Kelly Tolhurst has won the open primary to be Conservative candidate for Rochester and Strood, I understand. The result is not due to be announced until this evening, but I hear that Tolhurst won by fewer than 50 votes on a turnout of 4,000
I expect UKIP will be pretty pleased to hear of that level of turnout.
I don't know why anyone thinks people will be interested in primary voting when only candidates with identical party line views are allowed to compete in the first place.
I cannot see primaries catching on in this country, the public don't care and parties don't want to give up control, the tories' experiments with them have largely been PR exercises.
4000 .... erm that's slightly lower than I was hoping for...
Fret not.
Think of it as a low innings test match, especially in light of UKIP getting a big chunk of 2010 non voters.
I'm not sure she's right..
1m Louise Mensch ✔ @LouiseMensch Great news that @KellyTolhurst the new candidate for #RochesterandStrood - 4,000 turnout great for a by-election #localgirl
Just how much have you "lumped on" for :O) ?
Erm... nearly 4 figures.
This is probably a good time to re-watch Pollyanna.
It's rather high considering what can happen if you're caught. And the bootlegging industry there is massive, much of which will not appear in the official figures. For instance there are an estimated 200,000 alcoholics in the country (although their definition might be different from ours). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18504268
The tone of this argument is rather hilarious. Instead of reaching out to the moderate Muslims who, like you, me and many other people, occasionally break the strictures of whatever religion they have, some on here are saying: "You drink! You stink! You're not true Muslims!"
What do you mean, "you"? I don't break any lifestyle strictures of my religion, because I'm not foolish enough to belong to the sort of outfit that has such things.
It was a generic 'you, me and many other people'. I could just as easily have said 'we all', and for religion, 'beliefs and rules'.
But I guess if you're nitpicking on that pathetic point, you agree with everything else I said?
Yes - I'd made a post saying similar things shortly before, so I assumed I didn't need to agree again. My response to you was jokey faux outrage.
Many millions of Jews and Catholics would beg to differ
Well here's the problem. Islam is not like modern Christianity, is it? Nor is it like moderate forms of Judaism.
It is much more strict and definitive, it doesn't offer a pick and mix morality. That's half the appeal.
Muslims who drink who also claim they are still Muslim remind me of polygamous Mormons claiming they are Christian. The Mormons can believe what they like but most Christians would say they are, by definition, not Christian.
Religion is self identified. No-one gets to say whether you are or not religious except you. Mormons are Christians because they say they are. Catholics are Christians even if Ian Paisley says they are not.
We've had this debate before, but you can't self identify into another group if they refuse to recognise you.
Mormons are not Christians, because most Christians believe they are separate. It doesn't matter what I believe.
Rubbish. Religion isn't majority rules. Protestants didn't suddenly become Christians just because the Catholic Church suddenly decided to stop seeing them as heretics.
Protestants were Catholics who have a disagreement about governance. The theological differences - at least at the time of the split were not that significant.
Mormons are an entirely different religion which has co-opted certain Christian beliefs and traditions. But there are enough differences that mean they are not recognised as members of the holy catholic* church or the communion of saints.
Kelly Tolhurst has won the open primary to be Conservative candidate for Rochester and Strood, I understand. The result is not due to be announced until this evening, but I hear that Tolhurst won by fewer than 50 votes on a turnout of 4,000
I expect UKIP will be pretty pleased to hear of that level of turnout.
I don't know why anyone thinks people will be interested in primary voting when only candidates with identical party line views are allowed to compete in the first place.
I cannot see primaries catching on in this country, the public don't care and parties don't want to give up control, the tories' experiments with them have largely been PR exercises.
Eventually parties will realise they will fall by the wayside unless they allow the public views to feed into them more effectively. The Tories are ahead of the curve on this, but they still insist on maintaining control over the process, which defeats the point.
Charles Wrong. A lot of Protestants would have you believe that Catholics are not Christians. Who does the arbitration? You, me, them? Who?
Apparently if a majority of protestant denominations (and god alone knows how many there are) accept Catholics as fellow christians, then those protestants that do not are not proper christians themselves maybe?
This is a classification nightmare based upon assuming that there is and always will be a worldwide cosy consensus on sometimes minute differences or interpretations (and sometimes more major ones it is true) which cannot be accepted to be under the umbrella of a wider faith, and which ones can, and the false idea that which differences have been deemed allowable and which not is static.
It makes me wonder if Quakers are considered proper Christians. Even in Cromwell's day some of his fellows felt the Quakers to all be unacceptable, but others viewed them far less harshly, so I wonder how things panned out in the end, re acceptance.
Kelly Tolhurst has won the open primary to be Conservative candidate for Rochester and Strood, I understand. The result is not due to be announced until this evening, but I hear that Tolhurst won by fewer than 50 votes on a turnout of 4,000
I expect UKIP will be pretty pleased to hear of that level of turnout.
I don't know why anyone thinks people will be interested in primary voting when only candidates with identical party line views are allowed to compete in the first place.
I cannot see primaries catching on in this country, the public don't care and parties don't want to give up control, the tories' experiments with them have largely been PR exercises.
I can see primaries working in this country, purely for leadership elections, we could model it on the American way, but with counties instead of states.
Start of with a couple of smaller counties, such as the Norfolk Primary and Cornwall Caucus, then for the next few weeks other counties join in.
Then a week later, we could have Super Thursday, when the important counties in the UK vote, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, North Yorkshire and East Yorkshire* all voting on one day.
TGOHF Yes, looks like Kelly Tolhurst is the Tory candidate for the Rochester by-election, as a local councillor born and raised in Rochester probably the best pick
It is a farce how many people are tweeting congrats to our Kelly Tolly and the turnout number and yet this seems to be down to the holidaying Spectator journo.
Not impressive way to break the news!! And as OGH posted, if she only won by 50 or so, it's not a massive % mandate either.
Charles Wrong. A lot of Protestants would have you believe that Catholics are not Christians. Who does the arbitration? You, me, them? Who?
Evidence? I am not aware of a single Protestant who believes Catholics are not Christians (and, especially in the US, there are plenty of Protestants who believe really weird sh1t)
A good starting place would be anyone who professes the Nicene Creed. This includes Catholics (Romans and Ruthenians), Oriental Orthodox (Copts and Malankara), Eastern Orthodox (Americans, Greek, Romans and Antiochians), Anglicans, Lutherans and Presbyterians. You could clearly add a lot of Protestants (Methodists, Baptists, etc) to this
Kelly Tolhurst has won the open primary to be Conservative candidate for Rochester and Strood, I understand. The result is not due to be announced until this evening, but I hear that Tolhurst won by fewer than 50 votes on a turnout of 4,000
I expect UKIP will be pretty pleased to hear of that level of turnout.
I don't know why anyone thinks people will be interested in primary voting when only candidates with identical party line views are allowed to compete in the first place.
I cannot see primaries catching on in this country, the public don't care and parties don't want to give up control, the tories' experiments with them have largely been PR exercises.
I think Open Caucuses have become quite common for the Conservatives. (they call them open primaries though)
Boston and Skegness will be selecting their candidate soon.
Kelly Tolhurst has won the open primary to be Conservative candidate for Rochester and Strood, I understand. The result is not due to be announced until this evening, but I hear that Tolhurst won by fewer than 50 votes on a turnout of 4,000
I expect UKIP will be pretty pleased to hear of that level of turnout.
I don't know why anyone thinks people will be interested in primary voting when only candidates with identical party line views are allowed to compete in the first place.
Quite. CCHQ clearly didn't want to take the risk of any diverse, yet alone colourful, candidates. So R&S voters have (probably rightly) concluded that this is a ruse by the Tories to make them think that they respect their views and are interested in their real opinions.
Many millions of Jews and Catholics would beg to differ
Well here's the problem. Islam is not like modern Christianity, is it? Nor is it like moderate forms of Judaism.
It is much more strict and definitive, it doesn't offer a pick and mix morality. That's half the appeal.
Muslims who drink who also claim they are still Muslim remind me of polygamous Mormons claiming they are Christian. The Mormons can believe what they like but most Christians would say they are, by definition, not Christian.
Religion is self identified. No-one gets to say whether you are or not religious except you. Mormons are Christians because they say they are. Catholics are Christians even if Ian Paisley says they are not.
We've had this debate before, but you can't self identify into another group if they refuse to recognise you.
Mormons are not Christians, because most Christians believe they are separate. It doesn't matter what I believe.
Rubbish. Religion isn't majority rules. Protestants didn't suddenly become Christians just because the Catholic Church suddenly decided to stop seeing them as heretics.
Yes indeed. If classification of religion/sect in an academic sense could only be by the consent of the largest other group or groups that preceded the formation of the new sect, then for one no offshoots could possibly exist because the first time someone diverged from the initial form they would have and would still be labelled as not truly belonging to that faith, and yet somehow there have been hundreds of incredibly divergent sects of the Christian faith in the past 2000 years. How nice that offshoots with their potentially wacky ideas were no doubt condemned by the status quo and yet may be accepted as brothers and sisters of the faith now, almost as though the rules on who is an accepted christian has changed a great deal in that time and will continue to evolve, and that so many aspects of the most divergent existing 'christian' churches may be so far apart from one another, but we can be certain that the majority will never adjust on one or more other aspects, that a line will have been drawn in those instances that will never change.
But that's the point. These wacky sects are "accepted as brothers and sisters of the faith". Mormons come from a different tradition - that's fine, and the Mormons I know are all very nice people. But they're from a different religion.
4000 .... erm that's slightly lower than I was hoping for...
Fret not.
Think of it as a low innings test match, especially in light of UKIP getting a big chunk of 2010 non voters.
I'm not sure she's right..
1m Louise Mensch ✔ @LouiseMensch Great news that @KellyTolhurst the new candidate for #RochesterandStrood - 4,000 turnout great for a by-election #localgirl
Just how much have you "lumped on" for :O) ?
Erm... nearly 4 figures.
This is probably a good time to re-watch Pollyanna.
Charles Wrong. A lot of Protestants would have you believe that Catholics are not Christians. Who does the arbitration? You, me, them? Who?
More relevantly, within a few years of the Reformation, Catholics believed that Protestants weren't Christians. They've since changed their views over the last few centuries. Presumably Charles believes hundreds of millions of people suddenly became Christian when the Catholic at the 50th percentile changed his mind at some point in the 19th century.
No - I'm and Anglican, who believed that Anglicans were always Christians.
The fact that a few numpties in Rome were numpties for a few generations is neither here nor there.
O/T - John Baron must be a serious flight risk now.
He's had the decency not to deny it, and is certainly a rebel, maverick and free-thinker (particularly scepticism on foreign intervention) so would fit well within UKIP. Carswell is probably buttering him up as we speak.
Charles Wrong. A lot of Protestants would have you believe that Catholics are not Christians. Who does the arbitration? You, me, them? Who?
Evidence? I am not aware of a single Protestant who believes Catholics are not Christians (and, especially in the US, there are plenty of Protestants who believe really weird sh1t)
A good starting place would be anyone who professes the Nicene Creed. This includes Catholics (Romans and Ruthenians), Oriental Orthodox (Copts and Malankara), Eastern Orthodox (Americans, Greek, Romans and Antiochians), Anglicans, Lutherans and Presbyterians. You could clearly add a lot of Protestants (Methodists, Baptists, etc) to this
Charles Wrong. A lot of Protestants would have you believe that Catholics are not Christians. Who does the arbitration? You, me, them? Who?
More relevantly, within a few years of the Reformation, Catholics believed that Protestants weren't Christians. They've since changed their views over the last few centuries. Presumably Charles believes hundreds of millions of people suddenly became Christian when the Catholic at the 50th percentile changed his mind at some point in the 19th century.
No - I'm and Anglican, who believed that Anglicans were always Christians.
The fact that a few numpties in Rome were numpties for a few generations is neither here nor there.
But Catholics were the majority of Christians in the 18th Century, and at the time the Catholics considered you Anglicans heretics. So the majority of Christians at that time considered you lot "not Christians", so they've met your bar for excluding Mormons.
Unless of course, you're applying a huge double standard for your lot and for their lot. I guess that's to be expected when it comes to religion.
Charles Wrong. A lot of Protestants would have you believe that Catholics are not Christians. Who does the arbitration? You, me, them? Who?
More relevantly, within a few years of the Reformation, Catholics believed that Protestants weren't Christians. They've since changed their views over the last few centuries. Presumably Charles believes hundreds of millions of people suddenly became Christian when the Catholic at the 50th percentile changed his mind at some point in the 19th century.
No - I'm and Anglican, who believed that Anglicans were always Christians.
The fact that a few numpties in Rome were numpties for a few generations is neither here nor there.
But Catholics were the majority of Christians in the 18th Century, and at the time the Catholics considered you Anglicans heretics. So the majority of Christians at that time considered you lot "not Christians", so they've met your bar for excluding Mormons.
Unless of course, you're applying a huge double standard for your lot and for their lot. I guess that's to be expected when it comes to religion.
You have to wonder if the primary was worth the resources just to prove a rather minor point if the response was well below 10% turnout
If that wasn’t costly enough, all the postage has been first class, not second. The mailings alone must have cost at least £100,000, before any expenditure related to counting the votes. In addition, over two successive Saturdays, the Conservatives distributed two A3 coloured leaflets to each of the 45,000 houses in the constituency, talking about their primary election. And there was also a full-page ad in the local paper, as well as the cost of holding a hustings public meeting
Many millions of Jews and Catholics would beg to differ
Well here's the problem. Islam is not like modern Christianity, is it? Nor is it like moderate forms of Judaism.
It is much more strict and definitive, it doesn't offer a pick and mix morality. That's half the appeal.
Muslims who drink who also claim they are still Muslim remind me of polygamous Mormons claiming they are Christian. The Mormons can believe what they like but most Christians would say they are, by definition, not Christian.
Religion is self identified. No-one gets to say whether you are or not religious except you. Mormons are Christians because they say they are. Catholics are Christians even if Ian Paisley says they are not.
We've had this debate before, but you can't self identify into another group if they refuse to recognise you.
Mormons are not Christians, because most Christians believe they are separate. It doesn't matter what I believe.
Rubbish. Religion isn't majority rules. Protestants didn't suddenly become Christians just because the Catholic Church suddenly decided to stop seeing them as heretics.
Protestants were Catholics who have a disagreement about governance. The theological differences - at least at the time of the split were not that significant.
Mormons are an entirely different religion which has co-opted certain Christian beliefs and traditions. But there are enough differences that mean they are not recognised as members of the holy catholic* church or the communion of saints.
* In the Nicene sense
Who gets to decide what religion they are? You?
No, it's just a matter of logic.
There was a Christian tradition, starting with a bunch of blokes in Jerusalem. This developed over time, with some of them going off in different directions quite early (e.g. James the brother of Jesus and Paul), and later with the Orientals and the Catholics and then the Catholics and the Protestants.
But in all cases you can trace back the tradition and the same fundamental set of beliefs.
Mormons have a different set of beliefs. A bit like a Venn diagram: some overlap with the "Christian" circle, others don't.
A few examples:
- The Book of Mormon takes precedence over the Bible - They reject the Doctrine of the Trinity - They reject the Doctrine of Original Sin
Charles Wrong. A lot of Protestants would have you believe that Catholics are not Christians. Who does the arbitration? You, me, them? Who?
Apparently if a majority of protestant denominations (and god alone knows how many there are) accept Catholics as fellow christians, then those protestants that do not are not proper christians themselves maybe?
This is a classification nightmare based upon assuming that there is and always will be a worldwide cosy consensus on sometimes minute differences or interpretations (and sometimes more major ones it is true) which cannot be accepted to be under the umbrella of a wider faith, and which ones can, and the false idea that which differences have been deemed allowable and which not is static.
It makes me wonder if Quakers are considered proper Christians. Even in Cromwell's day some of his fellows felt the Quakers to all be unacceptable, but others viewed them far less harshly, so I wonder how things panned out in the end, re acceptance.
It depends where the faith started and how it got to where it was.
If it comes from the Christian tradition (i.e. can trace its antecedents back without a break) then it is a Christian faith, then it's Christian (whether it is in communion with the established churches or not). If it can't then it's not.
Self identified religion is a nice lazy definition for atheists and relativists who are merely seeking to undermine the underlying claims to reality, but it doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.
A man claiming to be a Christian whilst preaching that Jesus never existed is merely a man who thinks he is a Christian, but is not, rather than an actual Christian.
There's plenty of legitimate debate about what criteria should be key, but self identification with nothing else is a pretty poor start.
Many millions of Jews and Catholics would beg to differ
Well here's the problem. Islam is not like modern Christianity, is it? Nor is it like moderate forms of Judaism.
It is much more strict and definitive, it doesn't offer a pick and mix morality. That's half the appeal.
Muslims who drink who also claim they are still Muslim remind me of polygamous Mormons claiming they are Christian. The Mormons can believe what they like but most Christians would say they are, by definition, not Christian.
Religion is self identified. No-one gets to say whether you are or not religious except you. Mormons are Christians because they say they are. Catholics are Christians even if Ian Paisley says they are not.
I'm glad we've cleared up that Hitler was, in fact, a socialist.
Hitler was of course the leader of the National Socialists -and true to title, implemented a programme of radical socialism with an aggressively nationalist and racist agenda.
My point was that most left wingers reject ownership of Hitler (for obvious reasons), and place him in the 'right'. But if we are all what we profess to be, then they cannot make this argument. Hitler was a self professed socialist, regardless of his actions.
There was a Christian tradition, starting with a bunch of blokes in Jerusalem. This developed over time, with some of them going off in different directions quite early (e.g. James the brother of Jesus and Paul), and later with the Orientals and the Catholics and then the Catholics and the Protestants.
But in all cases you can trace back the tradition and the same fundamental set of beliefs.
Mormons have a different set of beliefs. A bit like a Venn diagram: some overlap with the "Christian" circle, others don't.
A few examples:
- The Book of Mormon takes precedence over the Bible - They reject the Doctrine of the Trinity - They reject the Doctrine of Original Sin
Some of the very earliest Christians rejected the Doctrine of the Trinity before your Nicene Creed ever existed. Catholics and Protestants have different beliefs in terms of salvation by faith, predestination, the eucharist and others. You're arbitrarily selecting some beliefs Protestants and Catholics have in common and Mormons don't in order to exclude them. The Venn diagram is three adjoined circles. Catholics and Mormons both believe their leader is God's representative on Earth in a way that Protestants don't, for example.
Charles Wrong. A lot of Protestants would have you believe that Catholics are not Christians. Who does the arbitration? You, me, them? Who?
Evidence? I am not aware of a single Protestant who believes Catholics are not Christians (and, especially in the US, there are plenty of Protestants who believe really weird sh1t)
A good starting place would be anyone who professes the Nicene Creed. This includes Catholics (Romans and Ruthenians), Oriental Orthodox (Copts and Malankara), Eastern Orthodox (Americans, Greek, Romans and Antiochians), Anglicans, Lutherans and Presbyterians. You could clearly add a lot of Protestants (Methodists, Baptists, etc) to this
Charles Wrong. A lot of Protestants would have you believe that Catholics are not Christians. Who does the arbitration? You, me, them? Who?
More relevantly, within a few years of the Reformation, Catholics believed that Protestants weren't Christians. They've since changed their views over the last few centuries. Presumably Charles believes hundreds of millions of people suddenly became Christian when the Catholic at the 50th percentile changed his mind at some point in the 19th century.
No - I'm and Anglican, who believed that Anglicans were always Christians.
The fact that a few numpties in Rome were numpties for a few generations is neither here nor there.
But Catholics were the majority of Christians in the 18th Century, and at the time the Catholics considered you Anglicans heretics. So the majority of Christians at that time considered you lot "not Christians", so they've met your bar for excluding Mormons.
Unless of course, you're applying a huge double standard for your lot and for their lot. I guess that's to be expected when it comes to religion.
I never said it based on a head count. That's your straw man.
I don't care whether Muslims drink or not. But we shouldn't let the extremists define who is or is not a good / proper Muslim.
That's exactly what they are seeking to do and to force all Muslims into their very narrow, intolerant definition of Islam. You can see it in their insistence that Muslim women should be covered up by the burqua, with the implication that any woman who does not wear it is somehow not complying with the tenets of the faith.
If a Muslim wants to drink, let him/her. We need more easy-going Muslims in this country not the boot-faced lot who are creating such mayhem in the Middle East and elsewhere.
@Luckyguy1983 Hitler was a "socialist" who was helped in his rise by the rich and powerful and at the expense of the communist. Having obtained power, he then turned his back on the basic precepts of socialism, and became a dictator instead? Do you really have any idea what socialism is, other than what you read in the papers?
Jeremy Cliffe @JeremyCliffe "@DouglasCarswell: 16000 took part in the Totnes open primary. Just saying" > ...and picked candidate who slams UKIP's "xenophobic claptrap"
I don't care whether Muslims drink or not. But we shouldn't let the extremists define who is or is not a good / proper Muslim.
That's exactly what they are seeking to do and to force all Muslims into their very narrow, intolerant definition of Islam. You can see it in their insistence that Muslim women should be covered up by the burqua, with the implication that any woman who does not wear it is somehow not complying with the tenets of the faith.
If a Muslim wants to drink, let him/her. We need more easy-going Muslims in this country not the boot-faced lot who are creating such mayhem in the Middle East and elsewhere.
And if Salmon Rushdie says he thinks Mohammed was a ***~~~:<:? but nontheless he's now a Muslim, that counts too?
This is a patently ridiculous attempt to answer a nuanced and debatable point with a hare brained hard and fast rule.
@Luckyguy1983 Hitler was a "socialist" who was helped in his rise by the rich and powerful and at the expense of the communist. Having obtained power, he then turned his back on the basic precepts of socialism, and became a dictator instead? Do you really have any idea what socialism is, other than what you read in the papers?
"A belief system supporting collective ownership of the means of production" is the traditional definition. That happened to some extent in Nazi Germany.
@Luckyguy1983 Hitler was a "socialist" who was helped in his rise by the rich and powerful and at the expense of the communist. Having obtained power, he then turned his back on the basic precepts of socialism, and became a dictator instead? Do you really have any idea what socialism is, other than what you read in the papers?
But as per tonight's other discussion, if the NAZI's called themselves socialists, then they were, because there is no more reality in the world that what people say of themselves.
Charles Wrong. A lot of Protestants would have you believe that Catholics are not Christians. Who does the arbitration? You, me, them? Who?
More relevantly, within a few years of the Reformation, Catholics believed that Protestants weren't Christians. They've since changed their views over the last few centuries. Presumably Charles believes hundreds of millions of people suddenly became Christian when the Catholic at the 50th percentile changed his mind at some point in the 19th century.
No - I'm and Anglican, who believed that Anglicans were always Christians.
The fact that a few numpties in Rome were numpties for a few generations is neither here nor there.
But Catholics were the majority of Christians in the 18th Century, and at the time the Catholics considered you Anglicans heretics. So the majority of Christians at that time considered you lot "not Christians", so they've met your bar for excluding Mormons.
Unless of course, you're applying a huge double standard for your lot and for their lot. I guess that's to be expected when it comes to religion.
I never said it based on a head count. That's your straw man.
Louise Mensch ✔ @LouiseMensch Wrong to compare postal primary to GE primary in Totnes; by-elections v different, so 4k an encouraging number. #RochesterandStrood
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick 4,000 turnout in Rochester primary, if true, is barely 5 per cent, compared with 24% in Totnes primary in 2009
People might think I am being biased or partisan, but I did go through my thinking on this in quite some detail with obviously no idea how many primaries would be returned..
OGH said 15-20% and the Tories would be pleased... it is 5%
I adjusted the turnover to take into account it is a by election.. I used 50%... Shadsy has since used this as his under/over line...under looks the play here after the primary returns
It would take a 33% turnout, and the primary returns to only represent 40% of the Tory vote, both of which are absolute extremes I would have thought for the Tories to reach 40%
Socrates More likely Orman holds the balance of power, but the GOP will need to win AK, AR, LA, IA and CO as well as WV, MT and SD if they lose KS and GA to get a majority
@Luckyguy1983 Hitler was a "socialist" who was helped in his rise by the rich and powerful and at the expense of the communist. Having obtained power, he then turned his back on the basic precepts of socialism, and became a dictator instead? Do you really have any idea what socialism is, other than what you read in the papers?
"A belief system supporting collective ownership of the means of production" is the traditional definition. That happened to some extent in Nazi Germany.
How do you define an adjective that is entitled to a real meaning vs a religion where people can use the term to mean anything as long as they talk only of themselves, which appears to be the position?
Charles Wrong. A lot of Protestants would have you believe that Catholics are not Christians. Who does the arbitration? You, me, them? Who?
Evidence? I am not aware of a single Protestant who believes Catholics are not Christians (and, especially in the US, there are plenty of Protestants who believe really weird sh1t)
A good starting place would be anyone who professes the Nicene Creed. This includes Catholics (Romans and Ruthenians), Oriental Orthodox (Copts and Malankara), Eastern Orthodox (Americans, Greek, Romans and Antiochians), Anglicans, Lutherans and Presbyterians. You could clearly add a lot of Protestants (Methodists, Baptists, etc) to this
You don't really expect me to take Ian Paisley seriously do you?
His church is hardly representative of Protestantism
What you said was: "I am not aware of a single Protestant who believes Catholics are not Christians (and, especially in the US, there are plenty of Protestants who believe really weird sh1t)".
If you believe seriously in an omnipotent divinity who loves mankind, I don't know what else to expect you to take seriously. The core beliefs look like "really weird sh1t" from where I'm sitting.
Louise Mensch ✔ @LouiseMensch Wrong to compare postal primary to GE primary in Totnes; by-elections v different, so 4k an encouraging number. #RochesterandStrood
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick 4,000 turnout in Rochester primary, if true, is barely 5 per cent, compared with 24% in Totnes primary in 2009
People might think I am being biased or partisan, but I did go through my thinking on this in quite some detail with obviously no idea how many primaries would be returned..
OGH said 15-20% and the Tories would be pleased... it is 5%
I adjusted the turnover to take into account it is a by election.. I used 50%... Shadsy has since used this as his under/over line...under looks the play here after the primary returns
It would take a 33% turnout, and the primary returns to only represent 40% of the Tory vote, both of which are absolute extremes I would have thought for the Tories to reach 40%
I think 4k is piss poor.
And with that I'm off to watch Spurs play down to their normal yet comfortingly reliable middling to feeble way.
In fact, thinking about it, I'm pretty sure traditional Islam believes that you can't leave Islam once you've said you believe in it.
The penalty for apostasy is death.
Maybe we should ask "moderate" Muslim leaders what their views on apostates are. Or, even, if blowing up yourself in a Tel Aviv McDonald´s is not terrorism.
One more - it's almost like he's enjoying himself...
Douglas Carswell MP ✔ @DouglasCarswell Does having Conservative party leader talk over the candidates at the hustings increase or reduce local enthusiasm in the primary process?
@Luckyguy1983 Hitler was a "socialist" who was helped in his rise by the rich and powerful and at the expense of the communist. Having obtained power, he then turned his back on the basic precepts of socialism, and became a dictator instead? Do you really have any idea what socialism is, other than what you read in the papers?
"A belief system supporting collective ownership of the means of production" is the traditional definition. That happened to some extent in Nazi Germany.
How do you define an adjective that is entitled to a real meaning vs a religion where people can use the term to mean anything as long as they talk only of themselves, which appears to be the position?
I don't think I backed self-description. That was just Bobajob I believe. (I considered it, but I actually thought your post was pretty persuasive.)
Socrates More likely Orman holds the balance of power, but the GOP will need to win AK, AR, LA, IA and CO as well as WV, MT and SD if they lose KS and GA to get a majority
I would be shocked if Orman caucuses with the GOP. His views are much more similar to right wing Democrats than left wing Republicans, and the Democrats are far more tolerant of intellectual difference.
It's reasonably straightforward and Charles is basically correct.
Christians believe the Jesus was the son of God. Even Arius believed that and he was labelled a heretic at the time - the divine nature of sonship was the issue and whether it was co-existent or not. Unitarians are accepted as Christians today.
Popes may be God's representative on Earth but they are human and come with those frailties. Francis is happy to emphasis that.
Bosnia was mentioned down thread. I was in a bar in Montenegro one Friday and I was the only one drinking alcohol. Yet the procession to the mosque could have been in Liverpool - with lots of short skirts and low tops intermingled amongst the burquas.
Going against the grain I'm with Mensch on the primary. Unlike Totnes R & S are not cosy little holiday and retirement resorts peopled by those with those with relatively little to do all day. It is a by-election not a GE and despite the furore on this betting website I can assure you a lot of the locals will have only passing interest if that in the proceedings. Getting 4000 to vote is actually quite good in the circumstances.
I mentioned Conhome was often more UKIPhome earlier this week, currently Paul Goodman's 'news twitter' feed thing on there continues to include the below Mr. Carswell who is now a prolific retweeter of all things UKIP and anti Tory...a sort of Mensch but in reverse...
The fact Carswell remains on there despite his massively escalating tweeting volume post defection makes it seem all the more UKIPhome.
Socialist? "National Socialism attempted to reconcile conservative, nationalist ideology with a socially radical doctrine. In so doing, it became a profoundly revolutionary movement—albeit a largely negative one. Rejecting rationalism, liberalism, democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and all movements of international cooperation and peace, it stressed instinct, the subordination of the individual to the state, and the necessity of blind and unswerving obedience to leaders appointed from above. It also emphasized the inequality of men and races and the right of the strong to rule the weak; sought to purge or suppress competing political, religious, and social institutions; advanced an ethic of hardness and ferocity; and partly destroyed class distinctions by drawing into the movement misfits and failures from all social classes. Although socialism was traditionally an internationalist creed, the radical wing of National Socialism knew that a mass base existed for policies that were simultaneously anticapitalist and nationalist. However, after Hitler secured power, this radical strain was eliminated."
Speedy If so should also be a leadership vote in Labour Party, coming 3rd in a seat they held from 1997-2010, as well as LDs if they lose deposit and fall behind the Greens
Some of the very earliest Christians rejected the Doctrine of the Trinity before your Nicene Creed ever existed. Catholics and Protestants have different beliefs in terms of salvation by faith, predestination, the eucharist and others. You're arbitrarily selecting some beliefs Protestants and Catholics have in common and Mormons don't in order to exclude them. The Venn diagram is three adjoined circles. Catholics and Mormons both believe their leader is God's representative on Earth in a way that Protestants don't, for example.
Christianity is an organic tradition.
You either come from that tradition, perhaps breaking off at some point, or you don't.
You can't make up a new religion and then decide that it is part of someone's else's unless they accept it as well.
But this is a very dull argument. I am not going to change your mind. You are not going to change my mind.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 3m3 minutes ago The reported turnout of 4000 in the Rochester Tory primary is a disaster for the party given the efforts put into it
I think OGH is close to throwing the towel for the Tories.
It's reasonably straightforward and Charles is basically correct.
Christians believe the Jesus was the son of God. Even Arius believed that and he was labelled a heretic at the time - the divine nature of sonship was the issue and whether it was co-existent or not. Unitarians are accepted as Christians today.
Popes may be God's representative on Earth but they are human and come with those frailties. Francis is happy to emphasis that.
Bosnia was mentioned down thread. I was in a bar in Montenegro one Friday and I was the only one drinking alcohol. Yet the procession to the mosque could have been in Liverpool - with lots of short skirts and low tops intermingled amongst the burquas.
As a Mormon I definitely believe Christ to be the Son of God, so that's that settled.
Using the Nicene Creed as a shibboleth is ridiculous as it excludes Christ's apostles....
Atheists have a rational viewpoint, but science describes the universe without explaining it.
Physics can't explain (not just describe) infinity. And what it can't explain is actually getting larger as we know more. I'm happy with string theory and it's ten or eleven dimensions for now, but it will change. As will the reason that quantum mechanics works, Scrodingers cat and all. And how many universes make an infinite number?
There appears to be a concerted effort here to depict Islamic countries and their inhabitants as being like Saudi Arabia. It ain't so.
For instance Turkey, despite Erdogan's attempts to stop late-night alcohol sales, has the Efes Beverage Group (1), and Diageo recently bought Mey Icki. (2) for over $2 billion.
But that's Turkey, I hear you cry, which as ever is caught between two worlds. So what about, say, Iran?
Under the law, it is forbidden for Iran's Muslim citizens to have alcoholic drink. However there is open violation of the law. Alcohol drinking is so widespread that Iranians are the third highest consumers of alcohol in Muslim-majority Middle Eastern countries, behind Lebanon and Turkey (in both of which it is legal to drink), with an annual per capita consumption of 1.02 Liters.
Back again? Do you consider yourself religious? If so what religion are you? Let us know and we'll see if we can ask a council of my choosing as to whether you are allowed to subscribe to that religion.
Speedy If so should also be a leadership vote in Labour Party, coming 3rd in a seat they held from 1997-2010, as well as LDs if they lose deposit and fall behind the Greens
Hey don't blame me for what that cabinet minister said.
Some of the very earliest Christians rejected the Doctrine of the Trinity before your Nicene Creed ever existed. Catholics and Protestants have different beliefs in terms of salvation by faith, predestination, the eucharist and others. You're arbitrarily selecting some beliefs Protestants and Catholics have in common and Mormons don't in order to exclude them. The Venn diagram is three adjoined circles. Catholics and Mormons both believe their leader is God's representative on Earth in a way that Protestants don't, for example.
Christianity is an organic tradition.
You either come from that tradition, perhaps breaking off at some point, or you don't.
You can't make up a new religion and then decide that it is part of someone's else's unless they accept it as well.
But this is a very dull argument. I am not going to change your mind. You are not going to change my mind.
Let's say we give it a rest
You think many founding Mormons were anything other than Christians?
"One Cabinet member warns, ‘If Reckless wins Rochester, there’ll be 46 names’. "
It's bluster. Nothing will happen this close to an election and with Cameron far more Prime Ministerial - according to most polls - than Miliband. The by-election is all about kicking the government but the straight Cam v Mili shootout due next May will focus minds.
I'm no Tory, I couldn't care less if they crash and burn; it's just how I see it.
@Luckyguy1983 Hitler was a "socialist" who was helped in his rise by the rich and powerful and at the expense of the communist. Having obtained power, he then turned his back on the basic precepts of socialism, and became a dictator instead? Do you really have any idea what socialism is, other than what you read in the papers?
He certainly bloodily divested himself of some troublesome elements within his own party -also something he shares with fellow socialists. But I wasn't really trying to reheat that discussion -what I was saying is that if we are whatever we profess to be, then Bobajob would have to agree that under his theory, Hitler was indeed a socialist.
As far as socialism itself goes, I believe it to be a perversion of egalitarianism, that is pernicious in all its examples; slowly rotting economies and societies in its milder forms, and resulting in genocide in its most extreme ones. It's deception -claiming to empower people, but actually dis-empowering them. Many anti-establishment types believe it to be an elite construct, and it's not hard to see why.
Some of the very earliest Christians rejected the Doctrine of the Trinity before your Nicene Creed ever existed. Catholics and Protestants have different beliefs in terms of salvation by faith, predestination, the eucharist and others. You're arbitrarily selecting some beliefs Protestants and Catholics have in common and Mormons don't in order to exclude them. The Venn diagram is three adjoined circles. Catholics and Mormons both believe their leader is God's representative on Earth in a way that Protestants don't, for example.
Christianity is an organic tradition.
You either come from that tradition, perhaps breaking off at some point, or you don't.
You can't make up a new religion and then decide that it is part of someone's else's unless they accept it as well.
But this is a very dull argument. I am not going to change your mind. You are not going to change my mind.
Let's say we give it a rest
You think many founding Mormons were anything other than Christians?
I mentioned Conhome was often more UKIPhome earlier this week, currently Paul Goodman's 'news twitter' feed thing on there continues to include the below Mr. Carswell who is now a prolific retweeter of all things UKIP and anti Tory...a sort of Mensch but in reverse...
The fact Carswell remains on there despite his massively escalating tweeting volume post defection makes it seem all the more UKIPhome.
ConHome has always been infested with kippers in the comments. The "news tweet" also includes propaganda from Labour. Perhaps CH is trying to increase the number of clicks.
Some of the very earliest Christians rejected the Doctrine of the Trinity before your Nicene Creed ever existed. Catholics and Protestants have different beliefs in terms of salvation by faith, predestination, the eucharist and others. You're arbitrarily selecting some beliefs Protestants and Catholics have in common and Mormons don't in order to exclude them. The Venn diagram is three adjoined circles. Catholics and Mormons both believe their leader is God's representative on Earth in a way that Protestants don't, for example.
Christianity is an organic tradition.
You either come from that tradition, perhaps breaking off at some point, or you don't.
You can't make up a new religion and then decide that it is part of someone's else's unless they accept it as well.
But this is a very dull argument. I am not going to change your mind. You are not going to change my mind.
Let's say we give it a rest
You think many founding Mormons were anything other than Christians?
"One Cabinet member warns, ‘If Reckless wins Rochester, there’ll be 46 names’. "
It's bluster. Nothing will happen this close to an election and with Cameron far more Prime Ministerial - according to most polls - than Miliband. The by-election is all about kicking the government but the straight Cam v Mili shootout due next May will focus minds.
I'm no Tory, I couldn't care less if they crash and burn; it's just how I see it.
This is a repeat of 1995. If John Major had lost then a new Tory leader would have at least closed the gap somewhat.
Yes David Cameron might be popular with remaining Tories and LD however the Tory party is disintegrating in front of our eyes and the only way to stop the rot is a leadership change in order to get those who have left the Tory party to return.
Plus it's the only way for Tory backbenchers to hope that they will retain their seats in the next GE.
@Luckyguy1983 At its basic level, socialism is a belief that co-operation is better than conflict. If you deviate from that starting point, you are not a socialist (or communist), but have strayed into "statism" and dictatorship.
It would be a lot less inflammatory to describe Mormonism as not being part of 'traditional' or mainstream Christianity, rather than asserting that individuals are not Christians.
@Freggles Zen Christianity holds that only God knows who is what. And it is way above the paygrade of semi evolved apes to do more than take a rough guess.
"One Cabinet member warns, ‘If Reckless wins Rochester, there’ll be 46 names’. "
It's bluster. Nothing will happen this close to an election and with Cameron far more Prime Ministerial - according to most polls - than Miliband. The by-election is all about kicking the government but the straight Cam v Mili shootout due next May will focus minds.
I'm no Tory, I couldn't care less if they crash and burn; it's just how I see it.
This is a repeat of 1995. If John Major had lost then a new Tory leader would have at least closed the gap somewhat.
Yes David Cameron might be popular with remaining Tories and LD however the Tory party is disintegrating in front of our eyes and the only way to stop the rot is a leadership change in order to get those who have left the Tory party to return.
Plus it's the only way for Tory backbenchers to hope that they will retain their seats in the next GE.
Well, Miliband certainly isn't Blair and politics in 2014/15 is very different to 1997, but I get your point.
Problem for the Tories is that apart from Hague (been there done that) and Cameron there are no 'big beasts' in the government. Gove maybe, but he's a Marmite politician.
Who in the Tory party has the energy, balls and connection with the public to make some bold policy choices - EU exit? - which will actually be LISTENED to and TRUSTED by the public?
The answer is there isn't anybody, because no mainstream politicians are much trusted by the public anymore. Large swathes of the country have stopped listening.
Not all that concerned or surprised at the low turnout. Too quick, it needed more time for voters to get a feeling that they know or understand the candidates. They were too similar, so if there is no significant difference why bother to vote.
A pity it wasn't a higher turnout as the principle is good,.
Some of the very earliest Christians rejected the Doctrine of the Trinity before your Nicene Creed ever existed. Catholics and Protestants have different beliefs in terms of salvation by faith, predestination, the eucharist and others. You're arbitrarily selecting some beliefs Protestants and Catholics have in common and Mormons don't in order to exclude them. The Venn diagram is three adjoined circles. Catholics and Mormons both believe their leader is God's representative on Earth in a way that Protestants don't, for example.
Christianity is an organic tradition.
You either come from that tradition, perhaps breaking off at some point, or you don't.
You can't make up a new religion and then decide that it is part of someone's else's unless they accept it as well.
But this is a very dull argument. I am not going to change your mind. You are not going to change my mind.
Let's say we give it a rest
You think many founding Mormons were anything other than Christians?
Or founding Christians anything other than Jews?
They were both, just as Mormons are Christians.
I think that the RCC recognises Mormon baptism as valid and does not require converts to be re-baptised.
Am I the only one thinking "so what?" regarding the derisory turnout in Rochester. The two candidates were identical, seemed relatively nice and normal. Is it not possible that many Tory voters didn't care either way who the candidate was so didn't bother voting?
It would be a lot less inflammatory to describe Mormonism as not being part of 'traditional' or mainstream Christianity, rather than asserting that individuals are not Christians.
Seems the simplest way to avoid trouble. Same with traditional vs other marriage - people can still feel only a certain type of marriage is the proper kind, even if the state says otherwise for legal purposes.
@Luckyguy1983 Hitler was a "socialist" who was helped in his rise by the rich and powerful and at the expense of the communist. Having obtained power, he then turned his back on the basic precepts of socialism, and became a dictator instead? Do you really have any idea what socialism is, other than what you read in the papers?
"A belief system supporting collective ownership of the means of production" is the traditional definition. That happened to some extent in Nazi Germany.
How do you define an adjective that is entitled to a real meaning vs a religion where people can use the term to mean anything as long as they talk only of themselves, which appears to be the position?
I don't think I backed self-description. That was just Bobajob I believe. (I considered it, but I actually thought your post was pretty persuasive.)
I've often wondered why some white people in professions where ethnic minorities arguably get preferential treatment don't just self identify as being a member of an ethnic minority. The ensuing court case would be amusing and piquant.
I did that. Said I was black African and got summoned by Leroy in HR. Fruitless discussion ensued with him saying surely you agree with equality and me saying what box would Tiger Woods tick. We agreed I'd instead use the 'prefer not to say' option, which is unsatisfactory but there we are.
It does have real consequences though because interview panels have to have a mix of protected characteristics, so they tend to exclude prefer-not-to-sayers like me when they decide who's doing the interviewing for new recruits. Plus they (this public sector) monitor the workforce's racial profile against various indexes but AFAIK they don't set a target the PNTS metric whilst they're acutely aware of the performance of the BAME and sex metrics and go out of their way to influence them. Harriet Harman has a lot to answer for.
Some of the very earliest Christians rejected the Doctrine of the Trinity before your Nicene Creed ever existed. Catholics and Protestants have different beliefs in terms of salvation by faith, predestination, the eucharist and others. You're arbitrarily selecting some beliefs Protestants and Catholics have in common and Mormons don't in order to exclude them. The Venn diagram is three adjoined circles. Catholics and Mormons both believe their leader is God's representative on Earth in a way that Protestants don't, for example.
Christianity is an organic tradition.
You either come from that tradition, perhaps breaking off at some point, or you don't.
You can't make up a new religion and then decide that it is part of someone's else's unless they accept it as well.
But this is a very dull argument. I am not going to change your mind. You are not going to change my mind.
Let's say we give it a rest
You think many founding Mormons were anything other than Christians?
Or founding Christians anything other than Jews?
They were both, just as Mormons are Christians.
I think that the RCC recognises Mormon baptism as valid and does not require converts to be re-baptised.
Interesting, so you don't view baptism as requiring authority stemming from the Pope?
"One Cabinet member warns, ‘If Reckless wins Rochester, there’ll be 46 names’. "
It's bluster. Nothing will happen this close to an election and with Cameron far more Prime Ministerial - according to most polls - than Miliband. The by-election is all about kicking the government but the straight Cam v Mili shootout due next May will focus minds.
I'm no Tory, I couldn't care less if they crash and burn; it's just how I see it.
This is a repeat of 1995. If John Major had lost then a new Tory leader would have at least closed the gap somewhat.
Yes David Cameron might be popular with remaining Tories and LD however the Tory party is disintegrating in front of our eyes and the only way to stop the rot is a leadership change in order to get those who have left the Tory party to return.
Plus it's the only way for Tory backbenchers to hope that they will retain their seats in the next GE.
Don't the polls say that Cameron is more popular than his party?
Comments
This is a classification nightmare based upon assuming that there is and always will be a worldwide cosy consensus on sometimes minute differences or interpretations (and sometimes more major ones it is true) which cannot be accepted to be under the umbrella of a wider faith, and which ones can, and the false idea that which differences have been deemed allowable and which not is static.
It makes me wonder if Quakers are considered proper Christians. Even in Cromwell's day some of his fellows felt the Quakers to all be unacceptable, but others viewed them far less harshly, so I wonder how things panned out in the end, re acceptance.
Start of with a couple of smaller counties, such as the Norfolk Primary and Cornwall Caucus, then for the next few weeks other counties join in.
Then a week later, we could have Super Thursday, when the important counties in the UK vote, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, North Yorkshire and East Yorkshire* all voting on one day.
*It's East Yorkshire to me
The usual way of deciding these things is to go to war and exterminate the non believers.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/10/kelly-tolhurst-wins-rochester-primary-on-turnout-of-4000/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=kelly-tolhurst-wins-rochester-primary-on-turnout-of-4000&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Not impressive way to break the news!! And as OGH posted, if she only won by 50 or so, it's not a massive % mandate either.
A good starting place would be anyone who professes the Nicene Creed. This includes Catholics (Romans and Ruthenians), Oriental Orthodox (Copts and Malankara), Eastern Orthodox (Americans, Greek, Romans and Antiochians), Anglicans, Lutherans and Presbyterians. You could clearly add a lot of Protestants (Methodists, Baptists, etc) to this
Boston and Skegness will be selecting their candidate soon.
http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2014/10/the-final-four-in-the-boston-and-skegness-selection-are-named.html
Entries close 9pm Saturday:
http://www.electiongame.co.uk/brazil-presidential/
Game includes links to opinion polls and previous results.
Many thanks,
DC
The fact that a few numpties in Rome were numpties for a few generations is neither here nor there.
He's had the decency not to deny it, and is certainly a rebel, maverick and free-thinker (particularly scepticism on foreign intervention) so would fit well within UKIP. Carswell is probably buttering him up as we speak.
5 Reasons why Catholic is not Christian
Unless of course, you're applying a huge double standard for your lot and for their lot. I guess that's to be expected when it comes to religion.
If that wasn’t costly enough, all the postage has been first class, not second. The mailings alone must have cost at least £100,000, before any expenditure related to counting the votes. In addition, over two successive Saturdays, the Conservatives distributed two A3 coloured leaflets to each of the 45,000 houses in the constituency, talking about their primary election. And there was also a full-page ad in the local paper, as well as the cost of holding a hustings public meeting
See more at: http://blogs.channel4.com/michael-crick-on-politics/lawyers-judges-overturn-tory-victory-rochester/4541#sthash.xNKEwXru.dpuf
Clearly the Tories have money to burn............
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/525283321279168512
There was a Christian tradition, starting with a bunch of blokes in Jerusalem. This developed over time, with some of them going off in different directions quite early (e.g. James the brother of Jesus and Paul), and later with the Orientals and the Catholics and then the Catholics and the Protestants.
But in all cases you can trace back the tradition and the same fundamental set of beliefs.
Mormons have a different set of beliefs. A bit like a Venn diagram: some overlap with the "Christian" circle, others don't.
A few examples:
- The Book of Mormon takes precedence over the Bible
- They reject the Doctrine of the Trinity
- They reject the Doctrine of Original Sin
If it comes from the Christian tradition (i.e. can trace its antecedents back without a break) then it is a Christian faith, then it's Christian (whether it is in communion with the established churches or not). If it can't then it's not.
A man claiming to be a Christian whilst preaching that Jesus never existed is merely a man who thinks he is a Christian, but is not, rather than an actual Christian.
There's plenty of legitimate debate about what criteria should be key, but self identification with nothing else is a pretty poor start.
My point was that most left wingers reject ownership of Hitler (for obvious reasons), and place him in the 'right'. But if we are all what we profess to be, then they cannot make this argument. Hitler was a self professed socialist, regardless of his actions.
His church is hardly representative of Protestantism
Douglas Carswell MP ✔ @DouglasCarswell
16,000 took part in the Totnes open primary. Just saying
That's exactly what they are seeking to do and to force all Muslims into their very narrow, intolerant definition of Islam. You can see it in their insistence that Muslim women should be covered up by the burqua, with the implication that any woman who does not wear it is somehow not complying with the tenets of the faith.
If a Muslim wants to drink, let him/her. We need more easy-going Muslims in this country not the boot-faced lot who are creating such mayhem in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Hitler was a "socialist" who was helped in his rise by the rich and powerful and at the expense of the communist. Having obtained power, he then turned his back on the basic precepts of socialism, and became a dictator instead?
Do you really have any idea what socialism is, other than what you read in the papers?
Jeremy Cliffe @JeremyCliffe
"@DouglasCarswell: 16000 took part in the Totnes open primary. Just saying" > ...and picked candidate who slams UKIP's "xenophobic claptrap"
This is a patently ridiculous attempt to answer a nuanced and debatable point with a hare brained hard and fast rule.
Apparently.
OGH said 15-20% and the Tories would be pleased... it is 5%
I adjusted the turnover to take into account it is a by election.. I used 50%... Shadsy has since used this as his under/over line...under looks the play here after the primary returns
It would take a 33% turnout, and the primary returns to only represent 40% of the Tory vote, both of which are absolute extremes I would have thought for the Tories to reach 40%
If you believe seriously in an omnipotent divinity who loves mankind, I don't know what else to expect you to take seriously. The core beliefs look like "really weird sh1t" from where I'm sitting.
And with that I'm off to watch Spurs play down to their normal yet comfortingly reliable middling to feeble way.
The penalty for apostasy is death.
Maybe we should ask "moderate" Muslim leaders what their views on apostates are. Or, even, if blowing up yourself in a Tel Aviv McDonald´s is not terrorism.
Douglas Carswell MP ✔ @DouglasCarswell
Does having Conservative party leader talk over the candidates at the hustings increase or reduce local enthusiasm in the primary process?
29 days to leadership vote in the Tory party.
It's reasonably straightforward and Charles is basically correct.
Christians believe the Jesus was the son of God. Even Arius believed that and he was labelled a heretic at the time - the divine nature of sonship was the issue and whether it was co-existent or not. Unitarians are accepted as Christians today.
Popes may be God's representative on Earth but they are human and come with those frailties. Francis is happy to emphasis that.
Bosnia was mentioned down thread. I was in a bar in Montenegro one Friday and I was the only one drinking alcohol. Yet the procession to the mosque could have been in Liverpool - with lots of short skirts and low tops intermingled amongst the burquas.
I mentioned Conhome was often more UKIPhome earlier this week, currently Paul Goodman's 'news twitter' feed thing on there continues to include the below Mr. Carswell who is now a prolific retweeter of all things UKIP and anti Tory...a sort of Mensch but in reverse...
The fact Carswell remains on there despite his massively escalating tweeting volume post defection makes it seem all the more UKIPhome.
"National Socialism attempted to reconcile conservative, nationalist ideology with a socially radical doctrine. In so doing, it became a profoundly revolutionary movement—albeit a largely negative one. Rejecting rationalism, liberalism, democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and all movements of international cooperation and peace, it stressed instinct, the subordination of the individual to the state, and the necessity of blind and unswerving obedience to leaders appointed from above. It also emphasized the inequality of men and races and the right of the strong to rule the weak; sought to purge or suppress competing political, religious, and social institutions; advanced an ethic of hardness and ferocity; and partly destroyed class distinctions by drawing into the movement misfits and failures from all social classes. Although socialism was traditionally an internationalist creed, the radical wing of National Socialism knew that a mass base existed for policies that were simultaneously anticapitalist and nationalist. However, after Hitler secured power, this radical strain was eliminated."
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/405414/National-Socialism
No spinning that one.
I love Norm. In a butch manly way.
You either come from that tradition, perhaps breaking off at some point, or you don't.
You can't make up a new religion and then decide that it is part of someone's else's unless they accept it as well.
But this is a very dull argument. I am not going to change your mind. You are not going to change my mind.
Let's say we give it a rest
The reported turnout of 4000 in the Rochester Tory primary is a disaster for the party given the efforts put into it
I think OGH is close to throwing the towel for the Tories.
Using the Nicene Creed as a shibboleth is ridiculous as it excludes Christ's apostles....
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/10/why-rochester-matters-so-much/
"One Cabinet member warns, ‘If Reckless wins Rochester, there’ll be 46 names’. "
Physics can't explain (not just describe) infinity. And what it can't explain is actually getting larger as we know more. I'm happy with string theory and it's ten or eleven dimensions for now, but it will change. As will the reason that quantum mechanics works, Scrodingers cat and all. And how many universes make an infinite number?
Interestingly, the law in England has the same problem e.g. defining who is a Jew and who is not.
The problem was solved by the school deferring to the local rabbi.
For Catholicism, it is the local bishop that defines who is a Catholic or not.
"The reported turnout of 4000 in the Rochester Tory primary is a disaster for the party given the efforts put into it pic.twitter.com/bPJAMgYGHq"
https://www.twitter.com/msmithsonpb
I'm no Tory, I couldn't care less if they crash and burn; it's just how I see it.
I expect lots of people will have used the free envelope to give unencouraging feedback.
As far as socialism itself goes, I believe it to be a perversion of egalitarianism, that is pernicious in all its examples; slowly rotting economies and societies in its milder forms, and resulting in genocide in its most extreme ones. It's deception -claiming to empower people, but actually dis-empowering them. Many anti-establishment types believe it to be an elite construct, and it's not hard to see why.
If John Major had lost then a new Tory leader would have at least closed the gap somewhat.
Yes David Cameron might be popular with remaining Tories and LD however the Tory party is disintegrating in front of our eyes and the only way to stop the rot is a leadership change in order to get those who have left the Tory party to return.
Plus it's the only way for Tory backbenchers to hope that they will retain their seats in the next GE.
At its basic level, socialism is a belief that co-operation is better than conflict.
If you deviate from that starting point, you are not a socialist (or communist), but have strayed into "statism" and dictatorship.
Zen Christianity holds that only God knows who is what. And it is way above the paygrade of semi evolved apes to do more than take a rough guess.
"At its basic level, socialism is a belief that co-operation is better than conflict."
But conflict is inevitable, according to Karl Marx - a nice little get-out clause.
Problem for the Tories is that apart from Hague (been there done that) and Cameron there are no 'big beasts' in the government. Gove maybe, but he's a Marmite politician.
Who in the Tory party has the energy, balls and connection with the public to make some bold policy choices - EU exit? - which will actually be LISTENED to and TRUSTED by the public?
The answer is there isn't anybody, because no mainstream politicians are much trusted by the public anymore. Large swathes of the country have stopped listening.
A pity it wasn't a higher turnout as the principle is good,.
UKIP's @JohnBickleyUKIP will be on ITV Granada's Party People tonight at 11.40. Tune in if you can!
It does have real consequences though because interview panels have to have a mix of protected characteristics, so they tend to exclude prefer-not-to-sayers like me when they decide who's doing the interviewing for new recruits. Plus they (this public sector) monitor the workforce's racial profile against various indexes but AFAIK they don't set a target the PNTS metric whilst they're acutely aware of the performance of the BAME and sex metrics and go out of their way to influence them. Harriet Harman has a lot to answer for.