I hate paywalls. A long time ago, I swore I would never implement one, and my feeling remains the same. If something is worth saying then it should be open to anyone who shows an interest. I have a pretty low opinion of Substackers who do paywall their content, and I don't like the way it changes political culture into a paying gig where you're being asked to cough up every time you interact with an author. I wouldn't mind so much if it was even worth the money but usually it isn't.
For my part, I would keep a blog running regardless of whether or not anyone would pay for it, because it's useful to have a database of all your own opinions, and have the ability to track the evolution of your own thinking. I have blog posts going back more than a decade as a memory aid. An essential part of predicting how politicians will perform is recalling things they've said and done in the past. That's one of the reasons I have a pretty good track record of being right.
The other reason is my pessimistic outlook. If you expect the worst, British politicians will always find a way to surpass your expectations. As such, I'm usually waaaay ahead of the curve, and if ever you want to know what Telegraph columnists will be writing in six months time, you just have to look at what I'm writing today.
A lot people really don't like my analysis, because I have a tendency to break things down to their constituent parts, see how they interact, and say it how I see it - with brutal honesty. I often conclude things people wish I wasn't right about - but often have to concede that I am.
I would have a much easier life were I a sycophant, because the real money is regurgitating lazy slop and feeding people their own opinions back to them. I couldn't do that even if I wanted to. It's boring and it would violate my conscience. Analysis is what I do, and a need for popularity does not taint my conclusions.
All the same, I can't get by on X revenue alone, and I do rely on voluntary paying subscribers to Substack. Subscribers don't get anything extra, except the knowledge they are contributing to my upkeep so I can keep doing what I do - which clearly does have value even if it often doesn't feel like it. I don't have a big audience but I do have a high quality audience - and that's the way I prefer it.
My Substack has been running for about two and half years now, and I hardly ever prompt people to donate or subscribe, because I just don't like doing it. Occasionally, though, it is necessary to remind readers that I have bills to pay, same as everyone, and if you'd like to see my work continue, it would really help me out if you did take out a paid subscription - which you can cancel at any time if you stop agreeing with me (which is often the case). Subscribing helps me to avoid pay-walling content, keeping the political internet the way it's supposed to be.
A small favour...
My own financial situation is precarious. I would donate but cannot afford to unfortunately.
I was fired from my job at Bath University, for writing a book critical of Islam.
All my Substack articles are free (apart from the two that have links for ebook downloads of course).
I also have a hesitancy asking for paid subscriptions or donations. I understand that. In reality some people have been extraordinarily generous. It does help us to persevere.
https://hellish2050.substack.com/about
I've subscribed to your Substack Pete. I want to support you. You are a very reasonable voice I see on X and I want to help Britain as best I can.
I am from the US: we are tied in history, language, values, and civilization. Thank you for being so thoughtful with your posts - they speak to me. For what it's worth: thank you for your effort.