Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 30,570
I see the media are running the story that the Queen's officers have stripped Corbyn of the title "Right Honourable" as he has not yet taken the oath and been sworn in to the Privy Council.
I'm mindful that Cameron took 3 months to get sworn in, but on the other hand Cameron wasn't a committed republican, he hadn't shown IRA sympathies and hadn't chosen to be silent whilst being filmed during the playing of the National Anthem.
It looks to me as though Corbyn is letting this "allegiance to the Crown" issue drift and as each day passes without him swearing the oath it seems to me he becomes that much less electable. I'm interested to know what Labour supporters with monarchist sympathies think about his actions, or lack thereof.
Crucially, the leader of the Opposition's membership of the Privy Council entitles them to receive briefings on matters of National Security. Do we really want our Opposition leader to be outside this important inner circle? Could he conceivably carry out his duties as Prime Minister without being a member of the Privy Council?
I'm mindful that Cameron took 3 months to get sworn in, but on the other hand Cameron wasn't a committed republican, he hadn't shown IRA sympathies and hadn't chosen to be silent whilst being filmed during the playing of the National Anthem.
It looks to me as though Corbyn is letting this "allegiance to the Crown" issue drift and as each day passes without him swearing the oath it seems to me he becomes that much less electable. I'm interested to know what Labour supporters with monarchist sympathies think about his actions, or lack thereof.
Crucially, the leader of the Opposition's membership of the Privy Council entitles them to receive briefings on matters of National Security. Do we really want our Opposition leader to be outside this important inner circle? Could he conceivably carry out his duties as Prime Minister without being a member of the Privy Council?