I am right to describe Henry IV as the country's most famous usurper? Or am I missing someone more obvious.
It depends which country. In Scotland, Robert the Bruce. Maybe higher celeb status than Henry IV?
Henry IV wins because Shakespeare did a play on it.
Yeah, but Brucie gets the spider.
... Oh and the Mel Gibson treatment. What does your Will Shakespeare say to that?
Only the true historical greats get a Shakespeare play about them, the duffers don't.
That's why Julius Caesar got a play, and Hannibal didn't.
Re Mel Gibson, I can't imagine why an alcoholic racist thought he'd be ideal to play a Scotsman.
I'm not sure about that theory. What about the the three plays about Henry VI and the one about King John?
Macbeth probably didn't usurp the Scottish throne in reality. Duncan appears to have been killed in battle and was replaced by Macbeth. The history of that period is murky and in any case kingship was looser at that time.
Just been watching the debate and my conclusion is
Labour is far better off under Corbyn than Owen Smith. Smith is DREADFUL.
Anecdote alert. Staying with a friend who has a vote as a Labour Party member (rejoined last year). Can't bring herself to vote Corbyn again. He's a loser. Can't bring herself to vote for Smith. He's a prat. Wants to spoil her paper by writing in a candidate. But can't think of anyone that might make Labour electable again.
She reckons Labour is screwed. And worried that if May DOES deliver on some of her more populist ideas, Labour is terminally screwed.
I am right to describe Henry IV as the country's most famous usurper? Or am I missing someone more obvious.
It depends which country. In Scotland, Robert the Bruce. Maybe higher celeb status than Henry IV?
Henry IV wins because Shakespeare did a play on it.
Yeah, but Brucie gets the spider.
... Oh and the Mel Gibson treatment. What does your Will Shakespeare say to that?
Only the true historical greats get a Shakespeare play about them, the duffers don't.
That's why Julius Caesar got a play, and Hannibal didn't.
Re Mel Gibson, I can't imagine why an alcoholic racist thought he'd be ideal to play a Scotsman.
I'm not sure about that theory. What about the the three plays about Henry VI and the one about King John?
Macbeth probably didn't usurp the Scottish throne in reality. Duncan appears to have been killed in battle and was replaced by Macbeth. The history of that period is murky and in any case kingship was looser at that time.
I think I'm still traumatised from going to see a performance of Macbeth back in my schooldays.
I was in the front row, and I was not expecting Lady Macbeth to pee on stage
Just been watching the debate and my conclusion is
Labour is far better off under Corbyn than Owen Smith. Smith is DREADFUL.
Anecdote alert. Staying with a friend who has a vote as a Labour Party member (rejoined last year). Can't bring herself to vote Corbyn again. He's a loser. Can't bring herself to vote for Smith. He's a prat. Wants to spoil her paper by writing in a candidate. But can't think of anyone that might make Labour electable again.
She reckons Labour is screwed. And worried that if May DOES deliver on some of her more populist ideas, Labour is terminally screwed.
The lack of talent on the Labour benches is really the central problem. There just isn't anyone who has the political wow factor who can be a leader to unite the party and the PLP.
I know there are those who have mentioned Lewis as a potential future leader - but he just comes over as a political thug from everything I have seen. Burgon is a prat. And the new intake of Corbynite women are just universally awful - Cat Smith being the worst.
Cooper, Burnham don't have it in them - Chuka has too much going on in Narnia to be a possible leader.
There is no real talent there - and that comes down to the Brown/Blair years where there was no succession planning and talent stayed away from Labour.
Woah. Not sure who comes across as more deluded in this QT - Corbynista audience or Owen Smith....
I don't think the pbCom right wingery, Brexit glitterati are best placed to give advice to the Labour party. I might be wrong.
Similarly, as a lefty, I am gobsmacked, that Theresa May is such a headbanging zealous, loony...where the hell did that come from? But I am not a right winger......so what the hell do I know?
Not keen on the centre ground eh tyson?
I wonder how long it will take for the Labour Party to realise that in order to win power, they need a couple of million people who voted Conservative for the last two elections to vote Labour.
Those people don't think that Britain's biggest problems are Palestine, insufficient immigration and unilateral disarmament.
They also, largely, don't dine on quinoa or read the grauniad. The horror!
Don't tell anyone, but I had quinoa the other day, and it was rather nice. Although I can't stomach the way it is pronounced: does one say "Ah, I loved that movie about the boxer Rocky Bill-bwahhh."
Oh dear! Next you'll be having faro and spelt and be going gluten free.
Their activist base, which had largely deserted them 18 months ago, is certainly working again. It is too early to say whether this will feed through to national success. (I define national success at 12-16 seats in 2020. Others may have a different definition.)
I think on the new boundaries national success for the Lib Dems will equate to at least half a dozen seats.
"We are entering the last few months of the Mugabe era. His health is not the real problem. Zimbabwe is now-spiralling downwards into an economic-crisis so vicious and acute that it leaves no possibility that the president, for all his famed-political skills and notorious readiness to resort to violence, can save himself. The situation is more serious than the hyperinflation of 2008, which was solved by switching to the dollar. This time there is no way out."
The only thing that worries my, Hillary will win, prediction is the stonkingly high undecided figures in many polls.
I've seen in two polls now when pushed they favour Hillary something like 50-12%.
They would say that, wouldn't they? If they're Trump voters who don't want to admit it then that's the result you'd expect from a forced choice.
Or they prefer hillary to a racist putin lover who doesnt know what he is doing
Hilary must be really crap for him to be this close in the polls!
I think the reality of American politics is the variance is really really low. The floors and ceilings are just a lot closer than in British politics, (in the last 50 years a double digit win has happened twice, and the last one was 32 years ago).
Obama comfortably (in American terms) beat Romney in 2012, but in the last six months of the campaign his average poll lead never got above +4.
Also I'm not entirely sure why, but in the last two races early September saw a surge for the Republican candidate, Romney tied, Mccain took the lead (I think the same thing happened in 2000 but not found the right source).
Hillary's ceiling is probably comparatively lower since she's been in the public eye longer (plus associated with Bill) and so has less cross-party flexbility (there's also interesting polling where her approval ratings have consistently dropped when she's campaigning vs when she's in office), but she's still likely to walk it.
(Not least because the state breakdown also looks difficult for Trump)
A very welcome prosiac tone from Hammond. < The Telegraph: European bankers will be exempt from migration curbs after Brexit, Philip Hammond reveals. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw1vmv8y0
1) Hillary Clinton isn't very good 2) People eventually fall into line behind their party and America only has about 4 unaligned voters left, so there's an inevitable pull back to 50/50 even though one side is running a pathologically narcicistic version of Guy Goma 3) Pollsters turning on their Likely Voter screens
1) Hillary Clinton isn't very good 2) People eventually fall into line behind their party and America only has about 4 unaligned voters left, so there's an inevitable pull back to 50/50 even though one side is running a pathologically narcicistic version of Guy Goma 3) Pollsters turning on their Likely Voter screens
Comments
Macbeth probably didn't usurp the Scottish throne in reality. Duncan appears to have been killed in battle and was replaced by Macbeth. The history of that period is murky and in any case kingship was looser at that time.
Bugger, do I go for Henry Bolingbroke or Macbeth
She reckons Labour is screwed. And worried that if May DOES deliver on some of her more populist ideas, Labour is terminally screwed.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/08/unite-union-gave-len-mccluskey-400000-loan-to-buy-london-flat
Nothing too good for the weeerkers....
I was in the front row, and I was not expecting Lady Macbeth to pee on stage
I know there are those who have mentioned Lewis as a potential future leader - but he just comes over as a political thug from everything I have seen. Burgon is a prat. And the new intake of Corbynite women are just universally awful - Cat Smith being the worst.
Cooper, Burnham don't have it in them - Chuka has too much going on in Narnia to be a possible leader.
There is no real talent there - and that comes down to the Brown/Blair years where there was no succession planning and talent stayed away from Labour.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
2018 apparently - so a bit early to be undermining him. Unless they are trying to force him out sooner.
Thanks for your input everybody.
Goodnight
They are on the fence as they hate both candidates but, if pushed, prefer corruption over potential war.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/08/kim-jong-un-bans-sarcasm-in-north-korea-fearing-people-will-only/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/08/all-schools-to-get-a-chance-to-become-grammars-under-theresa-may/
So we have gone from all schools should be academies, to all schools could change to be a grammar / selective.
Blimey. I don't know anything beyond 69 ...
You're all winners grammar schools today.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/zimbabwe-will-sink-into-horror-and-depravity-unless-mugabe-quits-now/
Obama comfortably (in American terms) beat Romney in 2012, but in the last six months of the campaign his average poll lead never got above +4.
Also I'm not entirely sure why, but in the last two races early September saw a surge for the Republican candidate, Romney tied, Mccain took the lead (I think the same thing happened in 2000 but not found the right source).
Hillary's ceiling is probably comparatively lower since she's been in the public eye longer (plus associated with Bill) and so has less cross-party flexbility (there's also interesting polling where her approval ratings have consistently dropped when she's campaigning vs when she's in office), but she's still likely to walk it.
(Not least because the state breakdown also looks difficult for Trump)
there's a MILF* reference in this article
"Rodrigo Duterte, the Philippines’s less racist but more murderous Donald Trump, explained"
*Moro Islamic Liberation Front
Tim Stanley
Is David Dimbleby wearing a tie with flying pigs on it?!!! #bbcqt
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-bill-clintons-nearly-18-million-job-as-honorary-chancellor-of-a-for-profit-college/2016/09/05/8496db42-655b-11e6-be4e-23fc4d4d12b4_story.html
2) People eventually fall into line behind their party and America only has about 4 unaligned voters left, so there's an inevitable pull back to 50/50 even though one side is running a pathologically narcicistic version of Guy Goma
3) Pollsters turning on their Likely Voter screens