Generally, these voter archetypes are extremely insulting to the part of the voting population which they pretend that they represent, and, as the writer says, they trivialise the political debate.
I don’t disagree, although I would say it’s partly human nature to categorise people into boxes like this. More so when you know little about the people and areas involved.
I don’t disagree, although I would say it’s partly human nature to categorise people into boxes like this. More so when you know little about the people and areas involved.
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago
Generally, these voter archetypes are extremely insulting to the part of the voting population which they pretend that they represent, and, as the writer says, they trivialise the political debate.
Generally, these voter archetypes are extremely insulting to the part of the voting population which they pretend that they represent, and, as the writer says, they trivialise the political debate.
Talking of which, no-one should forget “White Van Man”, courtesy of Labour’s Emily Thornberry.
I don’t disagree, although I would say it’s partly human nature to categorise people into boxes like this. More so when you know little about the people and areas involved.
Talking of which, no-one should forget “White Van Man”, courtesy of Labour’s Emily Thornberry.
I don’t disagree, although I would say it’s partly human nature to categorise people into boxes like this. More so when you know little about the people and areas involved.
Generally, these voter archetypes are extremely insulting to the part of the voting population which they pretend that they represent, and, as the writer says, they trivialise the political debate.
What next, The Wombles of Wimbledon?
The woke ouankers of West Wittering.
The woke ouankers of West Wittering.
What next, The Wombles of Wimbledon?