Thread by @robfordmancs

Quite a few people seem to misunderstand my point here. Let me clarify:

If you're an elected politician, let alone a former leader of a party, you should not endorse and amplify sentiments which frame your defeat by other elected politician in the language of coup & conspiracy

https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1350026387567030276

I don't particularly care about what Margolyes herself has to say, she's a private citizen she's free to take nonsensical position. It is Leanne Wood's endorsement I find troubling. Language *matters*. Respect for democratic outcomes *matters*. 2/?

"Miriam Margoyles is right" to say "There has been a right wing coup in this country."
That involves either bankrupting the meaning of the term coup (leaving you unable to use it correctly in future) or genuinely believing successive Con election victories amount to a "coup"

The latter is even worse, as it implies a withdrawal of consent for the legitimacy of the government, and the processes which put them in power. No, it does not mean "I am critical of the govt" as many ppl seem to think. It means "the govt came to power in an illegitimate way."

That is what "coup" *means* - "a sudden, violent and illegitimate seizure of power"
If someone says "there has been a right wing coup in this country" they are saying, clear as day "the government is illiegitimate." Words have meanings. Those meanings matter.

To reiterate, if minor celebrities want to utter stupid opinion, that's annoying but nothing I would concern myself with.
When the former leader of a political party in this country say "I agree that the current government is illegitimate", that is something quite different.

The stability of dmeocracy requires a certain minimal willingness to accept the outcomes of the processes it uses to generate governments.
It is consequential, and worrying if signifiant figures in the political class signal a withdrawal of such acceptance.

Such withdrawal should not be signalled lightly. If Leanne Wood believes the current government is illegitimate she should spell out why. Unlike Margolyes, she has a responsibility to tell the citizens who elected her what she means. Or she should withdraw it.

I hope that clarifies what I meant in my previous statements. I did *not* mean:
1. "I think the current government is great"
2. "I think our current electoral system is perfect"
3. "I think the way we conduct elections now is perfect"

I simply think the language politicians use matters, and they should avoid conspiratorial or militaristic language unless they have very strong cause for it. Not least because liberal democracy is valuable, and fragile.

"But what if its a metaphor?" Well, the problem is, as we have seen amply demonstrated recently, there are plenty of people out there who will take it literally. That's why those in prominent political positions need to take care which metaphors they use or endorse.