no longer Christian?
This is the tyranny of the majority you're talking about here. The Pope and the General Synod of the Church of England don't get to decide who's a real Christian any more than David Cameron gets to decide who's a real conservative.
Christopher Chope has told the BBC that there are enough back bench Conservative MPs in Parliament who are against more powers going to Scotland in the event of a No vote and who would vote against such a move.
Chope was discussing more powers on BBC Radio 4 when he was asked if he accepted that Westminster had now lost the power to veto further devolution as outlined by Gordon Brown this week. The MP replied: "No, I don't accept anything has been lost. If there is a No vote then it will be the status quo".
Challenged by the presenter that it would not be no change, Chope replied: "It will be, because we can't change the constitution without the approval of the United Kingdom Parliament and that seems to have been lost in this debate."
Tory MPs haven't won a majority in Westminster since the election of 1992. So not likely to be in a position to do that.
But its the Conservatives in government not Gordon Brown.
Therefore its not Gordon Brown who will be making decisions.
But on something like this all party leaders will probably reach agreement. It won't be tory backbenchers deciding either, so no concerns there either.
Cameron isn't going to be making any decision which a majority of Conservatives oppose.
It may not be his problem in the event of a Yes vote of course. Also, a majority of Conservatives (in parliament at the least) did not support gay marriage and he still did it through the support of other parties.
Charles speaking a lot of crap about heresy and Christianity on the previous thread. Just because you had a Roman Emperor on your side doesn't make your side right.
IIRC, you're a atheist, aren't you? (It may be @RichardT)
But as far as I'm concerned, it's up to the main recognised Christian faiths to decide whether they view another group as being part of the same faith as them
I'm an agnostic.
What sort of weaselly word is "recognised" here? Recognised by who? If the Catholic Church and the Orthodox church wanted to unrecognise the Protestants, would that then mean the Protestants are no longer Christian?
This is the tyranny of the majority you're talking about here. The Pope and the General Synod of the Church of England don't get to decide who's a real Christian any more than David Cameron gets to decide who's a real conservative.
Well, actually they do. They're the guys in charge of the club.
There is no objective definition of what "a Christian" is (I think the closest is probably a member of the fellowship of Christ - i.e. a member of the Church).
I could go around saying I'm a Scot (after all, my family came from Glasgow). But if the Scots don't recognise me as one, then it's kinda pointless, isn't it
The Queen should announce that if Scotland votes yes, then she will promote it above Wales as the training ground for the first son and heir of the UK monarch.
Didn't Charles go to Gordonstoun?
Or perhaps they could elect a monarch every five years, choosing between the descendants of the Queen. Henry the Ninth!
The Jacobites would tell you that they've already had a Henry IX
Charles speaking a lot of crap about heresy and Christianity on the previous thread. Just because you had a Roman Emperor on your side doesn't make your side right.
IIRC, you're a atheist, aren't you? (It may be @RichardT)
But as far as I'm concerned, it's up to the main recognised Christian faiths to decide whether they view another group as being part of the same faith as them
I'm an agnostic.
What sort of weaselly word is "recognised" here? Recognised by who? If the Catholic Church and the Orthodox church wanted to unrecognise the Protestants, would that then mean the Protestants are no longer Christian?
This is the tyranny of the majority you're talking about here. The Pope and the General Synod of the Church of England don't get to decide who's a real Christian any more than David Cameron gets to decide who's a real conservative.
Indeed. You could argue that "real" Christianity died when Emperor Constantine adopted it as state religion.
And a week or two ago, Cameron had a meeting with Prince Charles the very day before or after he met the Queen. What was that for? Couldn't the Queen inform Prince Charles of anything important?
The impression I get is that the Royal Family are involved a very great deal - even if they aren't actively interfering they are taking up huge amounts of people's time.
Cameron has a busy and important job to do - is it really a sensible use of his time to be seeing the Queen and Prince Charles on consecutive days? If the Royal Family isn't taking part in any decisions why does so much time need to be spent with them?
The weekly briefings for the Queen are a long-standing convention, but it's never been suggested that she expresses any opinions. Charles certainly does - his handwritten notes to ministers on numerous personal hobby-horses from organics to architecture are a notorious nuisance since they feel they have to reply but are not inclined to accommodate him unless they happen to agree. It's the main reason why I'm doubtful that he'd be any good as King.
Reinfeldt has added that he's resigning as party leader and expects that they will be in opposition for the next 4 years. He gave a hat-tip to Cameron (and Obama) as people he'd enjoyed working with. He didn't (so far as I noticed) comment on what the centre parties ought to do.
Thanks NP - yes I thought he said something like that, the body language wasn't someone who was carrying on!
So will Lofven try and peel off the Centre (or Libs?) to give him conf & supply so he's not at the mercy of the SD's?
Sweden potentially looks a bit unstable?
Lofven needs both Centre and Liberals for a solid majority: they might agree to avoid the Sweden Democrats having even a theoretical chance of influence, but quite likely not. However, minority governments are a long tradition in Sweden and haven't in the past led to instability. It's not even thought to be impossible to govern with varying majorities according to the issue, though I can't see him wanting to rely on the Sweden Democrats for anything.
The election ended up not all that different from last time, except that the SDs took a large chunk off the Moderates (Conservatives). The Feminist Party, led by a former Left (communist) leader, failed to get in, with 3% instead of the required 4%.
By the way, Andrew Sparrow of the Guardian tweeted that he was looking for someone with an idea of how the individual regions in Scotland might vote. I referred him to PB and AndyJS - he replied "Sounds ideal" so maybe he'll be along.
I can't see any "big name" for BT having an impact, except possibly the Queen, or someone like Sean Connery defecting. Yes Scotland have lined up the larger part of the big hitters in Scotland, even if they only name Kim Jongun internationally.
And a week or two ago, Cameron had a meeting with Prince Charles the very day before or after he met the Queen. What was that for? Couldn't the Queen inform Prince Charles of anything important?
The impression I get is that the Royal Family are involved a very great deal - even if they aren't actively interfering they are taking up huge amounts of people's time.
Cameron has a busy and important job to do - is it really a sensible use of his time to be seeing the Queen and Prince Charles on consecutive days? If the Royal Family isn't taking part in any decisions why does so much time need to be spent with them?
The weekly briefings for the Queen are a long-standing convention, but it's never been suggested that she expresses any opinions. Charles certainly does - his handwritten notes to ministers on numerous personal hobby-horses from organics to architecture are a notorious nuisance since they feel they have to reply but are not inclined to accommodate him unless they happen to agree. It's the main reason why I'm doubtful that he'd be any good as King.
Reinfeldt has added that he's resigning as party leader and expects that they will be in opposition for the next 4 years. He gave a hat-tip to Cameron (and Obama) as people he'd enjoyed working with. He didn't (so far as I noticed) comment on what the centre parties ought to do.
Thanks NP - yes I thought he said something like that, the body language wasn't someone who was carrying on!
So will Lofven try and peel off the Centre (or Libs?) to give him conf & supply so he's not at the mercy of the SD's?
Sweden potentially looks a bit unstable?
Lofven needs both Centre and Liberals for a solid majority: they might agree to avoid the Sweden Democrats having even a theoretical chance of influence, but quite likely not. However, minority governments are a long tradition in Sweden and haven't in the past led to instability. It's not even thought to be impossible to govern with varying majorities according to the issue, though I can't see him wanting to rely on the Sweden Democrats for anything.
The election ended up not all that different from last time, except that the SDs took a large chunk off the Moderates (Conservatives). The Feminist Party, led by a former Left (communist) leader, failed to get in, with 3% instead of the required 4%.
By the way, Andrew Sparrow of the Guardian tweeted that he was looking for someone with an idea of how the individual regions in Scotland might vote. I referred him to PB and AndyJS - he replied "Sounds ideal" so maybe he'll be along.
Thanks Nick, although I'm a bit apprehensive about how accurate my predictions will be. I didn't expect to be the only person having a go at doing council area forecasts.
Christopher Chope has told the BBC that there are enough back bench Conservative MPs in Parliament who are against more powers going to Scotland in the event of a No vote and who would vote against such a move.
Chope was discussing more powers on BBC Radio 4 when he was asked if he accepted that Westminster had now lost the power to veto further devolution as outlined by Gordon Brown this week. The MP replied: "No, I don't accept anything has been lost. If there is a No vote then it will be the status quo".
Challenged by the presenter that it would not be no change, Chope replied: "It will be, because we can't change the constitution without the approval of the United Kingdom Parliament and that seems to have been lost in this debate."
Tory MPs haven't won a majority in Westminster since the election of 1992. So not likely to be in a position to do that.
But its the Conservatives in government not Gordon Brown.
Therefore its not Gordon Brown who will be making decisions.
But on something like this all party leaders will probably reach agreement. It won't be tory backbenchers deciding either, so no concerns there either.
Cameron isn't going to be making any decision which a majority of Conservatives oppose.
Didn't more Conservative MPs vote against gay "marriage" than for?
The weekly briefings for the Queen are a long-standing convention, but it's never been suggested that she expresses any opinions. Charles certainly does - his handwritten notes to ministers on numerous personal hobby-horses from organics to architecture are a notorious nuisance since they feel they have to reply but are not inclined to accommodate him unless they happen to agree. It's the main reason why I'm doubtful that he'd be any good as King.
Yes Nick - I understand that - and I have no reason to think the Queen does interfere.
But even if the meetings are a long standing convention, why not reduce them to fortnightly? Weekly seems excessive for the role she is playing. If Scotland votes Yes will she start seeing Salmond weekly? It just seems way over the top.
Re Prince Charles - I think the PM and other Ministers should just say they are too busy and refuse to see him any more than very occasionally. Say twice a year maximum for him to see the PM.
Terrific result for the Swedish Democrats, looks like the legacy of Olof Palme and his soft totalitarian state is dying although Swedes will still only raise their concerns over immigration behind closed doors and with people they trust.
Kenny Dalglish? Has he stated a position on independence? He would be a catch, particularly as a Celtic man, given the tribal support for independence from the hibernian/catholic crowd.
Charles speaking a lot of crap about heresy and Christianity on the previous thread. Just because you had a Roman Emperor on your side doesn't make your side right.
IIRC, you're a atheist, aren't you? (It may be @RichardT)
But as far as I'm concerned, it's up to the main recognised Christian faiths to decide whether they view another group as being part of the same faith as them
I real conservative.
Well, actually they do. They're the guys in charge of the club.
There is no objective definition of what "a Christian" is (I think the closest is probably a member of the fellowship of Christ - i.e. a member of the Church).
I could go around saying I'm a Scot (after all, my family came from Glasgow). But if the Scots don't recognise me as one, then it's kinda pointless, isn't it
Perhaps, but then there is no single authority of Christianity, so again it's a question of who decides, and you've given your view on that below in terms of the major groupings. But with 10s of millions of Mormons out there who believe they are Christian and who promote many Christian beliefs, more than many denominations out there, would they not count as one of the 'main' sects who collectively decide who is Christian, if such a thing is even reasonable? Or is it like the EU, where all the main branches have to agree before you are let in? And what makes, say, the bits where Catholics, Protestants (broad term though that is) and Eastern Orthodox, disagree, acceptable differences to still be termed Christians together, but someone elses' who believes in Christ, not acceptable to be called a Christian? It's an arbitrary line, drawn by an arbitrary group, who don't even agree on some pretty fundamental things themselves.
I think it's fine if christian groups want to label other ones not christian, that's their belief after all, and many of the more mainstream ones will agree on some others they do or don't think are still worthy of being a part of Christianity, in their view. But that doesn't make them right. They could be - someone claiming to be christian who doesn't believe that christ even existed would find it hard to argue they met even the loosest definition of christianity I should think - but their word alone is hardly proof of the truth or even reasonableness of someone else purporting to be a christian. The larger denominations have gone to war (or at the least conflict) with each other over some major and minor theological distinctions over the years, distrusted one another with all their hearts. Decades or centuries later, they get along fine and those differences are no reason to reject their common christianity. Where will be tomorrow?
Christopher Chope has told the BBC that there are enough back bench Conservative MPs in Parliament who are against more powers going to Scotland in the event of a No vote and who would vote against such a move.
Chope was discussing more powers on BBC Radio 4 when he was asked if he accepted that Westminster had now lost the power to veto further devolution as outlined by Gordon Brown this week. The MP replied: "No, I don't accept anything has been lost. If there is a No vote then it will be the status quo".
Challenged by the presenter that it would not be no change, Chope replied: "It will be, because we can't change the constitution without the approval of the United Kingdom Parliament and that seems to have been lost in this debate."
Tory MPs haven't won a majority in Westminster since the election of 1992. So not likely to be in a position to do that.
But its the Conservatives in government not Gordon Brown.
Therefore its not Gordon Brown who will be making decisions.
But on something like this all party leaders will probably reach agreement. It won't be tory backbenchers deciding either, so no concerns there either.
Cameron isn't going to be making any decision which a majority of Conservatives oppose.
Didn't more Conservative MPs vote against gay "marriage" than for?
There's one question that i've always wanted to ask opponents of gay marriage; If one of your children were gay, and decided to get married, would you attend?
Save confusion. Join the Zen Christian movement, we believe there is an all powerful God, and he may be busy, so it is our duty to stop fighting and tidy up the place before he gets back. The rest of it needs fleshing out, but we thought we could make a start at "Thou shalt not kill"?
Those cries of anguish you can hear right now? It's the Cybernats discovering that Beckham doesn't have a Twitter account to send abuse to.
Actually he was never as good as the anglo-saxon supremacist marketing department made him out to be. He just had those supreme race features about him..
Charles speaking a lot of crap about heresy and Christianity on the previous thread. Just because you had a Roman Emperor on your side doesn't make your side right.
IIRC, you're a atheist, aren't you? (It may be @RichardT)
But as far as I'm concerned, it's up to the main recognised Christian faiths to decide whether they view another group as being part of the same faith as them
I'm an agnostic.
What sort of weaselly word is "recognised" here? Recognised by who? If the Catholic Church and the Orthodox church wanted to unrecognise the Protestants, would that then mean the Protestants are no longer Christian?
This is the tyranny of the majority you're talking about here. The Pope and the General Synod of the Church of England don't get to decide who's a real Christian any more than David Cameron gets to decide who's a real conservative.
Well, actually they do. They're the guys in charge of the club.
There is no objective definition of what "a Christian" is (I think the closest is probably a member of the fellowship of Christ - i.e. a member of the Church).
I could go around saying I'm a Scot (after all, my family came from Glasgow). But if the Scots don't recognise me as one, then it's kinda pointless, isn't it
The Pope is not in charge of my club.
I do not recognise his authority or legitimacy, but recognise him as a Christian
Any more than Juncker can decide who is entitled to call themselves British.
No doctrinal statement is designed to be inclusive, they are by their very nature aimed at fellow believers who do not belong to the sect writing the statement.
Those cries of anguish you can hear right now? It's the Cybernats discovering that Beckham doesn't have a Twitter account to send abuse to.
Actually he was never as good as the anglo-saxon supremacist marketing department made him out to be. He just had those supreme race features about him..
Considering David Beckham is a quarter/half Jewish, there are those he can't have supreme race features.
The feeling seems to be that it's slightly slipping away from the YES campaign at the moment. They need another poll putting them in front in the next 48 hours.
The weekly briefings for the Queen are a long-standing convention, but it's never been suggested that she expresses any opinions. Charles certainly does - his handwritten notes to ministers on numerous personal hobby-horses from organics to architecture are a notorious nuisance since they feel they have to reply but are not inclined to accommodate him unless they happen to agree. It's the main reason why I'm doubtful that he'd be any good as King.
Yes Nick - I understand that - and I have no reason to think the Queen does interfere.
But even if the meetings are a long standing convention, why not reduce them to fortnightly? Weekly seems excessive for the role she is playing. If Scotland votes Yes will she start seeing Salmond weekly? It just seems way over the top.
Re Prince Charles - I think the PM and other Ministers should just say they are too busy and refuse to see him any more than very occasionally. Say twice a year maximum for him to see the PM.
Agreed. But I'm basically a republican who doesn't mind the current arrangement too much. I guess a keen monarchist might feel that keeping the formal side going at the same level was necessary to avoid a slippery slope? Do we have any keen monarchists here?
The feeling seems to be that it's slightly slipping away from the YES campaign at the moment. They need another poll putting them in front in the next 48 hours.
As I understand it, the next polls will be Wednesday night, at least four of the buggers
Interesting programme IMO — More or Less, Radio 4 with Tim Harford:
"Understanding the Scottish referendum polls
Tim Harford talks to the pollsters about how they are trying to gauge the political mood in Scotland ahead of the independence referendum next week. He interviews Anthony Wells of YouGov and Martin Boon of ICM. Plus, he analyses UKIP's Nigel Farage's claim that more than half the population of Scotland is on benefits."
Sky news no longer showing the pictures ISIS release, good for them
Criticising the use if the name "jihadi john", I agree with that too... It makes him sound a human and almost trivialises the whole thing
Agreed.
Meanwhile - is there really anyone who has been vacillating over how to vote in Scotland for the last two years who is finally led to decide for No because DAVID BECKHAM tells him to? I do favour No, but that is bloody ridiculous. Nothing against Beckham, but I wouldn't pay regard to his advice on what to have for breakfast, never mind his advice on my nationality.
Felt it was better for NO this time. Particuarly on the NHS.
I have to say that the people in the audience were wired up to the moon - a very articulate doctor on the NO side was hard for Elaine C Smith or Stuart Hosie to counter.
And at the very end, the two groups in the audience were trying to out-chant each other with "YES YES YES" and "NO NO NO".
What I noticed was how hyped up in particular the NO people were. They seem to have been stirred.
This is crazy crazy stuff - people are really hyped up on both sides and there is going to be an almighty sense of depression for a large chunk of the Scottish population on Friday.
Is David Beckham actually confirmed, if so, what the [d]uck are they playing at? Has he even been to Scotland? It smacks of desperation, perhaps if Sir Alex came out it might not be so cringeworthy.
@Chameleon Most Scots have waded through the mire of lies for years, No one is telling the truth, and all we have left is gut instinct and bias. Edit:- Should have said celebrity endorsements are ignored.
@foxinsoxuk "I agree that it sells well. But is it intellectual material? " Can the market be wrong? That is close to heresy!
McDonalds outsells Heston Blumenthal. Does that make it better gastronomy?
An intellectual is a person whose work is primarily in the world of ideas and philosophy, I would not claim to be one myself. There are doctors who are intellectuals such as Raymond Tallis:
Sky news no longer showing the pictures ISIS release, good for them
Criticising the use if the name "jihadi john", I agree with that too... It makes him sound a human and almost trivialises the whole thing
Agreed.
Meanwhile - is there really anyone who has been vacillating over how to vote in Scotland for the last two years who is finally led to decide for No because DAVID BECKHAM tells him to? I do favour No, but that is bloody ridiculous. Nothing against Beckham, but I wouldn't pay regard to his advice on what to have for breakfast, never mind his advice on my nationality.
There's celebrity culture, and there's lunacy.
Thanks
I'll agree back! I like Beckham, but why would Scottish people see him as relevant?
IMO it may have worked with him as part of a small team including big Scottish names alongside English stars... That would have shown England and Scotland in unison ie, Becks, Fergie, Chris hoy and Bradley wiggins ?
Is David Beckham actually confirmed, if so, what the [d]uck are they playing at? Has he even been to Scotland? It smacks of desperation, perhaps if Sir Alex came out it might not be so cringeworthy.
Fergie is already a confirmed Noer, and it barely caused a flicker in the indy space time continuum.
No: Marxism is a doctrine adherence with which can be objectively validated.
Christianty is a question of a faith with no objective definition. It's up to the leaders of that faith to decide who is a member.
That is what Stalin, Trotsky and various other fanatics used to say. Whether someone is a Marxist or not cannot be determined by an analysis of a supposed doctrine which can be 'objectively validated', without descending into outright sectarianism. If one takes a purely 'objective' approach one will find that Gramsci, Marcuse and even Kautsky could validly be accused of heresy. To deny they were Marxists is as preposterous as it is anachronistic. Similarly, to deny to a large number of people their identity as Christians because a particular sect claims they are heretics is to descend to sectarianism. To what is one to make of the Anglican charge made from the sixteenth-century on, that Romanism is not a religion at all, let alone a Christian one, but a political project designed to subject princes and peoples to the temporal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome?
Christopher Chope has told the BBC that there are enough back bench Conservative MPs in Parliament who are against more powers going to Scotland in the event of a No vote and who would vote against such a move.
Chope was discussing more powers on BBC Radio 4 when he was asked if he accepted that Westminster had now lost the power to veto further devolution as outlined by Gordon Brown this week. The MP replied: "No, I don't accept anything has been lost. If there is a No vote then it will be the status quo".
Challenged by the presenter that it would not be no change, Chope replied: "It will be, because we can't change the constitution without the approval of the United Kingdom Parliament and that seems to have been lost in this debate."
Tory MPs haven't won a majority in Westminster since the election of 1992. So not likely to be in a position to do that.
But its the Conservatives in government not Gordon Brown.
Therefore its not Gordon Brown who will be making decisions.
But on something like this all party leaders will probably reach agreement. It won't be tory backbenchers deciding either, so no concerns there either.
Cameron isn't going to be making any decision which a majority of Conservatives oppose.
Didn't more Conservative MPs vote against gay "marriage" than for?
There's one question that i've always wanted to ask opponents of gay marriage; If one of your children were gay, and decided to get married, would you attend?
Simpler answer than for most people.
No, I do not have any children, but I do have godchildren.
No, I would not attend as it would be a desecration of the sacrament of marriage. Also, as the union would not produce any children, it would be a bloody waste of time and money.
Comments
It is of course Mr. Spock (why have Bones, then?).
Dr Spock was, of course, a famous paediatrician.
Related quiz question: Which planet was Dr Spock born on? Earth, of course.
So will Lofven try and peel off the Centre (or Libs?) to give him conf & supply so he's not at the mercy of the SD's?
Sweden potentially looks a bit unstable?
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Jamaica
Antigua
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Grenada
Papua New Guinea
St Kitts
St Lucia
St Vincent
Solomon Islands
Tuvalu
#eyesdown
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That would end the longest running continuous polling series in the UK's history!
The Queen meets the PM weekly. That is very often - what on earth are they talking about if it isn't day to day political matters? If the Queen just needed to be kept broadly up to date surely fortnightly would do?
And a week or two ago, Cameron had a meeting with Prince Charles the very day before or after he met the Queen. What was that for? Couldn't the Queen inform Prince Charles of anything important?
The impression I get is that the Royal Family are involved a very great deal - even if they aren't actively interfering they are taking up huge amounts of people's time.
Cameron has a busy and important job to do - is it really a sensible use of his time to be seeing the Queen and Prince Charles on consecutive days? If the Royal Family isn't taking part in any decisions why does so much time need to be spent with them?
Jk.
#justsaying
Now enough of this pleeeeeease!
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/fergie-donates-to-better-together-and-snubs-the-snps-500-limit.19680216
Said the spider to the fly
Bit odd to get an East Londoner with no Scottish connection whatsoever on board... Andy Murray would've been better, or Fergie.
Whenever the Privy Council officially meets it's just a tiny number of these people.
Well, currently anyway.
The definition of whether a faith is "Christian" or not should be whether one of the three main traditions accepts that they are part of the same communion (i.e. will they let them take Eucharist).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_communion#Agreements_between_churches
Christianty is a question of a faith with no objective definition. It's up to the leaders of that faith to decide who is a member.
What sort of weaselly word is "recognised" here? Recognised by who? If the Catholic Church and the Orthodox church wanted to unrecognise the Protestants, would that then mean the Protestants are no longer Christian?
This is the tyranny of the majority you're talking about here. The Pope and the General Synod of the Church of England don't get to decide who's a real Christian any more than David Cameron gets to decide who's a real conservative.
We are now officially through the looking glass.
Anyway, to more important things, the best film of the last 40 years is on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Edwardes
There is no objective definition of what "a Christian" is (I think the closest is probably a member of the fellowship of Christ - i.e. a member of the Church).
I could go around saying I'm a Scot (after all, my family came from Glasgow). But if the Scots don't recognise me as one, then it's kinda pointless, isn't it
Oh you're talking about Blade Runner.
The election ended up not all that different from last time, except that the SDs took a large chunk off the Moderates (Conservatives). The Feminist Party, led by a former Left (communist) leader, failed to get in, with 3% instead of the required 4%.
By the way, Andrew Sparrow of the Guardian tweeted that he was looking for someone with an idea of how the individual regions in Scotland might vote. I referred him to PB and AndyJS - he replied "Sounds ideal" so maybe he'll be along.
It's the problem with modern religion, it believes in itself more than it does God.
Buy 44.5-46.5 Sell
But even if the meetings are a long standing convention, why not reduce them to fortnightly? Weekly seems excessive for the role she is playing. If Scotland votes Yes will she start seeing Salmond weekly? It just seems way over the top.
Re Prince Charles - I think the PM and other Ministers should just say they are too busy and refuse to see him any more than very occasionally. Say twice a year maximum for him to see the PM.
I think it's fine if christian groups want to label other ones not christian, that's their belief after all, and many of the more mainstream ones will agree on some others they do or don't think are still worthy of being a part of Christianity, in their view. But that doesn't make them right. They could be - someone claiming to be christian who doesn't believe that christ even existed would find it hard to argue they met even the loosest definition of christianity I should think - but their word alone is hardly proof of the truth or even reasonableness of someone else purporting to be a christian. The larger denominations have gone to war (or at the least conflict) with each other over some major and minor theological distinctions over the years, distrusted one another with all their hearts. Decades or centuries later, they get along fine and those differences are no reason to reject their common christianity. Where will be tomorrow?
Good night all.
Those cries of anguish you can hear right now? It's the Cybernats discovering that Beckham doesn't have a Twitter account to send abuse to.
The rest of it needs fleshing out, but we thought we could make a start at "Thou shalt not kill"?
I do not recognise his authority or legitimacy, but recognise him as a Christian
Any more than Juncker can decide who is entitled to call themselves British.
No doctrinal statement is designed to be inclusive, they are by their very nature aimed at fellow believers who do not belong to the sect writing the statement.
Criticising the use if the name "jihadi john", I agree with that too... It makes him sound a human and almost trivialises the whole thing
"Understanding the Scottish referendum polls
Tim Harford talks to the pollsters about how they are trying to gauge the political mood in Scotland ahead of the independence referendum next week. He interviews Anthony Wells of YouGov and Martin Boon of ICM. Plus, he analyses UKIP's Nigel Farage's claim that more than half the population of Scotland is on benefits."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04gcfml
Meanwhile - is there really anyone who has been vacillating over how to vote in Scotland for the last two years who is finally led to decide for No because DAVID BECKHAM tells him to? I do favour No, but that is bloody ridiculous. Nothing against Beckham, but I wouldn't pay regard to his advice on what to have for breakfast, never mind his advice on my nationality.
There's celebrity culture, and there's lunacy.
"I agree that it sells well. But is it intellectual material? "
Can the market be wrong? That is close to heresy!
You learn something every day.
Tudalu! x
Felt it was better for NO this time. Particuarly on the NHS.
I have to say that the people in the audience were wired up to the moon - a very articulate doctor on the NO side was hard for Elaine C Smith or Stuart Hosie to counter.
And at the very end, the two groups in the audience were trying to out-chant each other with "YES YES YES" and "NO NO NO".
What I noticed was how hyped up in particular the NO people were. They seem to have been stirred.
This is crazy crazy stuff - people are really hyped up on both sides and there is going to be an almighty sense of depression for a large chunk of the Scottish population on Friday.
Cybernat accuses Andrew Neil of having English accent
twitter.com/afneil/status/511275030236639232
Most Scots have waded through the mire of lies for years, No one is telling the truth, and all we have left is gut instinct and bias.
Edit:- Should have said celebrity endorsements are ignored.
Breaking - David Beckham issues plea to Scots not to break up Britain: "Let’s stay together". #NoThanks's biggest celebrity backer so far.
An intellectual is a person whose work is primarily in the world of ideas and philosophy, I would not claim to be one myself. There are doctors who are intellectuals such as Raymond Tallis:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1844652734?pc_redir=1409244784&robot_redir=1#productDescription_secondary_view_pageState_1410735655845
I'll agree back! I like Beckham, but why would Scottish people see him as relevant?
IMO it may have worked with him as part of a small team including big Scottish names alongside English stars... That would have shown England and Scotland in unison ie, Becks, Fergie, Chris hoy and Bradley wiggins ?
But Beckham alone seems odd
Quality is difficult to measure with our standard tools, it bears little relation to wealth.
http://tinyurl.com/q4tg97v
No, I do not have any children, but I do have godchildren.
No, I would not attend as it would be a desecration of the sacrament of marriage.
Also, as the union would not produce any children, it would be a bloody waste of time and money.
If we do break up, most Scots will understand why, Quite a few English never will.