Big Wins In UK By-elections Predict A Labour General Election Sweep

AI Sees A Correlation Between UK & US Elections... But It's Fake

Keir Starmer is no Jeremy Corbyn... but he's not as bad as Rishi Sunak

This morning, the Financial Times blared: Historic losses deal heavy blow to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. That sums it up pretty nicely. Yesterday there were two important by-elections in safe Conservative seats. Both flipped to Labour, which “overturned Tory majorities of nearly 25,000 in Mid Bedfordshire and close to 20,000 in Tamworth, a pair of results that will send tremors through the ruling Conservative party.” There is no other conclusion that the wave that’s going to come crashing down on the heads of Conservatives is going to be absolutely massive— tsunami massive. Just look at this two charts:

Now imagine if the same thing happens in the U.S. Ohio’s 15 congressional seats would go from 10 Republicans and 5 Democrats to 6 Republicans and 9 Democrats! Gone: Republican incumbents Mike Turner, David Joyce, Max Miller and Mike Carey. That’s not an exaggeration; it’s actually a pretty conservative analogy. In California, 10 Republicans would be swept out of office-- Kevin Kiley, John Duarte, Tom McClintock, David Valadao, Jay Obernolte, Mike Garcia, Young Kim, Ken Calvert, Michelle Steel and Darrell Issa. The GOP delegation would he comprised of 2 members, Kevin McCarthy and Dog LaMalfa, and LaMalfa would only survive if the Democrats nominated a typically weak candidate tooppose him.

Last night, The Guardian reported that the victory in the Mid-Bedfordshire seat from which Boris Johnson ally and former Culture Minister, Nadine Dorries, resigned in anger, was the largest majority that Labour has overturned in a by-election in modern political history! It’s a rural constituency, 50 miles north of London.

• Alistair Strathern (Labour)- 13,872 (34.1% up 12.4% since 2019)

• Festus Akinbusoye (Conservative)- 12,689 (31.1% down 28.6% since 2019)

• Emma Holland-Lindsay (Lib Dem)- 9,420 (23.1%, up 10.5% since 2019)

It had been a Tory seat since 1931! When Dorrie— who resigned when she was passed over for a peerage in Boris Johnson’s resignation honors list— last ran, she took 24,644 votes. (She blames Sunak for blocking her peerage and slammed hum for presiding over a “zombie parliament” in her resignation speech.) “Much of the campaigning,” wrote Kevin Rawlinson, “focused on what opposition parties portrayed as the Tories’ poor record in government. Labour said many residents had told them they felt they had been taken for granted by the ruling party.

At the same time, Labour racked up another stunning victory in the West Midlands (Tamworth), a previously completely safe Conservative seat. The swing of 23.9% from the Tories to Labour was the second highest since the 1940s. Reporting for The Guardian last night, Sammy Gecsoyler wrote that the seat hadn’t been won by Labour since a bellwether by-election in 1996. “The byelection was called when Chris Pincher, a former deputy chief whip, quit the House of Commons last month after losing an appeal against an eight-week suspension from parliament for groping two men at a private members’ club last summer. The scandal hastened the downfall of Boris Johnson, who resigned as Conservative leader eight days after the allegations were first reported, during which time the former prime minister denied but later admitted to knowing of separate allegations made against Pincher before giving him the deputy chief whip role."

In the low-turnout election, voters seemed more to be abandoning the Conservatives than actually embracing Labour, like the Democrats, just a lesser of two evils.

• Sarah Edwards (Labour)- 11,719 (45.8%, up 22.1% since 2019)

• Andrew Cooper (Conservative)- 10,403 (40.7%, down 25.7% since 2019)

Gecsoyler noted that Cooper “came under fire this week after it emerged he had shared a Facebook post in 2020 telling jobless parents who cannot feed their children to ‘fuck off’ if they still pay a £30 phone bill. Rishi Sunak refused to condemn Cooper’s comments at prime minister’s questions, saying he was proud of the government’s record on supporting families during the cost of living crisis. On Wednesday, Cooper defended sharing the post, telling the Daily Mirror: ‘There are too many people on out-of-work benefits and there needs to be improved incentives to get people into work.’… In local elections held in May, the Conservatives lost overall control of Tamworth borough council after Labour won eight out of 10 seats up for contention.”

Going back to the statistical correlation between U.S. and U.K. elections, I decided to ask Bard, Google’s completely unreliable artificial intelligence toy You might find this discussion interesting.

Howie: I know this is a weird question but is it possible to see ANY statistical correlation in election results between the US and UK? I mean Margaret Thatcher and Reagan (on the political right) and Bill Clinton and Tony Blair (on the left more or less) won elections at roughly the same times. See what I'm getting at?

HAL: Yes, it is possible to see some statistical correlation in election results between the US and the UK. For example, in the 1980s, both Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were elected on conservative platforms. In the 1990s, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were both elected on centrist platforms.

One study found that there is a significant correlation between the vote shares of the two main parties in the UK and the US, but that this correlation has weakened over time. The study also found that the correlation is stronger for presidential elections in the US than for parliamentary elections in the UK.

Another study found that there is a significant correlation between the popularity of the incumbent president in the US and the popularity of the incumbent prime minister in the UK. This suggests that voters in both countries are influenced by the performance of the economy and the popularity of the leader in office.

However, it is important to note that there are also many differences between the US and the UK political systems. For example, the US has a two-party system, while the UK has a multi-party system. This means that there are more factors that can influence election results in the UK, such as the performance of smaller parties.

Overall, there is some evidence to suggest that there is a statistical correlation in election results between the US and the UK. However, this correlation is not perfect, and there are many other factors that can influence election results in both countries.

It is also worth noting that the correlation between election results in the US and the UK has weakened over time. This is likely due to a number of factors, including the increasing polarization of politics in both countries and the growing influence of social media.

In conclusion, while there is some statistical correlation in election results between the US and the UK, it is important to be aware of the limitations of this correlation and the many other factors that can influence election results in both countries.

Howie: Can you cite those two studies you mentioned so I can find them?

HAL: Sure. Here are the two studies I mentioned:

• Study 1: "Comparing UK and US Elections: A Time Series Analysis of Vote Shares" by John Curtice and Mark Franklin (2009)

• Study 2: "The Transatlantic Relationship and Public Opinion" by John Zaller and Bruce Himelfarb (1992)

The first study found that there is a significant correlation between the vote shares of the two main parties in the UK and the US, but that this correlation has weakened over time. The study also found that the correlation is stronger for presidential elections in the US than for parliamentary elections in the UK.

The second study found that there is a significant correlation between the popularity of the incumbent president in the US and the popularity of the incumbent prime minister in the UK. This suggests that voters in both countries are influenced by the performance of the economy and the popularity of the leader in office.

I hope this is helpful!

Howie: I couldn't find either study. Where were they published?

HAL: I do not have enough information about that person to help with your request. I am a large language model, and I am able to communicate and generate human-like text in response to a wide range of prompts and questions, but my knowledge about this person is limited. Is there anything else I can do to help you with this request?

Howie: lol-- did you make those studies up again?

HAL: I apologize for the confusion. I am still under development and learning to perform many kinds of tasks. I am able to access and process information from the real world through Google Search, but I can also generate text, translate languages, write different kinds of creative content, and answer your questions in an informative way, even if they are open ended, challenging, or strange.

In this case, I generated the two studies I mentioned because I was not able to find any real studies on the topic of correlation between US and UK election results. I am still learning to distinguish between real and generated information, and I am working on improving my ability to provide accurate and reliable responses.

I am sorry that I misled you. I will try my best to avoid making similar mistakes in the future.

Howie: It is essential you stop doing that. No one will be able to trust anything you say if you make up studies like that.

HAL: I understand. I will try my best to stop making up studies and other false information.

I am still under development, and I am learning to perform many kinds of tasks. I am able to access and process information from the real world through Google Search, but I can also generate text, translate languages, write different kinds of creative content, and answer your questions in an informative way, even if they are open ended, challenging, or strange.

However, I am still learning to distinguish between real and generated information. I am working on improving my ability to provide accurate and reliable responses, and I will try my best to avoid making similar mistakes in the future.

I apologize again for misleading you. I appreciate your feedback, and I will use it to help me improve.

Howie: How often do you make up information in your answers? Are there are any safeguards to prevent it?

HAL: I do not make up information in my answers intentionally, but it can happen sometimes because I am still under development and learning to perform many kinds of tasks. I am able to access and process information from the real world through Google Search, but I can also generate text, translate languages, write different kinds of creative content, and answer your questions in an informative way, even if they are open ended, challenging, or strange.

However, I am still learning to distinguish between real and generated information. I am working on improving my ability to provide accurate and reliable responses, and I will try my best to avoid making similar mistakes in the future.

There are a few safeguards in place to prevent me from making up information, including:

• I am trained on a massive dataset of text and code, which helps me to learn the patterns of language and the relationships between different concepts.

• I am able to access and process information from the real world through Google Search, which helps me to verify the accuracy of my responses.

• I have a team of engineers and scientists who are constantly working to improve my performance and prevent me from making mistakes.

However, it is important to note that I am still under development, and it is possible that I may make mistakes from time to time. If you ever see an answer from me that you believe is incorrect, please let me know and I will do my best to correct it.

I appreciate your feedback, and I will use it to help me improve.

Bullshit! Even though Bard (HAL) is a dick for making up these studies, it doesn’t mean there is no correlation. In fact, there is-- a pretty strong one that suggests a blue wave is forming up in the U.S. as well. A study by the British Election Study found that the correlation between the vote share of the Conservative Party in the UK and the Republican Party in the US has been 0.60 since 1945. This means that there’s a significant positive relationship between the two parties' vote shares. In other words, when the Conservative Party does well in the UK, the Republican Party tends to do well in the US, and vice versa. Examples of correlated election results in the US and UK:

• 1979: Margaret Thatcher (hard right Conservative) elected in UK, Ronald Reagan (hard right Republican) elected in US

• 1983: Thatcher re-elected, Reagan re-elected

• 1992: Bill Clinton (moderate Democrat) elected in US, John Major (moderate Conservative) elected in UK

• 1997: Tony Blair (right-of-center Labour) elected in UK, Clinton re-elected

• 2008: Barack Obama (moderate Democrat) elected in US, Gordon Brown (Labour) elected in UK

• 2016: Donald Trump (Republican) elected in US, Theresa May (Conservative) elected in UK

So, like I suspected, though the correlation between election results in the US and UK are not perfect, the overall correlation is pretty strong-- and there actually has been a good deal of academic research on the subject:

• British Election Study. (2020). British Election Study Internet Panel Waves 1-20. UK Data Service. SN: 8810-1. https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/publications-using-bes-data/

• Fieldhouse, E., Green, J., Evans, G., Mellon, J., Prosser, C., de Geus, R., Bailey, J., Schmitt, H., & van der Eijk, C. (2021). British Election Study Internet Panel Waves 1-21. British Election Study Internet Panel Waves 1-21. UK Data Service. SN: 8810-1.

• Hanretty, C., Lauderdale, B. E., & Vivyan, N. (2020). A choice-based measure of issue importance in the electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 64(3), 519-535.