I find White Van Dan interesting as he is the kind of swing voter I come across in my private life - at parties and just talking to people. I often find on the doorstep, the type of people I meet (and who want to talk) do tend to have explicit reasons why they vote certain ways, or plan to. But most people vote in General Elections, and when chatting to friends and acquaintances I find it's not always a logical decision. White Van Dan said he voted Tory at the last election but "didn't know why". I've heard that sort of statement before - and I don't believe it's altogether a bad thing
On this blog I often argue for the role of emotions in politics to be paid more attention to, especially here in Britain where we aren't terribly connected to our emotions at the best of times, or at least aren't supposed to be. I think recognising that emotions play far more of a role in the lives of voters, members and activists is important work..
After the Police and Crime Commissioner elections it was stated (tho I'm still searching for the source!) that the circa. 20% of the electorate that voted seemed to be the type of people that activists are, and can be wont to think they are targeting - those who engage with logical argument (whether that's to agree or disagree), research candidates and always vote. Which leaves 80% that don't. Worth thinking about.
On the other hand the one thing I'm really not interested in is the "narrative". Emily Thornberry may have been snobbish, foolish, unwise and/or arrogant but I really don't think it says anything about Labour in general.
And I am rather sick of people talking about "the narrative" which seems to be shorthand for "I'm going to either agree or disagree with what everyone else is talking about". It's just all a bit boring.