*sigh* Calm down. Take a breath.
I don’t think I’m the only one not making much of a fuss about this possible leadership challenge in your party. Yes, I get that it is the first time in so many years that the delegates may get to vote for a leader. So I do understand why this would be a big deal.
But…it kinda isn’t. It really isn’t THAT serious.
Am I missing something here?
It has been touted that the JLP has a tradition of choosing a leader by consensus. Although this may very well be, there is a system in place that facilitates a challenge to the current leadership. Perhaps it’s because such systems have not been engaged for so many years why the very idea of one is so daunting. Is democracy strange to you?
The possibility of disunity and “gutter politics” may become a reality by virtue of the attitude and conduct of members who opt to not let the process simply take its course. If the party has a set of values, policies and principles around which members can unite, selecting a leader really should not create such an irreparable rift. Unless, of course, your politics is ONLY about personalities and not about policies. A challenge does not necessarily equate to disloyalty/disunity. It’s simply an opportunity for delegates to see/hear other perspectives and vote on whichever they think is best. That’s all, really.
The sky isn’t falling.
Yes, it may look ugly at first, but that’s only because opposing views will clash. It’s not the end of the world. Understand that the process of change/growth isn’t pretty. And interfering with the process will make the thing dysfunctional.
For heaven’s sake, PLEASE LEARN HOW TO RIDE AND WHISTLE. YOU ARE STILL THE QUEEN’S LOYAL OPPOSITION.