Queen's advisers strip Jeremy Corbyn of 'Right Honourable' title after Privy Council snub

[Usernames]

England needs more Simon de Montforts.

[Basil B]

Not much of a surprise, Id say he has got the Tories & their media lackeys running scared & they will use anything to try & discredit him in any way that they can, scary that these idiots are allowed to rule...

Can I presume that David Cameron didn't receive/was stripped of his 'Right Honourable' title as he snubbed the Queen for 3 months!!

You have a valid point, I do not know why it took Cameron 3 months to attend his first Privy Council but would be interesting to find out.

Anyway until he knees down before her in the grovelling position and kisses her hand he is not a Right Honourable.

I have a feeling his republican views will damage the Labour Party even further at the next General Election in four and a half years time if he is still leader...

[MiKT]

'The Queen’s advisers told Parliament to strip Jeremy Corbyn of his “Right Honourable” status ...' Dear, oh dear; silly me. There was I thinking the people elected parliament to run the country, when, in fact, it's a bunch of unelected 'advisers' to an unelected head of state doing the running.

You may be right, and Jeremy Corbyn may be right about some things. BUT in order to change the things he doesn't like about the "Establishment", he needs to get elected.

The more he acts like the caricature in the Tory press already depicts him, the less likely he is to get elected.

His strategy surely must be to convince the voting sheeple that he is the moderate, competent centre left leader that they think they want.

His antics so far are just playing into the Tory hands....ie he is unelectable.

There was a time when everyone, myself included, would have agreed with your assessment of Corbyn's chances of election without demur. To do otherwise would be to appear to have departed from one's senses.

But something has changed in the meantime. Even though I am not a supporter of his policies, Corbyn comes across as someone who has held on to his principles and opinions for decades, including when they were far from the prevailing view of the Labour party. He has energised a whole group of people who before either did not vote or voted for marginal parties, such as the Greens or Liberal Democrats.

Although I am a wholeheartedly convinced that only a free-enterprise system can generate wealth sufficient for a modern state, at the same time there has been a weird change in the economics of the UK, where real estate in London sucks out a huge amount of the wealth of the country. Vast numbers of young Londoners cannot afford to get on any property ladder that would allow for the starting of a family. Large numbers of people are now on wages that have not kept up with living standards and keep them far away from the property ladder and from participating in the growth of the economy.

That is what gives Corbyn his constituency - if you add that relatively small constituency to the section of the population who vote Labour whoever leads it for traditional reasons, there is a good chance that we could see Corbyn as PM one day.

But cutting back to the Privy Council issues, these play into the hands of Corbyn. It give him headlines and once again demonstrates his integrity, as if that needed to be demonstrated. it also highlights the strange issues that countries like Britain have with their "establishment," with unaccountable folks who have huge amounts of power like the Privy Council. How can the UK turn to Thailand and tell them to reform when anti-democratic forces get to play in the UK as well?

I believe this seemingly rational post simply demonstrates 1. If you think a "relatively small constituancy" plus the very few Labour voters who will be left if this idiot remains at the head of the party will enable him to become PM, I rather think you are going to be very disappointed.

2. Mentioning "unaccountable folks" clearly indicates you don't understand how real democracy works in the UK so that probably explains why you think the UK (and I suspect you think the rest of the democrat countries) are not entitled to comment on Thailands despotic rule (look it up) by an armed force faction.

3. If you think this tratorous rogues principles are right, you don't understand the principal of the word. It cannot legitimately be applied to a man who supports Stalinist ideas of government any more than it can be applied to Stalin himself of Hitler, or to those who overthrow a democratically government to foster the hold by a so-called "elite" over Thailands poor.

Edited October 16, 2015 by MiKT