To be sick to death of Andy Burnham already

[Viviennemary]

I'm sick to death already of seeing Andy Burnham and hearing his voice. And he isnt even PM yet. Come back Keir Starmer. All is forgiven. I dont know how I'm going to suffer 3 or four more years of him in charge. Playing the part of the working class hero who is going to save the country. Give me strength.

However, in this instance it is being used to describe a change of government.

A coup (or coup d'état) is a sudden, illegal seizure of power, typically carried out by a small faction within the military or political elite. It relies on abruptly overthrowing a government's leadership from the top rather than a widespread popular uprising

I think you’re just making yourself look worse.

You know, I know, we all know what’s meant by a ‘coup’ against Starmer. It’s a perfectly apt and well understood description.

Just like ‘Labour civil war’ isn’t a real civil war with guns and bombs. Or a ‘Labour is a sinking ship’ isn’t a description of a big boat called ‘Labour’ that’s sinking into the ocean.

OPEC stopped selling oil in 1973 to countries that had supported Israel in the Yom Kippur war. This included the UK. By the time the embargo was lifted in 1974 the price of oil had risen 300%. This led to massive inflation and a huge devaluion of the British economy. Most people struggled to cope with the rising prices. The Trade Unions began to campaign for wages to keep pace with infflation. Which led to further destabilisation of the economy, as the wave of strikes intensified. Britain became known as the "sick man of Europe." Thatcher was elected in 1979 on a promise to clamp down on the Unions. |But she also cut taxes and services. In her first term she became wildly unpopular as the spending cuts hit, and jobs and services were shredded. She would not have got a second term, but Argentina invaded the Falklands, and there was a huge rise in British patriotism and pride in the Armed Forces for winning. She became a national hero, and continued to be elected till she was removed as leader from the Tory party grandees, who had got tired of her overbearing certainty on the correctness of her opinions. While she was in power, she sold all the best council houses for massive discounts, instituted tax cuts that benefited the rich massively, and the workers less so, and refused to build more social housing. The better off prospered, and the ordinary people did get pay rises, but lost opportunities for themselves and their children as services were cut to pay for tax cuts. Fast forward to today, and your kids have to get in 60 k worth of debt to get a pointless degree, and the majority will never be able to afford to buy their own houses, and often live at home much later than previous generations who moved out much earlier. Because there was more opportunity to do so. In short, the reults of 50 years of Thatcherism are that our children have less opportunity than their grandparents. Who are sitting on cash wealth and property assets that their children will never enjoy. And the super rich own a much larger percentage of the common wealth than they owned in the 1970's. That is what Andy Burnham is trying to reverse.

If Starmer was doing that badly then Burnham maybe came to his rescue, sacrificially, as a coup de grace.

Some of you may choose to use this political term in an incorrect way and then claim common parlance as as an excuse, I however, when discussing politics choose to use the term correctly.

Seriously?

🙄

😂

The term is being used to imply AB acted illegally - he did not not. It has implications of violence or force - none were used. It is suggesting that he acted in a way that is outside the bounds of normal political behaviour - see Douglas- Home - AB did nothing not already done.
The term ‘coup’ is being used as a smear to imply improper or illegal behaviour, you may not like the process but it was entirely within the U.K. constitution.

LOL!

Entirely seriously. You are using the term to discredit AB. The discussion is about the U.K. constitution and many are repeatedly demonstrating significant ignorance. We need to be clear and correct. Bandying terms that imply illegality is bad for democracy. Look at Trump repeatably claim the elections were stolen by using incorrect information and hyperbole. This is damaging to democracy, it’s really serious. So claiming we have had a ‘coup’ and then tinkly laughing and saying you didn’t mean it like that is really, really dangerous.

A current FT piece.

Once Andy Burnham passes through the black door of 10 Downing Street on Monday, after his successful coup against Sir Keir Starmer, there will be little time to think. After being welcomed by the cabinet secretary and shown the nuclear codes, pressing decisions will crowd in. Unexpected events will throw things off course. At such moments, a prime minister relies on their instincts. So understanding Burnham’s will be fundamental to anticipating how he might govern…

Completely agree.

Yup lol. Look at Trump and his amusing attempts to impact democracy in the US hahahaha. His speech,
last night trying to impact the midterms. You are singing from Trumps hymn book. Cast aspersions on the legality, laugh about it and then riot. Democracy in the west is under threat, and casting wild claims with no basis in fact or legality is going to harm the country.

Nope. As I explained before no one is implying illegality or the use of force. It is just your strict interpretation of the term ‘coup’ which is leading you to that conclusion. You may not like the concept of common parlance, but no one else seems to have great difficulty in understanding what ‘coup’ means in this context.

And? The FT are using the term in a damaging way? And?

The FT are well aware of the legality, they are using the term in a sloppy dangerous way. Are you implying I should not be precise because someone else chooses to be sloppy? You may play by those rules but I don’t.

What does coup mean in this context?

My understanding, as a political scientist, is that it implies illegality and/or force. What do you mean? I’m using the term correctly you are the one who needs to explain.

I didn’t use the term at all. I’m just pointing out that your objection to it in the context of Starmer being forced out against his will is silly.

If I were to use the term I wouldn’t be discrediting Burnham. I’d be saying that Burnham, a load of cabinet ministers, Anas Sarwar, and many Labour MPs, and no doubt other Labour figures, were all part of the coup. Whether that discredits them or not is a different matter.

A coup is not restricted to political use, as in a mutiny. It can also occur outside of politics and isn't necessarily criminal. What my eyes deceive me the most on, though, is that the holy grail, the Guardian, has come into disrepute. Is that a first on MN? There's going to be many pearls quivering between clenched fists.

I have recently heard people state as a fact that it’s a coup. Apparently not understanding that we have a parliamentary democracy. They’ve heard or read ot and just repeat it as fact with no understanding.

Will someone please tell me what coup means if is does not mean a takeover of power by illegality or force?

Literally a strike or stroke

He won't last 3or 4 yrs. Give him 18 months. I don't like "Andy" for a Prime Minister. It's more like a family diminutive. I don't expect anyone to agree.

But in this context it IS political, so what does it mean if not illegality or force?

Strike as in a violent blow - as in a blow to the state? That’s violent surely? That is what the political term coup implies violence.

You’re a political scientist! Why didn’t you say so before? We couldn’t possibly doubt the wisdom of a ‘political scientist’.