Corbyn declines to meet the Queen.

I think lily may be referring to the oath of allegiance that all MPs have to take. From Wiki: Until the oath or affirmation is taken, an MP may not receive a salary, take their seat, speak in debates or vote. The usual wording of the oath is: I... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

Sworn in to Privy Council.

I should have said refusing to meet the queen because of a prior engagement, ab. You are quite right.

Time will tell whether he ever gets sworn in. I believe it is not essential but he won't be informed of certain information is he isn't.

My point was really that I wonder why people complain when the right-wing press sees the worst in a left-wing leader when the left-wing press naturally and outspokenly sees the worst in right-wing leaders. Isn't this what we would expect? Shouldn't we just counter it if it bothers us? Isn't that what defenders of Corbyn are doing? It's not as if what he does and says isn't reported by both sides and from the middle ground.

When did this happen Lilygran?

Being a republican is fine. Refusing to accept that we have a Head of State who isn't elected is just silly. Just a minute - didn't he have to swear allegiance to Her Majesty when he became an MP?

thatbag, when did Corbyn refuse to be sworn in ? he was unable to attend a meeting because of a prior engagement, you think he should dismiss his prior engagement ? This would be a snub - sorry have to cancel have a chance to meet the queen .

Being a republican is not snubbing the queen, that's silly , being a republican means believing in a democracy where the people elect their head of state

The left-wing press does a fair amount of 'slagging off' too. Which, of course, it's perfectly entitled to do. I do wish people would stop complaining. Where free speech exists one will hear things one doesn't like or that one doesn't agree with or that one thinks unfair all the time. If one 'reads around' one gets a more rounded picture of current affairs. Well, I do. I think there has been as much support for Corbyn as criticism.

Actually David Cameron was elected leader of the party on December 6th and was approved to the Privy Council on 14th. He attended an emergency meeting a week later. However, the first scheduled meeting was not until February 14th which he did not attend so he was eventually sworn in on March 8th - three months after he became leader. This is not unusual so can't see what all the fuss is about tbh - other than the right wing papers wanting to slag Jeremy Corbyn off because they are scared that Labour might win the next election with some one who actually has principles being in charge.

By the way, at the time of Bin Laden's death, I felt exactly the same about it being a pity he wasn't put on trial, as I'm sure many other people did.

Sorry to be picky, ab (actually I'm not, I'm just trying to be polite; what you said is 'highlighted'), but there is nothing inaccurate in saying Corbyn was sorry Bin Laden had been killed. He was sorry and he gave his reason why. OK, perhaps some of the press didn't mention why but the press I read did.
He said he was sorry Bin Laden had been killed not sent to trial , this has become - Corbyn was sorry Bin Laden had been killed

Also, it's not unreasonable to describe refusing to be sworn in as a snub to the queen. She probably doesn't care but it is a snub. I think I'd call it a snub to protocol. He's entitled to snub whatever he likes. Free country and all that but a snub is a snub.
He is against heredity monarchy like many are but this has become Corbyn snubs the queen

Just saying.

rosesarered: ok smartie pants, yes I meant thread - happy now

If the Queen made over some of her many properties to the homeless, including refugees, rather than letting toffs have rent free "Grace & Favour" residencies, then I might be more likely to question my republican tendencies. Why should Jeremy Corbyn bend the knee to the descendant of families that became powerful because they were cleverer ( although I doubt that) more ruthless, luckier, grabbier, better endowed physically, than my peasanty ancestors?

No matter what this government chooses to do the outcome is assured, the wealthier in the country will get wealthier and the poorest will sink further into poverty plus their numbers will increase

Crossed posts, Gracesgran.

Roses, it does matter because a lot of other ideas come along with those ideas, like making the poor poorer, destroying the NHS and education, the EU referendum but only after Cameron has done another PR exercise.

Well done tigger for pulling this thread back to it's origins. You are right that the title of this thread is totally misleading and sounds like something out of the worst of the right-wing press. Perhaps we should start one saying "Jeremy Corbyn will join Privy Council" and leave this one to those interested in roses?

Sadly Jen although they seem to be putting forward some of Labour's good ideas in some cases they are tending to use them for a front to attack the very people they were intended to help.

Listening to Money Box they were saying that the Cambourne government intends to loosen money laundering laws for banks. That's more money for the thieving rich and less for the old, vulnerable and the striving worker - standard Conservative policy then.

Who resents it? I do not.
So Cameron can't think of any ideas of his own; it's not me and people like me who have been duped. I'm laughing at the gullible Tories who think those ideas are all their own.
They did not vote for them, but they are getting them anyway.

I totally agree Elegran surely you would be very pleased to think that someone had decided to adopt your idea. Especially if you are not in a position to make it happen yourself.

If those ideas were originally on the agenda because that party wanted them to happen, then logically they should be pleased that they have been adopted. The job of an opposition is to temper the wildest excesses of the party in power. If the party in power adopt what the opposition is promoting, that is a success, not daylight robbery.

Surely a party's aim is to get their preferred legislation through, not to get all the kudos themselves for being the first to put it forward? Are the policies for the benefit of the country or the benefit of a party?

If the important thing is the legislation, then give three cheers and think up some more improvements to suggest. If they grudge the country an improvement because it was put through by someone else, then who is uppermost in their concerns? Looks like it is themselves. Dogs in mangers.

This resentment gives party politics a bad name.

Cherrypicking the best ideas? As long as we get good policies, it hardly matters.

No they can't be expected to say we can't do that because we stole it from other parties but as they view these other parties with such distain why pinch from their manifesto

Yes, you can hardly expect them to say 'oh no, we can't do that because Labour/the LibDems thought of it first so it wouldn't be fair...'

Some good ideas then, regardless of who thought of them in the first place.

Maybe Corbyn should meet the queen as joint leader of a coalition. After all, the selfservatives have stolen so many of Labour's ideas, as well as a couple of Libdem ones.

Infrastructure commission - straight out of Ed Miliband's manifesto.
They even pinched Lord Adonis to run it.

Allowing councils to keep the business rates and spend it how they want - Labour promised this at the election.

The living wage - obviously a Labour idea.

Restricting non-dom status - Labour would abolish it, but Tories would not have mentioned it if it was not an idea that the public agrees with Labour on.

Mental Health patients to be seen within 18 weeks - a Libdem promise.

Nobody to pay tax on first £12,500 by 2020 - another Libdem promise.

Shared parental leave for grandparents - a Labour idea.

If I'd voted Tory at the last election, I'd be asking for my vote back. I doubt whether any of them thought they would get all this before the next election.

We had run out of steam on the Corbyn/Queen issue , tigger( or thought we had) so it morphed into a roses discussion, ( or did it?a closer inspection shows it was more about personalities.)
Feel free to bring it back on track.