Corbyn doesn’t support Brexit.
Also, the *only* Labour leaders to have won an election since WW2 are Attlee, Wilson and Blair. I see Corbyn as in the Attlee mould. Attlee won a huge majority against all predictions and went on to lead the most radical government in modern British history: nationalised coal, steel and the Bank of England, introduced free secondary education, expanded the welfare state, all in straitened financial circumstances.
If you wanna geek out on acetone toxicity, LD50 is 5g/kg*, so 350g for a 70kg person, which would be around a Kiwi pint. I think you’d do well to swig that much.
You would stand a good chance of losing your eyebrows if you tried smoking an acetone soaked spliff, however.
*Rabbit. Humans might vary.
Labour would have won without Scotland in 6 of the 8 elections they won since WW2:
(There are various different ways of looking at this, but the RUK is very clearly winnable by Labour. More so, if NI left as well).
I don’t know why people persist in repeating “maths” that is historically bogus.
A bit like the Professional Contractors Group in the UK IT industry?
Maybe we need a system where you can connect to your neighbour (for a small fee) and so on and thus remove the need for telcos (apart from to reach the world beyond NZ, I guess).
Maybe now would be a good time for an HDCA complaint against Mr Frank.
The UK conservatives have almost never elected the frontrunner as leader (since they acquired a formal method, pre-1964 the leader just emerged).
Usually, any politician who has been in cabinet a while and is seen as a front runner has sufficient enemies that they can't win. Heath, Thatcher and Major were all fairly minor figures who'd recently reached shadow cabinet office. (and then there was the period, post Major when they elected a succession of freaks and wierdos like Hague and Dunkin Donut. Not sure that's over).
No monarch has been forced to abdicate for a long, long time
80 years this December? And for unwisely choosing a partner, rather than any political infelicities. (Though there was an undercurrent of that, and he wound up spending much of WW2 in aristocratic exile in the Bahamas, which was considered to be somewhere he couldn’t be suborned by the Germans from).
I suspect if the unelected monarch took a stance on this, then those who disagreed would take every opportunity to get rid of them and probably the monarchy as soon as they were in a position to do so. And the only clearly stated ideology of the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Windsors is the continuation of their dynasty.
You are quite correct. I don't know how Bosworth Field lodged itself in my head.
Well, the dwindling number of constitutional monarchies (I exclude quasi-absolute monarchies like Thailand) do follow the approach that the sovereign is required to have no opinion (and/or, as in the case of Sweden, an explicit exclusion from taking a constitutional role).
I doubt Charles III will get beheaded. But he might well either be personally asked to abdicate, deposed by Act of Parliament or force a republic into play.
Why is one random person (chosen from an inbred, isolated and privileged family) considered an effective check and balance? You don't go to a hereditary dentist...