Just had the labour candidate at my door

Oh something quite similar happened with feminist campaigners over the weekend. Handing out #respectmysex leaflets. Tory and Lib Dem candidates took them respectfully and engaged with the campaigners. The male Labour candidate refused, when asked why stating that it was about women and children's rights he said "No". I won't name him but #Labour #Beckenham should do it.

OK I take your point. And I do find this desire to distance the Labour Party and its supporters from the story kind of encouraging. It suggests to me that it's finally dawning on (some of) them that they have fucked up big time.

I find the op plausible

ok. Plausibility isn’t an a sole indicator of truth though is it? In fact lies and misinformation rely on being plausible.

Again, I’m not insinuating anything about the OP themselves simply pointing out that it’s not really a reliable source to draw a conclusion either way about the Labour Party and supporters and their views of TR. Assuming truth, it is for the OP because she was there just as you have been for your examples but as a second hand accounts they don’t really mean anything here unless people choose to give them weight and ignore the fact they’re doing so with little to no reason other than it fits their narrative.

The poster above mentions Twitter, great, screenshot a tweet and we can all see for ourselves rather than relying on someone’s interpretation.

I can believe it. I follow the local Lib Dems on twitter, and their output is full of nasty name calling, pro trans and anti woman tweets

What I actually am is fascinated by the process of some people to so quickly and wholeheartedly throw their lot in with statement that could be by anyone, with any motive because it aligns with a belief they hold.
Except that in my case - and you've posted the above while quoting one of my posts so I'm assuming you're including me - what I specifically said (twice) is that I find the op plausible because it aligns with my own experience of some of the new breed of Labour Party canvassers. The old guard - at least the ones I knew and worked with - were under strict instructions not to get into arguments on the doorstep.

A canvasser is representing the candidates views. I’m going to guess most candidates wouldn’t condone the kind of interaction the OP had as representative of them so it’s not really representative of the Labour Party as such is it? Just of that individual.

if you know the candidate and canvassers views align then no, it doesn’t make any difference at all really.

yes, here I am, doubting away, despite very clearly setting out my opinion earlier in the thread.

What I actually am is fascinated by the process of some people to so quickly and wholeheartedly throw their lot in with statement that could be by anyone, with any motive because it aligns with a belief they hold. It’s piqued my interest particularly because it’s a political post and is serving solely to entrench political views (not that I think the OP intended that). I think it’s interesting how powerful that is for a stand alone statement on an anonymous forum that can be neither proved nor disproved and no one seems remotely bothered by that.

I’m sure I have missed your point as we’re clearly coming at this from very different angles 🤷‍♀️

@Cornettoninja But what's the difference? I don't see how it makes much difference. A candidate, or a canvasser, they both represent the Labour party. I really doesn't matter. The issue remains the same. So why cares whether it was a candidate or canvasser.

Could I just thank the op, this thread has been really interesting.

We disagree whether it’s something to be bothered about though clearly.

I am bothered about it in general, but there is too much disinformation on all sides for it to be worth worrying about the falseness of one not implausible personal account on Mumsnet. Labour supporters behave like this all the time.

Am a member of the Labour party (just - clinging on because of local loyalties) and its incredibly hard to know who is 'safe' to discuss this with. I was so grateful when one member, with no prompting, brought it up and we could actually have an open talk about all the issues and know that we weren't alone and weren't some sort of bigot for defending women and their rights.

For sure there are others who have suggested they may be with me on it and I think there will be a lot of silent others who agree, or who would if they had had the issues laid out to them. Some will not have had the language police cross their path and have said things like 'We all come from women, its only women who give birth' in a meeting that looked at some action around violence directed at women - not making a point but just because that seemed obvious to them.

But just to say there are those of us who are GC and on the doorstep I would openly tell anyone who asked that that was the case. But I can absolutely understand people who cannot vote for Labour because of this issue and despair at the canvasser whose reaction led to this thread. I am staying in the hope that the direction will change and to nudge it however I can but God knows I have had thoughts of leaving.

I’m know I do. I’d like to think I know I’m not infallible. We disagree whether it’s something to be bothered about though clearly.

And yet, even after the op has clarified that she made a mistake and was talking about a canvasser, you are still here casting doubts (albeit carefully worded) on her story.

As I've already said, having seen how some canvassers operated in the general election, I find it entirely plausible that one of them said that, don't you?

It also misses my point about the recent and interesting change in the narrative, moving from 'The canvasser was right' (typical response a couple of years ago) to 'I can't believe she said that'.

To be honest when debating online its often labour supporters who have called names etc when not agreed and I am a floating voter so have no allegiance to any party but as soon as names are thrown around to me someone has lost their argument and its made me think twice about voting labour, as in my experience o have seen a lot of name calling online etc so therefore i can believe the OP that a canvasser was maybe overstepping
I have never had a candidate knock on my door and pretty sure i know why

Look, all I was pointing out is that peoples existing views can mean that they readily accept something as a truth when it may not be.

I'm not really bothered if I believe a story that isn't true on occasion, when I've seen this immature, partisan behaviour play out online plenty of times. There is fake news all over social media, not going to lose any sleep over getting it wrong occasionally, I expect you do too, Cornetto.

I think there would have been a lot of replies in support of the canvassers, now it’s all incredulity and outraged denial. Which I guess represents progress of a kind

I think the waters muddied by the fact that the title and OP refer to a candidate not a canvasser. I’m sure that there are people who’ve replied to the original post/title after the OP clarified it was a canvasser because that’s just what people do on forums.

Yes. Obviously.

Look, all I was pointing out is that peoples existing views can mean that they readily accept something as a truth when it may not be. As much as we’d all like to think we’re more savvy than that we’re not. Political views are the target of many groups and do need a layer of wariness that other subjects possibly don’t.

Agree, Floisme. Very little "Labour are right, you're all transphobes, TWAW!" And a lot more "I'm gender critical but".

I knew some people who canvassed for Labour in the last general election. They were pretty hot headed and seemed unaware that the main purpose of canvassing (at least in my day) was to quickly and politely establish where your support was and then move on.

So I find the op perfectly believable. I also think this thread is interesting because a couple of years ago I think there would have been a lot of replies in support of the canvassers, now it’s all incredulity and outraged denial. Which I guess represents progress of a kind.

I would like to see Labour elected but where I live there is no chance so it doesn’t matter what I think, if Labour can’t agree amongst themselves what major policies to follow or support their leader fully how on earth do they think they are going to form a government.

Because you’re prepared to believe an (any?) account that may or may not be true primarily because it’s something that you already believe.

Oh it's good that you know my own mind better than I do, I'll PM you for some career advice.

True. There’s no real basis for believing anyone either is there?

Like anyone else on MN anonymously.

I had hopes of him making Labour electable but he hasnt yet shown he has got the guts to do so.

So did I but he's been a complete wet lettuce. And the Momentum/Corbyn faction still hate him so I'm not sure what the point is. Let them flounce, like Twitter users over Elon Musk. Let the dust clear, new people will support them and you might just have an electable political party. Women only asked to be considered stakeholders in our own rights at first, FFS.

Agree Already - best to put pressure on Labour than to run to the Tories.

Troll hunting is generally considered against talk guidelines. Report to MN if you have concerns rather than call people liars with no real basis

True. There’s no real basis for believing anyone either is there? Fwiw I haven’t called the OP a liar, I have referred to her post as her ‘story’.

Am I really. How is that then? I don't agree with Labour on this issue, I have laid out my reasoning very clearly why I won't be voting for them on other threads, and I have experienced the poor behaviour of many of their supporters and members on social media

Because you’re prepared to believe an (any?) account that may or may not be true primarily because it’s something that you already believe. Just because it fits a world view you already uphold doesn’t make it 100% watertight or truthful.