Just had the labour candidate at my door

[porridgecake]

She called me a racist Daily Mail reader because I said I didn't think a child could consent to being sterilised and I didn't think rapists should be locked up with women. I also said I was disappointed with the poor resources for women wrt domestic violence, maternity care etc and she countered with how things are much worse for transwomen. I disagreed. Then she stomped off saying "Oh fine, you aren't going to vote labour then!"
I hadn't even said that, I said I would like her to persuade me to vote for her.
I suppose they get so cross because at some level they know they are talking nonsense.
I feel quite upset tbh.

Update added by MNHQ: The OP's since discovered that the person was a canvasser, not the actual candidate. The OP's sorry for the error - please see their later updates.

Labour party doorknocker here.

I can totally believe that happened. 😕

The party is still in denial and have issued no guidence as to how the answer the question 'what is a woman' though it is coming up ALL THE TIME.
They are still pretending its not happening, so individuals are left to their own devices. GC members are quietly saying they agree and gender true believers are calling people transphobes.
Its nuts.

OP can share it where she likes. People can also point out why it’s lacking in reasons to trust and they think it’s BS.

what you’re doing is stereotyping and advocating using very flimsy examples to bolster what you already believe. Knock yourself out, but at least be aware of what you’re doing.

OP can share it where she likes. People can also point out why it’s lacking in reasons to trust and they think it’s BS.

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

The canvasser who knocked on my door did the quietly agreeing thing. And told me that the candidate was also GC but didn’t feel able to speak out about this issue. 😞

what you’re doing is stereotyping and advocating using very flimsy examples to bolster what you already believe.

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.

I’d like boris out and moral leadership but can’t vote Labour due to them asking women to move over ..

It’s OK being called a racist that’s fine but calling someone Daily Mail reader to the worst insult of all.

Seriously, that candidate is not for real because you don’t disagree with a potential voter in that way, everyone is entitled to an opinion and it does not have to agree with anyone. For instance you can be called racist for wanting controls on immigration, whereas others want to allow in any migrants.

The stories will do anything to be re-elected. They are corrupt. They should be massacred at the next elections. They wont be because Labour is a mysogynist party. Maybe if voters send a clear enough message via local elections Starmer will realise that he has lost a substantial number of Labour voters in order appease some fanatics. I had hopes of him making Labour electable but he hasnt yet shown he has got the guts to do so.

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.

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

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.

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

Like anyone else on MN anonymously.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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