Read on Twitter
The "coup" argument, THREAD 1/
There are some thought-weeds . @robfordmancs is right to target.
En même temps, he mixes up a pop at Wood with what, applied as claim that Margolyes herself has a "nonsensical position", looks like dictionary reform. https://twitter.com/DavidRobjant/status/1350454545088962569
There are some thought-weeds . @robfordmancs is right to target.
En même temps, he mixes up a pop at Wood with what, applied as claim that Margolyes herself has a "nonsensical position", looks like dictionary reform. https://twitter.com/DavidRobjant/status/1350454545088962569
2/ His thread starts here, and is worth reading in full, plus a number of sub threads and subtweets extending over some days: https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1350026387567030276?s=20
3/ I think he's right about the danger to process of Leanne Wood (a politician) endorsing Miriam Margolyes' view that the UK has gone through "a right wing coup".
I think he's wrong to claim that MM's view is "nonsensical".
I think he's wrong to claim that MM's view is "nonsensical".
4/ What he means by "nonsensical" is that MM's view is in contradiction with the meaning of words, and he cites an unsourced definition of a coup as a "sudden, violent, take over of power".
Neither 2016 nor prorogation count as a "sudden, violent, take over of power".
Neither 2016 nor prorogation count as a "sudden, violent, take over of power".
5/ the problem with this approach is that it works fine for some unnamed glossary of political terminology, but just doesn't fit the Oxford English Dictionary- which allows for non violent coups, slow coups, and even coups that aren't to do with power.
He knows this, so..
He knows this, so..
6/ He knows this so he doesn't reply to the point.
But in that case what's going on is that he wants to help save liberal democracy in the UK by policing a dictionary reform.
Question: is this a useful way to achieve the object?
But in that case what's going on is that he wants to help save liberal democracy in the UK by policing a dictionary reform.
Question: is this a useful way to achieve the object?
7/ Here he has an argument:
i) losers consent is essential to the hopes of liberal democracy.
ii) loose talk of coups threatens losers consent
therefore
iii) lose talk of coups threatens liberal democracy
i) losers consent is essential to the hopes of liberal democracy.
ii) loose talk of coups threatens losers consent
therefore
iii) lose talk of coups threatens liberal democracy
8/
point i) is entirely secure
point ii) is the key move, and seems plausible
Is it actually true though? Various concerns to disentangle.
point i) is entirely secure
point ii) is the key move, and seems plausible
Is it actually true though? Various concerns to disentangle.
9/
about (ii) "loose talk of coups threatens losers consent"
questions
a) is loose talk of coup threatening losers consent in a material way- is this preparing something like the Capitol assault?
b) is loose talk of coups the main threat, materially or non-materially?
about (ii) "loose talk of coups threatens losers consent"
questions
a) is loose talk of coup threatening losers consent in a material way- is this preparing something like the Capitol assault?
b) is loose talk of coups the main threat, materially or non-materially?
10/
to (a): no
to (b): hell no
What's more provoking a (presently marginal) loss of losers consent here is the sense, indeed the observation of fact, that the winning side did not follow the rules.
It is precisely that which is expressed by "coup".
Johnson broke laws. Twice.
to (a): no
to (b): hell no
What's more provoking a (presently marginal) loss of losers consent here is the sense, indeed the observation of fact, that the winning side did not follow the rules.
It is precisely that which is expressed by "coup".
Johnson broke laws. Twice.
11/
First, in 2016, Johnson broke the laws around campaigns funding and data use. That he did so to spread lies is MM's major concern (as it were a moral coup), but that he did so against the law is also part of it. Is that not, in some sense, a coup coup?
First, in 2016, Johnson broke the laws around campaigns funding and data use. That he did so to spread lies is MM's major concern (as it were a moral coup), but that he did so against the law is also part of it. Is that not, in some sense, a coup coup?
12/
Second, in 2019, Johnson did not merely take advantage of fptp. He deliberately violated the constitution and abused the courts in order to generate a situation with the electorate in which he could win, and with parliament in which it was pushed into the desired election.
Second, in 2019, Johnson did not merely take advantage of fptp. He deliberately violated the constitution and abused the courts in order to generate a situation with the electorate in which he could win, and with parliament in which it was pushed into the desired election.
13/
Here again, Miriam Margolyes, delphic moral savant as she might be, also seems to have some solid constitutional point. The Supreme Court judgement is sufficient support.
Here again, Miriam Margolyes, delphic moral savant as she might be, also seems to have some solid constitutional point. The Supreme Court judgement is sufficient support.
