Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Big Data Attempts To Find Meaning In 40 Years of UK Political Debate (thestack.com)

Posted by samzenpus on from the reading-between-the-lies dept.

An anonymous reader writes: International researchers have analyzed 40 years of political speeches from the UK Parliament in an effort to move the study of political theory from social science towards the quantitative analysis offered by Big Data analytics techniques. The group used Python to crunch publicly available data from theyworkforyou.com, comprising 3.7 million individual speeches. A few strange trends emerged in this initial experiment, such as the decline of 'health care' as a trending Parliamentary topic, with 'welfare' consistently on the rise, and the decrease of fervent interest in any particular topic during the more pacific years under Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair.

44 comments

  1. the more pacific years ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "The decrease of fervent interest in any particular topic during the more pacific years under Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair."

    WHAT??

    Brit here. I recall a few comments on the Miner's Strike, under Mrs. T. Something about the Iraq war under Tony Blair, as well.

    Or does this just show how out-of-touch the 40 years of political speeches were with what people were actually concerned about?

    1. Re: the more pacific years ?? by RogueyWon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think it means "years of relative economic stability".

      Don't forget that perceptions of economic (in)stability tend to affect political discourse more than any other factor. The 1984 Miner's Strike and the Iraq War excite a lot of emotion in some quarters, but don't forget that Thatcher and Blair respectively went on to win elections after both of them.

      The declines of the 1979-1997 Conservative Government and the 1997-2010 Labour Governments almost certainly had more to do with a combination of general fatigue and factors that threatened economic stability (Black Monday and Europe for the former, the 2007 financial crash for the latter).

      On this basis, the speeches were actually well tuned to what the majority seem to have been concerned about.

  2. Wow... type-fu by rmdingler · · Score: 2

    ... decrease of fervent interest in any particular topic during the more pacific years under Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair.

    I am trying to envision the turn of events that rendered during periods of political stability into this typo for the ages.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Wow... type-fu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not sure what you see as a typographical error. Pacific:peaceful in character or intent.
      ...decrease of fervent interest in any particular topic during the more (peaceful or stable) years under Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair.

      Seems perfectly compatible with your interpretation.

    2. Re:Wow... type-fu by rmdingler · · Score: 2

      Well looky there... I have dumbass all over my face.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    3. Re:Wow... type-fu by dave420 · · Score: 1

      According to your skewed perception, I'm sure it does.

  3. Political theory?! by BitZtream · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Theres your problem.

    There is nothing scientific about politics.

    Politics are 100% emotion, just like the stock market and the economy.

    These things could be based on sound deterministic things, but they will never be because they all depend on human interaction. You simply can not predict human behavior. Ever. You can make plenty of reasonable accurate generalizations, but there will always be enough people in that generalization who break it horribly and destroy any plans you made based on that generalization.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:Political theory?! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, there is plenty of political theory and ideology to go around. The problem with this study is that what is said is usually nothing to do with the actual motives.

      The current chancellor is a good example. Bangs on about opportunity for all, fairness, all in it together, party of the working class etc. Yet his policies are mostly designed to benefit rich people and big business. His real ideology is pretty much the opposite of what he says, so any study of his speeches is not going to produce any meaningful results.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Political theory?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Politics are 100% emotion

      And 100% singular, at least in that context.

    3. Re:Political theory?! by jandersen · · Score: 1

      The current chancellor is a good example. Bangs on about opportunity for all, fairness, all in it together, party of the working class etc.

      All you need is to adjust for perspective - to him 'working people' are the ones who 'work': business men, bankers, venture capitalists etc, not the other kind: manual labourers, people on low income etc, who are just plebs.

      It is of course a remarkable situation the Conservatives are in. On one hand, they won a lot of seats in Parliament, but as the election of Jeremy Corbin shows, a large part of the explanation was probably that a lot of people were disillusioned with Labour. The problem since the Blair years has been that we had three Tory parties and none that really represented the traditional Labour voters - workers, well I mean plebs, of course. And it shouldn't surprise us that the Tories are better at being Tories - they grew up with the sense of "entitlement without effort" that you need as a genuine Tory.

  4. Prime example by Chrisq · · Score: 2

    Prime example of GIGO

  5. Hrmppfff... by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 2

    Big Data Attempts To Find Meaning In 40 Years of UK Political Debate

    Good luck with that....

    1. Re: Hrmppfff... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It used to be called statistics, plain and simple. I guess Big Data has a better sound to it, although it is quite certainly unnecessary to employ any big data technologies for this particular task.

  6. In the land of ironic framing, signal from noise? by RyanFenton · · Score: 2

    Have you ever watched parliament? For as long as I've ever seen it (occasionally through the years on streams), the ratio of deeply ironic statements to sincere ones would make it almost impossible to interpret systematically. Even judging the number of 'harumphs' after a statement, or forced group laughs wouldn't give you a clear clue in that audience.

    It's like trying to judge violence in a group of young apes who do nothing but posture all day, only accidentally actually hitting eachother. It's all a strange mix of false outrage, forced laughter, crude imitation, lies, and accusation of lies. Things get done in a way, but not without a mountain of pagentry and indirection.

    If you want signal from noise in that scenario, you're better off looking at finances, rather than speeches.

    Ryan Fenton

  7. Oxymoronic headline by hughbar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Attempts to find Meaning in 40 Years of UK Political Debate. Good luck with that. The answer isn't even 42, it's probably 'Punch and Judy'.

    --
    On y va, qui mal y pense!
  8. Re: In the land of ironic framing, signal from noi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The entire point of big data is to provide correlation by extracting signal from enormous amounts of garbage. Pointing out that it is difficult only proves that you are unskilled in the art. The truth is that big data analytics is rather simple, rather the economical assembly and use of enormous chunks of hardware is the tough part.
    Although using the UK as a model for anything should arouse suspicion, if the alternative is France the limits of computer science is exposed.

  9. As said in Yes, Prime Minister by sandbagger · · Score: 3, Funny

    James Hacker: [reading a speech written for him] "We shall of course be reviewing a ... Bernard, this doesn't say anything.

    Bernard Woolley: Oh, thank you , Prime Minister.

    --
    ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
    1. Re:As said in Yes, Prime Minister by tsqr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Heh. The first thing I thought of when I read the headline was a snippet from Asimov's "Foundation":

      When Holk, after two days of steady work, succeeded in eliminating meaningless statements, vague gibberish, useless qualifications – in short, all the goo and dribble – he found he had nothing left. Everything canceled out."

      "Lord Dorwin, gentlemen, in five days of discussion didn't say one damned thing, and said it so you never noticed. There are the assurances you had from your precious Empire."

    2. Re:As said in Yes, Prime Minister by erapert · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points. +1 for on-point Foundation reference.

    3. Re:As said in Yes, Prime Minister by adhdengineer · · Score: 2

      Yes Minister/Prime Minister should be compulsory viewing in schools so people understand the political processes of this great country!

  10. The braying of donkeys by albacrankie · · Score: 2

    The UK's youngest member of parliament had this to say after here first few weeks in the job:

    "So you’re not allowed to clap like an ordinary person, but you’re allowed to bray like a donkey? I mean, see PMQs, especially the Conservative side, they’ve got this weird noise they do. It actually sounds like a drunken mob."

    1. Re:The braying of donkeys by Maritz · · Score: 1

      I'm mildly surprised that they only realised this once they'd turned up in the place itself. It's pretty obvious from television that they're always shouting each other down.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    2. Re:The braying of donkeys by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      I'd have thought the bray would come more naturally to her, anyway.

      --
      == Jez ==
      Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
    3. Re:The braying of donkeys by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      The SNP never pay attention to Westminster. They just insult it all the time.

      --
      == Jez ==
      Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
  11. Trends by Crowd+Computing · · Score: 1

    But there are trends, and some of these trends are predictable given the rise of technologies. For example, nowadays social media has made conventional wars between major world powers highly unlikely. Censorship only works for short-duration wars like Desert Storm before the sight of bloodied soldiers and civilians spread through the Internet and turn public opinion against the war.

    1. Re:Trends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Censorship only works for short-duration wars like Desert Storm before the sight of bloodied soldiers and civilians spread through the Internet and turn public opinion against the war."

      They are trying to get back the power over the information space through bullshit IP laws and the like, they want to turn the internet back into TV.

      Science on reasoning:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

      The (mass surveillance) by the NSA/others and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttv6n7PFniY&feature=youtu.be&t=11

      Brezinski at a press conference

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kmUS--QCYY

      States experiencing serious systemic "handicaps":

      https://youtu.be/0kmUS--QCYY?t=246

      Major powers, and imposing control over the awakened masses.

      https://youtu.be/4usbR_kKCDs?t=397

      Crisis of democracy

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYFxtNgOeiI

      The real news:

      http://therealnews.com/t2/

      http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X

      http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Government-Surveillance-Security-Single-Superpower/dp/1608463656/

      http://www.amazon.com/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190206446/

      The Citibank memo

      http://politicalgates.blogspot.ca/2011/12/citigroup-plutonomy-memos-two-bombshell.html

      US distribution of wealth

      https://imgur.com/a/FShfb

      http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

    2. Re:Trends by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      For example, nowadays social media has made conventional wars between major world powers highly unlikely.

      Hah, pretty funny but you're a few decades late. The correct answer is nuclear weapons, which made full on conflict between major powers essentially unwinnable and thus pointless.

    3. Re:Trends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nukes are not a deterrent. They are a vote winner.

      We are speaking world superpowers here, not the little crappy countries with a handful of nukes.
      These countries have 100% documented underground bunkers, and likely even more that aren't on record.
      All it will take is a mood and willingness to live in a bunker for a couple years at best, up to 7 at worst. (unlikely given what we know of nuclear fallout now)
      A superpower with all those resources at their disposal could easily build large underground cities, pay off the people who built it to live in said cities, if their leader decided to snap and go crazy a little bit.
      "Ohh, but what about leaks, you can't hide things like that!".
      What leaks? You mean those conspiracy theories? We already know a few governments have used tactics like this against people to discredit people.
      I'm not saying it DOES exist right now, or it has been built, but it COULD be done.

      And even little crappy countries with dictators, they could easily just go hermit and nuke a neighbour and cause a shitstorm that ends modern society.
      Look at NK, what do they have to lose other than a little shit peninsula?
      Or terrorists in general, they have nothing to lose, they are already in heaven banging their 2nd virgin, without even being dead.

      Nukes put off your average country from wanting to use nukes, but someone with enough power, enough determination and the balls could just push that button.
      The BIG issue, however, is the fact that a large chunk of remote nuke capability will be unlikely to launch nukes AT ALL simply because they KNOW it would mean the end of their lives, their possible families and everything they know.
      Mutiny has happened for lesser things in war. Good luck telling your sub captains to end their life indirectly.

      Nuclear war IS winnable. It just depends on who has the balls and brains to do this first.
      It could be happening right now for all we know. Before I even post this, nukes could be everywhere.
      It might be tomorrow.
      It likely won't be, though. Most countries and leaders actually don't want the surface to be ruined, they have too much love for their countries and their achievements. And who are they going to gloat to about being so super-awesome and leader-y when >80% of the world died? Exactly.
      Leaders are famously massive attention-whores. This is no secret.
      The only ones likely to slap that nuke button are smaller countries with less to lose, but enough power (dictators) to attempt underground cities.

      As for underground cities, yes, it is possible, and there are a few semi underground cities that exist right now (including one city that was literally built on top of an old city, forgot the name of that one, but it was an amazing read, and it is not the only one)
      There is also plans for an actual full-on underground city to be built somewhere. I forgot where that was again, but I am sure it was fairly recently on the news.

      MAD has only been relevant a few years after the cold war, at best.
      MAD only applies to the normal-pleb civilians, not leaders.

    4. Re:Trends by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      For example, nowadays social media has made conventional wars between major world powers highly unlikely. Censorship only works for short-duration wars like Desert Storm before the sight of bloodied soldiers and civilians spread through the Internet and turn public opinion against the war.

      Conventional warfare, maybe.

      But look at ISIL. They're savvy at social networking - that's how they recruit vulnerable young people (including Americans and all that) to join their cause.

      Yes, the public is against war - that's why Obama and the rest of 'em won't send in troops because war is unpalatable. Instead, ISIL recruits young people to fight for their "cause" using promises that young people like.

      Social media has an interesting effect - far from broadening horizons, it narrows them. In effect, people enter a political echo chamber where they associate with those of a similar mentality. It's something ISIL knows, and why they recruit one person, they can usually get the rest of the guy's friends to come along as well.

      And it doesn't matter than they were promised 42 virgins or whatever - the real truth is these recruits typically do menial jobs - fetching food and water for the leaders and other stuff.

  12. Face Palm on "Social Science" gaffe by kevinking.psyd · · Score: 0

    "...move the study of political theory from social science towards the quantitative analysis offered by Big Data analytics techniques" 1. This would still be "social science" regardless of the techniques used to study the SOCIAL realities of politics. 2. "Big Data" techniques are nothing new to social science. They've pretty much been shown to be dust bowl empiricism time-wasters except in narrow circumstances guided by well-conceived theory.

  13. Re:In the land of ironic framing, signal from nois by jez9999 · · Score: 1

    Actually one of the odd rules in parliament is that you cannot (in parliament) accuse another MP of lying. You can do it outside parliament of course, which is why this rule is so dumb.

    --
    == Jez ==
    Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
  14. Re:The truly bizarre thing about UK politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Is how the turkeys consistently vote for christmas. It seems weird that working class people would vote in the very toffs that keep them 'in their place' so to speak but it's an old tradition.

    You can only vote for people on the slip and most people actually voted against the current government (they got ~37%).

  15. Re:In the land of ironic framing, signal from nois by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

    I think it's one of those conventions to maintain some form of order, and it's not a good idea anyway since the accuser looks silly / hysterical.

    It's more or less impossible to accuse someone of lying in the UK as you open yourself up to slander lawsuits unless you can prove malicious intent.

  16. Re:The truly bizarre thing about UK politics by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 2
    Nonsense.

    You seem not to realise that politics is an end-to-end demonstration of the fact that the unintended consequences will always exceed the intended ones.

    The left are committed to a "fight for the right to be exploited", while the right are mainly struggling not to look like Marie Antoinette.

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  17. I will save them the work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it will show

    1. Polticians dont live in the real world
    2. They lie
    3. They are egotistical.
    .
    5 profit

  18. Re:In the land of ironic framing, signal from nois by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    you open yourself up to slander lawsuits unless you can prove malicious intent.

    So we can say whatever we're like, as long as we're being malicious?

    I don't think that adds up...

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  19. Life by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    Maybe they can use big data to find a meaning in life.

  20. Pulling data from political speeches? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2

    Wouldn't performing a spectrographic analysis on the hot air coming out of these guys' mouthes reveal more quantifiable data?

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  21. Re:In the land of ironic framing, signal from nois by RestlessWarrior · · Score: 1

    >> Even judging the number of 'harumphs' after a statement, or forced group laughs wouldn't give you a clear clue in that audience. I didn't get a harumph out of that guy!

  22. Easier job... by purple_cobra · · Score: 1

    ...would be to look through 40 years of landfill. You'll get the same conclusions and will have contact with less filth.

  23. Re:The truly bizarre thing about UK politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And when you grow up, you'll realise that that's not true and you'll start voting tory.