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.

The problem with what Labour have done is they have said loud and clear that no one out of the 400 MP's they have was up to the job of leader, so they have had to parachute someone else in. If that person isn't suitable either, then who is? They are going to have to suck it up, which may work in Burnhams favour, as half the MP's who harangued Starmer out of a job will be out of a job themselves at the next election, so there will be even fewer of them.

I seem to remember Cameron being appointed to the Lords so he could be parachuted in as Foreign Secretary. I don’t remember that move attracting much criticism.

I wonder if many of us will perpetually seek to refer to this governments failings in 20+ years time, like the political equivalent of Dad’s Army repeats.

I have no doubt that you will.

Yes but not as party leader! The Tories also didn't have 400 people to choose from! (there are quite a few women and Black and Asian Labour MP's so they obvious wouldn't be deemed suitable apparently because they are too honourable...or cant pretend to be White..or men... or something)

A coup can be carried out without force but it would be illegal. I said illegality and/or force. You are also agreeing this was not a literal coup, you believe it is a figurative coup. You are using language creatively for emotional impact - this is really not the time for that. Tribal divisions are widening and violence is increasing.

If we did have a coup - a real coup - we should take to the streets. We all should be protesting, literally up in arms. If there was an illegal transfer of power we could no longer claim to be a democracy.
Using language like this incorrectly, makes people feel we are no longer a democracy, it makes people feel alienated, it makes it acceptable for some people to indulge in violence. If have had a coup, then surely taking violent action is fine?
I’ll say it again, an ex MP was murdered last week, two MPs have been murdered in the last 10 years. We need to tone down our language to avoid feeding those we want actually real political violence. Look to the US there was an attempted coup on Jan 6th - that is an accurate use of the term - but it is obfuscated.

They had 334 MPs to choose from. In case it escaped your notice we had a PM of Asian descent at the time and I’m not entirely sure why you think women should be excluded particularly given that our current Foreign Secretary is a woman. Sorry but “yeah, but” doesn’t cut it.

I think people would have had more to say if Cameron had announced he was going to tax people's assets and move the foreign office to the Cotswolds.

So AB becoming PM is like Stalin taking over the Soviet Union? My point is we need to move away from overly dramatic political language as it encourages violence.

Yay, so we are back to the definition and etymology of the word coup.…

Free bus travel will be a good saving for parents - our local authority charges £800 for the school bus!

See my point about how language matters at a time of political violence. We all create the political atmosphere we live in - this thread contributes to wider political discourse. We criticise politicians for point scoring and yet here we are with the attitude of it happens on other threads or in the past so it’s ok now.
If we were talking about food or football or fishing - be as creative as you want. But look at the simmering violence in our political life and tread with caution.

Where do you stand on the noun ‘scum’, please?

I’m discussing political violence, I mentioned the deaths of 3 political figures. Language matters.
The use of violent rhetoric can lead to an increase in violence - do you agree with that at least?

The use of violent rhetoric can lead to an increase in violence - do you agree with that at least?

I do - and I condemn it.

As used by Angela Rayner? It was massively inappropriate. Do you think that was a gotcha. If something is wrong it’s wrong, it doesn’t matter which side said it. Tribal politics is damaging and dangerous - from both sides.

Like using coup - a term that implies violence or illegality when something was neither violent or illegal. That’s my fucking point!

Language isn’t that fixed. It’s not inciting violence any more than Labour launches into civil war is.

Just more whataboutery. Just focus on the principle of parachuting a politician in. At least Burnham was elected with a majority that outweighed all the other candidates combined. Cameron was given a title.

Eh?

the Falklands was in the 80s and Thatcher was only PM for 6 months in the 70s.

Disagree.

The word coup has taken on multiple meanings, including the non-violent, as other posters have already told you - what don’t you understand?

Exactly! It's not rocket science is it. 'Parachuting' anyone in to be an MP even to be in the cabinet is one thing. To be PM is quite another.

Maybe more on? This poster appears to have an extremely literal way of thinking.

Yeah but no but she apologised begrudgingly for that so it's to be swept under the carpet everytime 'words matter' and 'MPs should not suffer abuse' is mentioned.