This post is in two halves. The first is an update on the substack and our plans for the next few months; the second is, as promised, a final update on the US midterms on Tuesday with some predictions, albeit tentative ones given how tight many of the key races look going into the last few days.
I'm curious about how far attitudes to relationships with Europe/possible rejoin/closer alignment are influenced by the perceived difficulties of getting back in - the arguments, the hassle etc. So I'd love to ask something like this question.
If you woke up tomorrow morning and found the Referendum had all been a dream and we were still in the EU would you be:
A. Delighted.
B. Pleased.
C. Not bothered.
D. Angry.
E. Furious.
My guess is that the number of people who really care about not being in the EU is now quite small but could be wrong!
You're running polling, and asking subscribers for things they would like to ask the public? That's so exciting, both for you and for us!
I'd love to see the public asked about foreign aid. We know that just a numerical target, be that either 0.5% or 0.7%, is unpopular and is normally among the most prominent victims when people are asked "if we forced you to cut government spending, where would you start?"
But I feel that's partially because the foreign aid debate is extremely primitive. We only discuss how much is spent but never on what that money is spent on or how much good it does. I'd like to see people given details of specific aid programmes the UK government has funded, and asked whether that was money well-spent.
I definitely have been impressed with the way that Substack itself has enabled growth for publications within itself. We've seen huge spikes through being featured and the recommendation set-up does a good job of pooling like-minded readers with like-minded writers.
In terms of the future and subject matter, with the public accepting, in the main, that climate change is happening and something needs to be done - what is acceptable? I suspect that, like taxation, it will be easier to get support for policy that affects other people; Vegetarians would be happy to ban/tax meat, public transport users happy to penalise car users, those that don't fly wanting to see a reduction in flying compared to 2019 (Declaration; I work in aviation).
But I've not seen much detailed polling on this or, perhaps the flipside what people would sacrifice or agree to see more robust economic growth.
Completely agree on Lake. She's the natural heir to MAGA and a likelier VP nom than Haley, Noem and MTG for me (assuming she beats Hobbs of course).
Most MAGA politicians fall into two buckets: either they are so dumb that they believe the nonsense they're selling (Gosar, Jordan etc), or they're talentless crisis actors who are scared of their base yet transparently hold it in contempt (Hawley, Cruz).
Lake is an accomplished liar, a performance artist who knows how to manipulate her supporters and tell them what they want to hear without betraying that she's fully aware the narrative she's pushing is a complete fantasy.
Fetterman came up with a good line last weekend, akin to Churchill's famous quip: "I'll be much better in January (when the new Senate is sworn in), but Oz will still be a fraud."
Sam, do you know whether Trump standing for election can also be a device that allows him to avoid legal scrutiny or provide safe harbour of any kind from legal challenge? I presume not. But does something like safety from certain prosecution reestablish itself if he was to be returned to the presidency. Could it be another motivation for him to stand?
Not normally one for hyperbole, but given how ropey things got in the States between Nov 2020 and Jan 2021, it really does seem like it'd be an absolute nightmare scenario if say the 2024 presidential election was a repeat in terms of results and candidates of 2020, but there was a Republican House and Senate, with one or two strategically important Governorships like Arizona in Trumpian hands. The world's largest western democracy seems genuinely vulnerable to an actual coup.
To what extent would holding the Executive allow Biden ride out a scenario where AZ for instance sent a slate of electors to vote for Trump even if he'd actually lost the state? If the House and Senate were happy to ratify such a thing, would Harris still be able to prevent that (i.e. doing what Trump wanted Pence to do, but in service of protecting rather than trashing democracy?)
Seems like things could get very hairy indeed Stateside in the next couple of years.
I wonder what the response of European democracies would be in such an event? Would they have to observe convention and just pretend Trump is a normal president if he assumed office illegitimatly?
A question for Sir Lawrence - the electricity situation in Kyiv now looks critical. What would the knock on effects of a prolonged total blackout in the capital be? If Ukraine has to somehow find the capacity to relocate millions of civilians while simultaneously fighting the war, how might that unfold? It's hard to imagine how the areas outside Kyiv could absorb that many people. Possibly a large number will have to cross into Poland and elsewhere. Obviously it would be a huge blow to the country economically and morally to see its capital emptied. But would it make a difference in the long run to the actual fighting?
Glad to hear your substack is doing well and expanding. I'd definitely be interested in quality analysis of other big issues where you're not well placed to write about them (although I wouldn't underrate the ability of a knowledageble policy generalist to make good observations about areas they aren't intimately familiar with - i.e. I think the problem with much of our commentariat isn't what they do; it's how well they do it).
The polling questions I've always thought I'd commission if I had the opportunity/money would to be find out how becoming a parent changes a) voting behaviour and b) what values a person tends to place most weight on (e.g. security, family, fairness etc.), and how this varies by income/social class/sex. Appreciate not simple to poll. There's a fair amount of US polling you can look at that gets somewhat close to this, but little that's publicly available in the UK. I have strong priors that this characteristic is more important than many others in shaping people's political interests, but little other than anecdotal evidence to go on to back it up.
I'm curious about how far attitudes to relationships with Europe/possible rejoin/closer alignment are influenced by the perceived difficulties of getting back in - the arguments, the hassle etc. So I'd love to ask something like this question.
If you woke up tomorrow morning and found the Referendum had all been a dream and we were still in the EU would you be:
A. Delighted.
B. Pleased.
C. Not bothered.
D. Angry.
E. Furious.
My guess is that the number of people who really care about not being in the EU is now quite small but could be wrong!
You're running polling, and asking subscribers for things they would like to ask the public? That's so exciting, both for you and for us!
I'd love to see the public asked about foreign aid. We know that just a numerical target, be that either 0.5% or 0.7%, is unpopular and is normally among the most prominent victims when people are asked "if we forced you to cut government spending, where would you start?"
But I feel that's partially because the foreign aid debate is extremely primitive. We only discuss how much is spent but never on what that money is spent on or how much good it does. I'd like to see people given details of specific aid programmes the UK government has funded, and asked whether that was money well-spent.
I definitely have been impressed with the way that Substack itself has enabled growth for publications within itself. We've seen huge spikes through being featured and the recommendation set-up does a good job of pooling like-minded readers with like-minded writers.
In terms of the future and subject matter, with the public accepting, in the main, that climate change is happening and something needs to be done - what is acceptable? I suspect that, like taxation, it will be easier to get support for policy that affects other people; Vegetarians would be happy to ban/tax meat, public transport users happy to penalise car users, those that don't fly wanting to see a reduction in flying compared to 2019 (Declaration; I work in aviation).
But I've not seen much detailed polling on this or, perhaps the flipside what people would sacrifice or agree to see more robust economic growth.
Completely agree on Lake. She's the natural heir to MAGA and a likelier VP nom than Haley, Noem and MTG for me (assuming she beats Hobbs of course).
Most MAGA politicians fall into two buckets: either they are so dumb that they believe the nonsense they're selling (Gosar, Jordan etc), or they're talentless crisis actors who are scared of their base yet transparently hold it in contempt (Hawley, Cruz).
Lake is an accomplished liar, a performance artist who knows how to manipulate her supporters and tell them what they want to hear without betraying that she's fully aware the narrative she's pushing is a complete fantasy.
Fetterman came up with a good line last weekend, akin to Churchill's famous quip: "I'll be much better in January (when the new Senate is sworn in), but Oz will still be a fraud."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pennlive.com/news/2022/10/ill-be-much-better-but-he-will-still-be-a-fraud-fetterman-flips-own-health-struggles-against-oz.html%3foutputType=amp
Too optimistic for Democrats imo. The base scenario is Republicans gaining seats.
Also, correction, run off for Georgia would be Dec 6.
Sam, do you know whether Trump standing for election can also be a device that allows him to avoid legal scrutiny or provide safe harbour of any kind from legal challenge? I presume not. But does something like safety from certain prosecution reestablish itself if he was to be returned to the presidency. Could it be another motivation for him to stand?
Not normally one for hyperbole, but given how ropey things got in the States between Nov 2020 and Jan 2021, it really does seem like it'd be an absolute nightmare scenario if say the 2024 presidential election was a repeat in terms of results and candidates of 2020, but there was a Republican House and Senate, with one or two strategically important Governorships like Arizona in Trumpian hands. The world's largest western democracy seems genuinely vulnerable to an actual coup.
To what extent would holding the Executive allow Biden ride out a scenario where AZ for instance sent a slate of electors to vote for Trump even if he'd actually lost the state? If the House and Senate were happy to ratify such a thing, would Harris still be able to prevent that (i.e. doing what Trump wanted Pence to do, but in service of protecting rather than trashing democracy?)
Seems like things could get very hairy indeed Stateside in the next couple of years.
I wonder what the response of European democracies would be in such an event? Would they have to observe convention and just pretend Trump is a normal president if he assumed office illegitimatly?
A question for Sir Lawrence - the electricity situation in Kyiv now looks critical. What would the knock on effects of a prolonged total blackout in the capital be? If Ukraine has to somehow find the capacity to relocate millions of civilians while simultaneously fighting the war, how might that unfold? It's hard to imagine how the areas outside Kyiv could absorb that many people. Possibly a large number will have to cross into Poland and elsewhere. Obviously it would be a huge blow to the country economically and morally to see its capital emptied. But would it make a difference in the long run to the actual fighting?
Glad to hear your substack is doing well and expanding. I'd definitely be interested in quality analysis of other big issues where you're not well placed to write about them (although I wouldn't underrate the ability of a knowledageble policy generalist to make good observations about areas they aren't intimately familiar with - i.e. I think the problem with much of our commentariat isn't what they do; it's how well they do it).
The polling questions I've always thought I'd commission if I had the opportunity/money would to be find out how becoming a parent changes a) voting behaviour and b) what values a person tends to place most weight on (e.g. security, family, fairness etc.), and how this varies by income/social class/sex. Appreciate not simple to poll. There's a fair amount of US polling you can look at that gets somewhat close to this, but little that's publicly available in the UK. I have strong priors that this characteristic is more important than many others in shaping people's political interests, but little other than anecdotal evidence to go on to back it up.