As always, I thoroughly enjoyed the @LSEGovernment Political Behaviour seminars ( https://www.lse.ac.uk/government/research/research-groups/political-behaviour) that I attended last term, so thanks to the organisers ( @katharina_law, @FlorianFoos and @sarahobolt)! Particular high points for me: (1/14)

@soccerquant’s presentation on coronavirus regulation adherence in France before and after Macron’s rousing speech announcing the first lockdown; (2/14)

@ralucapahontu’s presentation on risk-seeking electoral behaviour (e.g. Trump voting) after experiencing hurricane near misses in the US; (3/14)

@SamaraKlar’s presentation on whether the #MeToo movement moderates partisan bias in perceptions of sexual misconduct; and, of course… (4/14)

@ProfSobolewska and @robfordmancs’ tour de force presentation on their new book, Brexitland (I have now bought a copy, and it’s on top of my ‘to read’ pile). (5/14)

A couple of questions on the first two of those presentations: (6/14)

First, @soccerquants, at the outset you raised the question of why people conform to rules when the state doesn’t have the capacity to enforce them if rejected. Have you thought of this in terms of threshold theory? (7/14)

In other words, people conform because (enough) other people do rather than because agents of the state can make them. I think you could frame the Macron speech in these terms; people didn’t necessarily start behaving differently because it was a signal… (8/14)

that the state would enforce the new rules (though I suppose this is still part of it) but because it was a signal that others were going to change their behaviour. So, simply declaring / emphasising a norm creates a norm that is self-enforcing for many. (9/14)

Second, @ralucapahontu, did you include anything in your analyses to take account of the effectiveness of state responses to hurricanes? (10/14)

It might be that actually suffering the consequences of a hurricane is a stark reminder of the importance of / need for state support, even if the state’s response is seriously lacking. (11/14)

By contrast, those close by can observe a poor state response to the disaster without experiencing the visceral, personal costs, could have a different (emotional) response. (12/14)

They might conclude ‘well, the state response is rubbish so you’re basically on your own’ and thus be inclined to vote for parties / candidates that are less supportive of the state. Tenuous, perhaps, but also plausible? (13/14)

Looking forward to attending this term’s seminars when I can! (14/14)