Posts
Manchester Withington Selection: Anonymous "Your attempts to appear even handed are pretty poor"
Today at 12:35 "Anonymous" submitted a comment on my Comic Relief post which had included a bit of a grrrl power interlude:If Lucy is 'careerist' why would she be trying to get selected for this seat? Surely she would be better off trying to get selected for a safe Labour held seat? As I see it, she has made a lot of sacrifices in terms of her career in order to try to represent the constituency where she was brought up and where her family still live. Your attempts on this blog to appear even-handed about the selection are pretty poor to say the least. I just hope that if the person who gets selected is not your choice you stop knocking them and give them your support.
My response (and I very much welcome comments from all sides) :
1. Manchester Withington is a great seat for Labour. We should be aiming to re-build the five-figure majority that Keith Bradley achieved over time. It could well be a safer bet than a number of "safe" seats that will come up for selection over the next six months. John Leech will fight for every vote. It will not be easy. But this is a great prospect.
2. All the candidates are making sacrifices of time, money and other opportunities. I would not attempt to weigh those up and say X is putting in or losing more money therefore let's vote for them. That's too old school.
3. Representing the place where you were born and brought up is a fine romance. Unless as for me it is Worksop, Notts/Doncaster, South Yorks/Derry/Wycombe/Bristol and for the last 30 years virtually Manchester. The other places I have not been tied to for a pretty long time. Much longer than either Nargis or Lucy have been away from Greater Manchester. I'm not sure how many born-in-the-constituency MPs there are nationally? Perhaps you have the statistics for this fairy tale ending? To me it's cute but not as important as beliefs and policies.
4. This blog is even-handed on various levels. Anyone can comment. Anyone's comments that appear to be from a candidate or immediate campaigners that breaks the code get knifed. We have successfully policed an intrinsically anarchic medium to be pretty even handed and fair.
5. Anyone can email the blogger with information and requests. None have been ignored or refused. See two things today requested by Naheed. YouTube requested by Nargis. Web link forwarded by Yogesh. No requests from Jenny or Lucy received.
6. On the endorsements I have been more than even-handed to ONE of the candidates. The only endorsement whose poster has defied the rules of not being anonymous is Leo backing Lucy. All the others are identified. This is where the contested word "socialist" appears as an attribute. I also went out on a limb and persuaded another blogger who doesn't like censorship anymore than I do to remove images of Lucy and Nargis that some sensitive soul found unhelpful and berated me about. I didn't have to do that. It's not like they were the Wicked Witch of the South and the North or anything. Just snaps.
7. That's pretty even handed. There is no element of unfairness in the system here. But this is not the BBC. The Constituency hasn't hired me to be the campaign blogger. I have opinions and I blog them a bit, without going overboard on this particular matter. I mostly save that for Tories and Lib Dems. But having a blog and going opinionless would be bonkers. Anyone can start a blog or a website or myspace or facebook or youtube. It's all virtually free. It is completely unreasonable to expect even-handedness meaning "no comment" when the means of production are widely and freely available.
8. Clearly I will swear an oath of allegiance to whoever is selected. Or if they prefer to do without the reputational risk of knowing that bollocks blogger bloke then I will graft away in secret following orders rather than be an embarrassment.
But on this last point I think I must say that where this campaign has got a bit clenchy jawed and where things have sometimes seemed a bit unfair or a bit odd that this could detract from people's commitment. Those responsible need to work out how they will mend any damage caused by any manic behaviour, twists, gamespersonship and briefings whoever may win the selection.
May the best woman win.
What do readers think? If you can bear to not be anonymous or skulking under pen names or identifying who you're backing perhaps that would be preferred. I know there are some endorsements in pipeline. Please don't be shy about using that facility. And as Naheed, Nargis and Yogesh can vouch if I am sent a link or some text or a picture I will likely publish it. None refused so far.
13 comments:
Chris has done a excellent job in keeping the world outside Withington informed on the selection progress. Yes he may have his preferences but to my knowledge there is no one stopping anonymous from setting up their own blogg supporting Lucy. Although I don't recall Chris saying Lucy was careerist, Withington is one of the few seats Labour will probably re-gain and I think this would be perfect for a careerist.
Where I think Lucy has failed ot make an impact is that she has a professional campaigning background, yet she has not introduced any innovitaive campaigning techniques. One only candidate has done this from the start and if I still lived there she would get my support (if it is not obvious I am referring to Nargis).
I'm someone who would be surprised to learn that I have even passed through Withington, having no idea which bit of Manchester it is.
I am however a LP member who was shocked at the loss at the election, and wants re-assurance we're going to get it back. So. who the candidate will be is important to a wider group than just the Withingtonians.
This blog has been very useful in keeping us 'outoftowners' in touch.
Good on yu!
Concerned cyclist Fesses !!
I have to confess that I voted anti Keith Bradley last time. I disn't want him as an MP as he and his party were compacent lazy and too sure that it was a safe seat.
There are no safe seats in a democracy there are only compacent mp's.
And if I were a betting man I would happily bet on john leech to win the next election in chorlton.
So are you saying that a crappy MP who is not complacent will hold onto a seat? And that after Keith built up a 10,000 majority over 14 years and people pissed it away (or had it stolen depending on your POV) in 14 days there is no way back for a good Labour candidate next time?
That's well wrong I think. We'll have to wait and see. I believe all of the potential winners in this contest would be better MPs than Leech straight out of the box. All will have to work hard but one or two of them would, for my money - if I were a betting man - would be able to build a much better majority than the other.
That seems to be the tale of Nargis in Hackney. She and the Labour team didn't just beat the Lib Dems the first time they annihilated them. So humiliated that they haven't made it back as competitors at all. Not even a distant second now. That's the kind of win we want in Mat Wit. Not just pipping them. Slaughtering them.
Oh and by the way - spending thousands over the expenses limit may make a pretender seem more hungry at the time. But with the benefit of hindsight many constituents will realise that getting five or ten times as much paper from a party doesn't mean the man with less is complacent it may mean instead that the parting "pushing the envelope" as it were are just a tad dishonest and yeah corrupt.
£17 for phone calls? Ha ha. Printing 10 times as much for around the same money? Give us a break. That would be filthy politics. Buying a seat.
If you were a betting man then you'd be wearing carboard shoes 'cos John Leech isn't standing in Chorlton at the next election.
You Lib Dem trolls are getting poorer by the minute
Your response is too long to respond to in full (didn't realise my post would cause such a reaction), but a few comments:
If you were born and brought up somewhere, chances are that you are going to be passionate about the place and really want to fight for local people. It isn't that important in the grand scheme of things, but I think it does help to explain why Lucy would want to represent Withington. Also rebuts the suggestion that has been posted on this site that she is some kind of London jonnie-come lately type.
A blog can never really be even-handed can it? You are the author and the moderator so the majority of the content is inevitably your views.
While you may have broken your own rules to post Lucy's endorsement you have then gone on in some detail about 'Leo' not being identified, which naturally makes the reader question the validity of the post. So while you graciously give with one hand you certainly take away with the other.
As for point 7 of your response: ' I have opinions and I blog them a bit, without going overboard on this particular matter.' Ahem... did I miss something or isn't the vast majority of your blog dedicated to the selection?
btw, I have posted with a name this time to illustrate the irrelevance of your gripe about revealing identity. It is a classic blog red herring to gripe about anonymous posters as a response to negative comments. Does 'used to be Withington clp' give us anymore clue to someone's identity than anonymous does???
This blog has been essential daily reading for me. Followed every twist in the nomination process. Saved us 2.20 in paying under-postage. Staff training needed at Huddersfield PO. Sir Rowland Hill to be resurrected to run the Royal Mail.
Even handed - clearly yes as you allow comments and have responded to email requests. It has some bias / preferences, but it's a weblog that's what they publish - somebody's take on events, their view of the world. That's why I read blogs, that's why I write blogs.
Flobalob: You are still posting anonymously. Very clever. So sharp you'll cut yourself.
As for "your answer is too long to answer." What evasive rot.
Most of my blog is NOT about the selection. There are around 300 posts and there are not 151 on the selection or anything like it. These are of course the posts that generally attract the most comment though.
On the "Leo" question you're damn right I mention it's not identified. All the other posts have identifiable, real authors. That was the rule. This one doesn't follow the rule.
It would be easily resolved by the author identifying themselves. Or someone else who is willing to put their name to an endorsement for Lucy perhaps.
I haven't blogged who Steve is because they didn't want me to, but it is a real person with a vote in this selection who is not themselves a candidate.
The use of the word socialist in it really jars for this reader. The word means something specific.
And the idea of friends and family swinging the vote is looking like "Leo" thinks the next election will be far closer than it really ought to be.
We need a candidate who can draw back thousand upon thousand of voters - in line with the swing back to Frank's Labour in Burnage and also achieved in several Gorton wards.
You're right that posters on this particular item are ignoring my request to identify themselves. One of them is a troll. The others are making mostly positive points.
You are dishing out criticism under cover of anonymity. Up to you friend. But it's not very inspiring the way you people (or indeed some of the other fan clubs) are skulking about. Courage mon brave!
You know I don't think much of the who's the most "local" argument so I'll not go on about it. Oh go on. Yogesh wins hands down but she will be first out. Lucy, Naheed, and Nargis are all local women who have moved away for extended periods. Jenny is not quite so local but she has been in the area over recent years.
It's not a USP.
This is Chris' Blog so there's absolutely no obligation on him to be even handed at all - in spite of this he has been really fair. The only people who seem to have any problem with it are:
a. People who hate the lack of control they have over new media - they would probably have banned the printing press and wish the bible was still in latin.
B.people who seem to feel Lucy has had a bad deal. this is weird as all candidates have come in for some scrutiny / mild ribbing etc and none of the others seem to mind - lets face it it's as nothing as to what the selected candidate will face from the Lib Dems.
Maybe it's that Lucy is backed by a group of people whio have grown so used to controlling things that they can't cope with the kind of rough and tumble the others take for granted?
It's not Lucy's claim to be local that's the problem- clearly, like Naheed, she grew up in the constituency. It's the way her supporters have then over egged the pudding by trying to make out that she's been massively active in the constituency when she hasn't actually lived her as an adult and most of us who have been active had never heard of her before this let alone bumped into her out canvassing or on the phones.
Also hard to take is the fact that she has apparantly lived in the constituency long enough to be entitled to vote in the selection even though according to her own enrty on friends reunited she still lived in London in November - oh and according to her own CV and their website she still chairs North Fulham NDC.
I think Lucy would be an excellent candidate but her advisers/ supporters are making it diffcult for me to feel able to support her.
A bit more honesty and a bit less New Labour spin and control freakery would help.
This stuff about Nargis whipping the Lib Dems is rubbish.
When she first stood in 2002 the Lib Dems only fielded TWO candidates for the three seats that were up for grabs.
Across Hackney they only fielded candidates for about half the available seats.
They were beaten and demoralised before Nargis stood.
This is hardly the "Winning a seat from the Lib Dems in their stronghold" that Nargis claims in her cv.
They had already given up and gone home.
Dalston ward - where Nargis is a councillor - was represented by one Lib Dem after a by-election in 1996 (won by less than 10 votes) and by three after the all-out in 1998 until 2002.
Before and since those dates it has always been a safe Labour seat.
Lib Dem stronghold? You're 'aving a larf.
Chris - I know you don't like people having a go at your chosen one but if you are going to make exaggerated claims what do you expect?
Coming Home To Labour has it right. Lucy is a winning candidate but her team is so old-skool. As for the last comment - don't take it away from Nagis. She won a council seat - no prizes in coming second
Thanks to anonymous Miles and Co and anonymous Jim and Co for the run of anonymous comments. On the former I was told a few days ago that you were going to blog this hackneyed Hackney thing. I thought that was a bit silly really and I told one of your associates that. Why silly?
Because :
(a) Taking three seats off the Lib Dems in an all out in 2002 is dishing out a brilliant thumping. Excellent Manchester Labour did not manage that in any seat in our last all out. We'd be cock-a-hoop if we did as the Lib Dems were in several "safe Labour" seats they stole from us.
(b) The fact that a party that had held three seats for four years got thumped and were then unable to regroup at all is excellent. It indicates a harrying campaign stretching for years exposing their futility and inaction when they are the ones in the Council Chamber and with best press access as Cllr Dim, Cllr Dimmer and Cllr Dimmest.
(c) Manchester Withington is a bit similar. After Tory domination for eons Francis Done (who would have been a great MP IMO) almost won in 83 and Keith Bradley did win in 87. No history of Lib Dem success in parliamentaries. Then 18 years of Labour with a good record of establishing an apparently unassailable position. Then Events Dear Boy Events and a one-off shock. Then we hope a good thumping and Labour back on course. Innit?
(d) Second preferences could be very important. I'd imagine a fairly likely combination of votes is Jenny (1) Nargis (2) and another is Nargis (1) Jenny (2). It seems a bit daft to risk that. That is the numero uno reason why a skilled political campaigner rather than a situationist would not have posted this stuff in the wee small hours. It's bad politics.
You are currently wrong about my "favoured candidate" but you could make yourself right with more such anonymous posts!
If you wish me to take down any anonymous posts I can do so on request. But you can't. This is one disadvantage of posting anonymously - you cannot get your own words back if you reconsider.
As flobalot suggests you can use any name instead of "anonymous" but if you use a Blogger identity (which needn't be your own name) you can also remove your own posts.
Let the games continue.
Post a Comment