Using ChatGPT as a Focus Group

LLMs are coming for qualitative research

Hello there! 😊

In my first Substack post, I used numbers to analyse UK politics (quantitative research). This time, I’m using an approach that focuses on words (qualitative research).

Interviews and focus groups are powerful tools for understanding political opinion because they explore why people think the way they do, providing a depth that data alone can’t capture.

However, focus groups are time-consuming and expensive. Running a proper focus group means paying for participants, moderators, hosting, transcribers and analysts.

Some companies have used artificial intelligence (AI) to help run qualitative research. For example, Focaldata use AI to recruit participants, conduct chat-bot interviews with them and then analyse the transcripts, making the process faster and cheaper.

But could AI go even further?

In a recent interview, Dominic Cummings mentioned an idea of his former colleague Ben Warner: the use of ‘synthetic focus groups’ powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT.

This means that instead of real people, AI could simulate their perspectives and generate responses as if they came from a cross-section of the public.

Warner found that this worked really well and started a company to pursue this idea further (Electric Twin). Cummings explained the results and implications:

You can look at focus group transcripts of synthetic people – so you could say ‘run a focus group of women between 30 and 50 without a college degree who live in Pennsylvania’ – and it spits out back to you a transcript. If you read the transcript and then you read a transcript of an actual focus group, most people would be unable to tell the difference between the two things.

You can basically get a synthetic focus group now in 30 seconds and instead of having to call a company, they recruit real people, you have to give them money, you have to give them sandwiches – I think Lynton Crosby charges £7,000 or something for six to eight people – and then you get feedback in maybe two weeks.

I think that kind of compression of cost and time in market research is obviously going to be a very big deal.

If that doesn’t instantly intrigue your curiosity… 😮

In this post, I’m going to put this idea to the test by running synthetic focus groups to explore public opinion on some of the biggest issues in UK politics.

SPOILER ALERT: it works really well!

The Prompt

When working with LLMs, the most important step is getting the ‘prompt’ (the instruction you give it) right.

I wanted to keep it simple, because too much information can confuse LLMs and I wanted to test its ability to generate realistic responses without being overly guided.

After some brief experimentation, I found that this worked well:

Produce the transcript of a British focus group of normal average independent swing voters voters.

They should be discussing [issue].

What do they think about its current state? What are their thoughts and priorities?

Make the transcript with their opinion and knowledge level as they most likely are, not what you want their opinions and knowledge level to be.

Make it a long conversation (as you are able to produce in one answer).

I said ‘normal average independent swing voters voters’ because I wanted a broad overview of opinions, but real focus groups tend to focus on more specific demographics.

I also had to be clear about getting realistic opinions and a realistic knowledge level. Without this, ChatGPT had a tendency to produce overly sanitised discussions or where participants were near experts in the issue area.

I asked for a ‘long conversation’ because, without this, the responses were too short.

Once the first response had been generated, I then used a follow-up:

Continue the conversation. What should politicians be focusing on for [issue]? How could they win participants' trust on this issue? What could they do that would really resonate with them? What language could use that would really sell that they are something different?

Make it a long conversation (as you are able to produce in one answer).

This brought in a more overtly political discussion.

After this, I asked:

Move the conversation. What campaign slogan should a party use? What would really speak to the participants' beliefs and priorities? What would make them sit up and take notice? 3 or 4 words maximum.

Make it a long conversation (as you are able to produce in one answer).

This nudged the AI to get respondents to generate short, impactful political slogans (e.g. ‘Get Brexit Done’ or ‘Make America Great Again’) without directly copying existing ones.

Finally, I used this to generate a short summary:

The moderator goes back to their employers. Summarise the conversation in a few bullet points.

I made all of these prompts very quickly and, as you’ll see, it worked well. But with further refinement it could produce even more accurate answers. I also only used the free version of ChatGPT, so I’d expect more up-to-date paid models to do even better.

Here are some highlights from the conversations plus a few briefs comments from me, but the full transcript is available at the top of each section.

NHS

For full transcript click here

Steve: It’s knackered, isn’t it? Like, it’s still brilliant when you actually get seen, but good luck getting that appointment in the first place.

Jade: I don’t even try anymore. My GP surgery has that thing where you have to ring at 8 am, and if you don’t get through in the first five minutes, you’re out of luck.

Amy: My mum needed an operation for a hip replacement, and she was waiting nearly two years. Two years! She was in pain every day, she could barely walk. That’s not right.

It’s striking how realistic this conversation feels already, even down to the 8am GP phone lottery.

Moderator: Some people say we need to reform the NHS. What do you think that means?

Jade: I don’t really know what that would involve. Like, do they mean privatising it? Because that sounds worse.

Steve: I bet that’s what politicians mean when they say ‘reform.’ They just don’t want to say it out loud.

Louise: I’d be worried about going down an American route. Their system sounds terrifying.

Many voters see ‘NHS reform’ as a code word for privatisation. Since the US system is so widely disliked in the UK, any discussion about change quickly runs into this fear. It makes serious reform a much harder sell.

Moderator: If you were in charge, what would you prioritise?

Steve: GP appointments. It shouldn’t be this hard to see a doctor.

Amy: Agreed. And social care. My mum was stuck in hospital for ages because there was no care package available for her to go home. That’s clogging up the whole system.

Louise: Maternity care. It’s scary how stretched it is, and that’s when women are at their most vulnerable.

Tom: Getting waiting lists down. People shouldn’t have to be in pain for years.

Jade: And mental health. It’s just as important as physical health, but the waiting times are ridiculous.

No talk of ‘structural reforms’, ‘market mechanisms’ or ‘funding models’ – just fixing the basics. These can be solved by structural reforms, but that’s not the way to sell it.

Moderator: Do you feel like politicians actually care about fixing it?

(Laughter around the room.)

Now that’s realistic.

Steve: Stop with the slogans and the nonsense. ‘Record investment’ means nothing if things keep getting worse.

Steve: Drop the buzzwords. No ‘world-class healthcare’ or ‘record investment’ nonsense. Talk to us like we’re adults.

Amy: And actually acknowledge how bad it’s got. Don’t just say, ‘We’re proud of our NHS’—we all are, but it’s failing, and we need solutions.

Tom: They need to say, ‘The NHS is broken, and here’s exactly what we’ll do.’ Not ‘We’re committed to the NHS’—that means nothing.

The message is clear: no vague platitudes, no meaningless slogans and no pretending things aren’t as bad as they are.

Steve: I’d rather hear ‘We’ll put a penny on National Insurance for the NHS’ than just vague waffle. Even if I didn’t like it, at least I’d know they were serious.

Louise: Or even just say, ‘Look, we’ll cut waste here and here, and put it into healthcare.’ Give examples. I don’t believe politicians when they just say, ‘We’ll find the money.’

Hypothecated taxes (where a specific tax is ‘ring-fenced’ for one service) don’t really make sense because government revenue goes into the same pot. But if that makes people feel comfortable paying more for the NHS, that’s the argument to make.

Louise: If they made it personal. Like, politicians always talk about the NHS in abstract terms. But if they said, ‘I spoke to a nurse who had to use a food bank’ or ‘I met a woman who waited two years for a hip operation, and that’s unacceptable’—that would feel real.

Amy: Yeah, make it about people, not numbers.

Tom: And not just in a sob story way—actually link it to policy. ‘This person is struggling because of this problem, and here’s how we’ll fix it.’

Politicians often default to statistics, but numbers alone don’t persuade people.

Tom: What about ‘NHS First’? It’s short, and it says it should be the priority.

Louise: I like that, but it’s maybe a bit vague? Like, politicians could just say, ‘Yeah, we put the NHS first’ without actually doing anything.

People know politicians can twist vague slogans to mean anything.

Steve: What about ‘End NHS Chaos’? That sums up how bad it is right now.

Steve: What about ‘Save and Fix’? That way, it’s not just about defending the NHS but actually making it better.

Louise: I think it could be even punchier. Maybe ‘Save. Fix. Fund.’?

I really like ‘Save. Fix. Fund.’ It sets out your goals straight away in three clear steps:

1. Save the NHS from its immediate crises

2. Make long-term changes so that these things don’t happen again

3. Fund the NHS¹

Steve: What about ‘Care, Not Crisis’? Because right now it feels like everything’s just firefighting one crisis after another.

I think I prefer ‘Save. Fix. Fund.’ but I can see ‘Care, Not Crisis’ working well for the Lib Dems. They can simultaneously emphasise their focus on social care (and being the ‘caring’ party) and how they will fix its disfunction (and contrast themselves with the overall crises of successive Conservative and Labour governments).

The Takeaway A campaign should focus on honesty, clarity and urgency. Avoid vague platitudes and instead offering real, actionable solutions with a strong emotional appeal. And if they need a slogan, ‘Save. Fix. Fund.’ isn’t a bad place to start.

The Cost of Living

For full transcript click here

Jenny: I keep hoping it’ll get better, but nothing’s changing. They say inflation’s coming down, but prices don’t actually go back down, do they?

Mike: Exactly. Inflation drops, but it just means prices aren’t rising as fast—they’re not actually getting cheaper.

‘Inflation is falling’ is a bad message because it makes people think that prices will go back to where they were, but actually means they’re just not increasing as fast as they used to. It means people feel lied to when politicians say they’ve ‘reduced inflation’.

Tom: It’s a nightmare. I’ll never be able to buy. My rent’s just gone up again, and there’s nothing I can do about it. Landlords just say their mortgage has gone up, so they pass it onto us. But my wages haven’t gone up to match, so where does that leave me?

Samantha: Even people with mortgages are struggling. We’ve got a fixed rate for now, but when that runs out, I don’t know what we’ll do. Our payments could go up by hundreds overnight.

Mike: It’s like no matter what, you’re being squeezed. Own a house? Mortgage goes up. Rent? That goes up. Want to buy? Can’t afford it.

Mike: They need to stop messing around with nonsense policies and actually sort out the basics—food, fuel, housing, wages. If I saw a politician saying, “Here’s how we’re going to make your weekly shop £20 cheaper,” and then actually doing it, I’d listen.

The inflation that matters is the inflation of things you need to buy (housing, energy and food).

Moderator: Do you think any political party has the answers?

Jenny: Not really. They all say the same things, don’t they? “We’ll help working people,” “We’ll grow the economy.” Then nothing changes.

Jenny: I don’t want vague promises about “growing the economy.” That means nothing to me. I want to hear, “Your gas bill will go down,” or “We’re cutting tax on food.” Something that affects my bank account right now.

Tom: They need to stop lying, for a start. They always say, “We’re putting money into this, we’re investing in that,” but then nothing improves. If a politician actually came out and said, “Look, things are bad. We can’t fix it overnight, but here’s step one,” that would be refreshing.

‘Good messaging’ ends up being counter-productive if you don’t actually do anything.

Mike: If I hear a politician say, “We’re closing tax loopholes for big business, and that money will go straight into cutting your bills,” I’d vote for them.

Jenny: Yes! Just say, “We’re stopping Amazon from paying nothing, and we’ll use that money to cut energy bills.” That’s the kind of thing that makes sense.

Samantha: And no more random tax hikes on normal people. Like when they raised National Insurance and called it a ‘levy’—we still had to pay it!

Taxing the rich is popular. But taxing the rich in order to give normal people a tax cut is better.

Mike: Not the usual waffle, that’s for sure. None of this “A Stronger Future” nonsense. That means nothing to me.

Jenny: Yeah, it has to be direct. Like, straight to the point. No fluff.

Samantha: And about real life, not just ‘the economy’ or ‘growth.’ Those words are so overused, they don’t even mean anything anymore.

Tom: It needs to say what they’ll actually do. Not just some vague “we’re working for you” rubbish.

No more political clichés!

Let me be clear, I (and other hard-working families up and down this great nation of ours) would vote for that, frankly.

Mike: Make Life Affordable.

Jenny: That’s good. Or Cut Bills Now.

Tom: Stop the Squeeze. That’s what it feels like—we’re all just getting squeezed.

Moderator: What about something that focuses on fairness, like Stop the Rip-Offs?

Tom: Ooooh, I like that. Because that’s what’s happening—we’re all getting ripped off.

Mike: That would actually get my attention. If a politician stood up and said, “We’re going to stop the rip-offs,” I’d listen.

Jenny: Yeah, because it gets to the heart of it. We’re not just paying high prices—we’re being overcharged for things we can’t live without.

‘Stop the Squeeze’ can be used by any party who could hang their policies onto it, whether tax cuts for the right or price controls for the left.

‘Stop the Rip-Offs’ would also be great, because it has such an obvious anti-elite implication, as well as being vague enough that anyone could use it (e.g. Are high taxes the rip-off? Big corporations? Net zero?)

The Takeaway: People are deeply frustrated with the rising cost of living, particularly in areas like food, housing and energy. Voters want clear, practical policies but there is widespread scepticism toward political promises.

Economic Growth

For full transcript click here

Rachel: I mean, yeah, but what does it actually mean? Because if they say “growth” and it just means big companies making more money, that doesn’t help me.

James: Exactly. Growth should mean better wages, better public services. Otherwise, what’s the point?

Paul: And proper jobs, not just loads of gig work or zero-hour contracts. That’s not real growth.

Laura: And stop pretending that growth alone will fix everything. They say, “If the economy grows, everyone benefits.” But we’ve seen years of growth where wages still went nowhere, rents shot up, and services got worse. Growth for who? If it doesn’t reach us, it’s pointless.

I can see this as being the reason Labour’s current messaging on growth isn’t working (apart from the fact the economy isn’t growing). Starmer and Reeves are talking about growth in the abstract or talking about who they are trying to punish with growth (i.e. ‘NIMBYs’, newts and people who live near Heathrow). If people think they will lose out from growth – or only other people will benefit – why would they support it?

Rachel: “Make Life Affordable Again” is the one that hits home for me. It’s just so direct and honest. That’s what I’m looking for.

Paul: I agree. “Fair Growth For All” feels like it means something real—growth that actually works for the everyday person.

James: “Support British Business First” works for me. But I’d also like something about getting wages up for workers too, not just business owners.

I’m not that keen on any of these but ‘Fair Growth For All’ hits the beats you’d want, even if it sounds a bit predictable and jargon-y.

Because of this, I asked the moderator to get the focus group to come up with something that better speaks to them emotionally and viscerally.

Rachel: Yeah, I see what you’re saying. I hear stuff like "fairness" and "support for working people" every election, and then nothing changes. Maybe it needs to feel stronger.

Paul: Yeah, politicians always bang on about "growth" and "fairness" like a broken record. Maybe it’s got to be more direct. Something like "Fix This Mess." That would make me look twice.

Tom: What about something like "Build Back Fairer"? It’s kind of like "Fix This Mess," but it tells me things will be better, not just that they’re broken.

Laura: Still feels like something we’ve heard before. I think it needs to hit deeper—like, what’s actually wrong with the economy? Why do we all feel like we’re struggling?

Adam: Because wages are low, prices are high, and people don’t feel secure. So maybe something like "Better Pay, Lower Bills." That’s direct. That’s what I actually want.

Rachel: Oooh, I like that! If a party said, "Better Pay, Lower Bills," I’d think—okay, they’re actually talking about the things that matter day to day.

Paul: It’s straight to the point. It’s not just “economic growth” in vague terms, it’s, "This is what we’re going to do for you."

James: And it’s a promise. If you say "Better Pay, Lower Bills," I’m expecting action. Not just some abstract strategy about long-term growth that doesn’t help me this year.

Speak in a way people actually talk. No jargon and no abstract promises. Plain, direct language about the things that actually matter.

Given that better pay and lower bills would be the result of higher (per capita) GDP, higher productivity, better infrastructure etc. this is a much better way to sell ‘growth’.

The Takeaway: There’s a lack of trust in politicians’ ability to deliver meaningful growth and people are tired of vague promises. They want direct messaging that speaks to their daily struggles. Focus should to real-life impacts like affordable housing, decent jobs and better public services.

Immigration

For full transcript click here

Mark: I think it’s out of control. You see it everywhere – more people coming in, and there’s no plan for it. The government keeps saying they’ll reduce numbers, but they never do.

Emma: Yeah, I feel like there’s just too many people arriving and not enough being done to make sure they fit in properly. I work in the NHS, and the hospitals are absolutely packed. We need more staff, but at the same time, the pressure on services is ridiculous.

James: But the NHS would collapse without immigration, wouldn’t it? I mean, half the doctors and nurses I see aren’t British. If we stopped people coming, who’d do those jobs?

Sophie: That’s the thing, isn’t it? We need people for certain jobs, but there’s a feeling that it’s all a bit chaotic. Like, where are they all going to live? Housing is already a nightmare.

Emma: If we had a system where we actually controlled who comes in—so, like, proper skills-based immigration—then people wouldn’t mind as much. But what we have now feels like anyone can just turn up, and we have to deal with it.

Mark: They keep making these promises—like "we’ll cut the numbers"—but it’s always going up. Last year, we had what, over 700,000 net migration? That’s basically a new city arriving every year. How is that sustainable?

I wouldn’t want to be the one to tell Mark what the actual number ended up being.

The core frustration was clear, though: people weren’t just concerned about the overall number but felt that the system was chaotic and lacked control.

Moderator: Small boat crossings—what are your thoughts?

Paul: It’s a joke. We’re a small island, and we’re just letting people come across illegally. They know if they get here, we won’t send them back.

Amy: But where are they meant to go? They’re fleeing war zones. We can’t just leave them to drown.

Mark: Yeah, but how many are actual refugees and how many are just coming for jobs? Most of them are young men. If they were real asylum seekers, why aren’t they staying in France?

James: That’s true. I mean, I don’t think anyone minds helping genuine refugees, but I don’t believe that all of these people are. And then when they get here, they put them in hotels for months—who’s paying for that? Us!

Emma: And that’s another thing—people feel like there’s nothing for them, but the government finds money to put asylum seekers in hotels. Like, we’ve got veterans and homeless people who can’t get help. It doesn’t feel fair.

Small boats are not just about the principle of border control. They’re also about a feeling of politicians not being able (or willing) to get things under control and a feeling of unfairness that people who enter the country illegally seem to be prioritised.

James: I’d have a system where we take people we actually need—like workers in the NHS, care homes, whatever—but we don’t just let in everyone.

Emma: Yeah, and you should have to prove that you can contribute. If you’re just coming here to claim benefits, sorry, but no.

Amy: But most immigrants do work. The whole "they’re on benefits" thing is kind of a myth.

Paul: Some do, some don’t. But even if they work, there’s still more competition for houses, for schools, for GP appointments. It affects everyone.

Sophie: And that’s why people are angry. It’s not necessarily about people coming here—it’s about the fact that the government isn’t dealing with the consequences properly.

Emma: Yeah. Because the reality is, we do need some immigration. I work in the NHS, and if we suddenly shut the doors, we’d be in big trouble. But what we don’t need is just uncontrolled numbers, where it feels like anyone can come in without a plan.

Paul: And that’s the thing. No one minds people coming who actually contribute. But what we don’t want is just a free-for-all.

There’s a reason an Australian-style points-based system is so consistently popular. People aren’t against immigration as long as it is well-managed, geared toward high-skilled workers, and in numbers that public services and infrastructure can support.

Mark: First off, [politicians] need to stop lying. Every election, they promise to cut immigration, and every time, it goes up. We’re not stupid. Just tell us the truth—if you’re not going to cut it, explain why. If you are, tell us exactly how you’ll do it.

James: Yeah, honesty is a big one. I think people don’t trust any of them anymore. The Tories keep saying they’ll get numbers down, but they let in more than ever. Labour doesn’t even seem to want to talk about it, so you feel like no one’s actually representing the middle ground.

Sophie: That’s exactly it. It’s like if you say you’re worried about immigration, you either get told you’re racist or politicians just fob you off with vague nonsense. Someone needs to come out and say, ‘Look, immigration has benefits, but too much, too fast causes problems. We hear you, and we have a proper plan to fix it.’

James: But also tell us how. Because saying "we’ll cut numbers" means nothing if you don’t explain which visas you’re cutting.

Paul: Start by stopping low-skilled immigration. If we can train British workers for the job, we should.

James: It needs to be firm, but not angry. Say: ‘We’re bringing back control, and here’s how.’ ‘This isn’t about race—it’s about fairness and sustainability.’ ‘Immigration works when it’s controlled. It doesn’t when it’s chaotic.’

The broad consensus again is lower numbers, a focus on high skills and clear explanations on how changes will be implemented.

Mark: "End The Chaos" – because that’s exactly how it feels right now. Like total chaos.

Paul: Yeah, that’s a strong one. It says, ‘We get it. We know it’s a mess, and we’re going to sort it out.’

James: I like "Fix Immigration Now" because it’s a call to action.

Emma: "Immigration That Works" is the most balanced. It’s not about just stopping people, but making it actually function.

Sophie: Yeah, but I don’t think it’s strong enough. "End The Chaos" grabs attention.

Amy: Agreed. "End The Chaos" speaks to what we’re all feeling.

Focusing on ‘chaos’ taps into the sense that the system is out of control, the rules are inconsistent and there’s no clear plan for how immigration is managed. It leaves room for a controlled, rational immigration system that people can get behind.

‘End The Chaos’ was used by Keir Starmer in the 2024 general election referring to the overall dysfunction of the last government. However, if the slogan resonates with the public for immigration, they’re unlikely to care or remember that it was used before.

The Takeaway: Voters are frustrated by broken promises where politicians say they’ll cut numbers but don’t. They support immigration in principle but believe it should be controlled, limited, and benefit the UK. There’s a strong feeling that British people are being deprioritised, particularly in jobs, housing and public services.

Crime

For full transcript click here

Jack: I wouldn’t say I feel unsafe, but I do think things have got worse. You hear more about burglaries and anti-social behaviour than you used to. And when you call the police, they don’t come.

Lauren: Yeah, exactly. It’s not even big crimes, but just stuff like kids messing about, stealing bikes, breaking into cars. The police don’t do anything unless it’s serious, so people just get away with it.

Mohammed: I think it depends where you live. Some areas, like mine, feel fairly safe. But there’s definitely more knife crime—especially among young people. My nephew’s school has had several incidents, and he says kids carry knives just in case.

Gail: That’s shocking. And it’s not just young people, though, is it? I’ve noticed more drug problems. You see people openly using, even in small towns. It never used to be like this.

There’s a sense that things aren’t awful, but have gotten worse and that previously rare crimes are now more widespread.

Moderator: So do you think crime has actually increased, or do you think we just hear about it more because of social media and the news?

Jack: Both, probably. But I do think there’s been a real decline in law and order. Like, I read somewhere that most crimes don’t even get investigated now.

Lauren: Oh, 100%. My mate’s house got broken into, and the police basically told her they couldn’t do anything. Didn’t even send anyone out—just gave her a crime number for insurance.

Mohammed: That’s a big problem. If people don’t think crimes will be punished, what’s stopping them? It feels like there’s no deterrent anymore.

It's not just crime but also the fact that the police don’t seem bothered about it. Stats about crime ‘declining’ are meaningless if hardly any of them get solved or even investigated.

Lauren: And follow-through. If someone reports a crime, there needs to be action. No more “sorry, we won’t investigate.” That’s just telling criminals they can do what they like.

Jack: There just aren’t enough officers. You never see bobbies on the beat anymore.

Lauren: Yeah, you don’t feel like there’s a presence. Back in the day, you’d see police walking around, and that kept people in line. Now, it’s like they only turn up after something bad has already happened.

Mohammed: I’d add that they seem stretched too thin. I know they have to deal with all sorts—mental health issues, social problems—but that means they’re not focusing on actual crime.

Gail: And they waste time on nonsense. You see them investigating mean tweets while actual criminals walk free.

Jack: Exactly. And I think they’re scared of offending people now. They’re more worried about being politically correct than actually enforcing the law.

There’s a lack of resources, but also that the priorities of the police are wrong. It’s interesting that a soft version of ‘two-tier’ policing is raised here that the police are more interested in investigating social media than violent crime in the real world.

Jack: For me, something simple but direct. Like “Get Tough on Crime.” It’s clear, doesn’t beat around the bush, and it tells me they’re not afraid to take action.

Lauren: Yeah, something like “Safe Streets, Strong Communities.” That would speak to me because it’s about feeling safe where you live, not just a vague promise about reducing crime.

Mohammed: I’d go for something like “Action, Not Excuses.” Politicians always say they’ll “look into” crime but never actually do anything. If someone said that, I’d believe they were serious about actually changing things.

Gail: I’d probably go with “Crime Free, Family Safe.” It’s personal. It’s about my children, my neighbours, and feeling like we’re all protected.

I think ‘Action, Not Excuses’ works because it speaks to people’s frustrations with both politicians and the police in not focusing on crime and then having the wrong priorities in which crimes get attention.

I also then tested the slogan ‘Crush Crime’ which is being used by a new campaign.

Jack: You know, that one definitely hits hard. It’s short, sharp, and doesn’t mess about. It says exactly what they want to do. I think I’d notice that on a billboard.

Lauren: Yeah, it’s got impact. It’s definitely a slogan that stands out. It feels like they mean business. I like it—it’s a bit aggressive, but sometimes that’s what you need.

Gail: Hmm, I like the intent, but I think it could be a bit too harsh for some people. “Crush” sounds almost too extreme—what if it turns people off?

Jack: I get what you’re saying, but to me, that’s what people want to hear. It shows they’re not just going to talk about crime; they’re going to deal with it. People are tired of hearing empty promises, and this feels like a “get things done” kind of statement.

On balance, positive. Most liked how urgent and forceful it was. Some were worried it was a bit over the top and wanted a second half of the slogan to reassure them it would end up being beneficial to them (e.g. ‘Crush Crime, Protect Communities’).

The Takeaway: Participants agree that crime is worsening, particularly anti-social behaviour, theft and violent crime. There is a clear desire for tougher sentences for repeat offenders and better follow-through on crime reporting. Politicians should not be afraid to be tough on crime.

Chagos Islands

For full transcript click here

The issues tested so far have been discussed in politics for a long time. This means ChatGPT was trained on similar things and so should have been able to replicate a focus group more easily.

The true test is how it handles an issue that occurred after its training period.

To do this, I tested the Chagos Islands negotiation story. I used the previous prompts but added some context for ChatGPT so it knew what the story was about. To keep it simple, I just used the factual opening of a BBC News article. I also told ChatGPT that Keir Starmer won the 2024 election and was now prime minister.

Paul: I mean… I’ll be honest, I didn’t even know we were still running the Chagos Islands.

Lisa: Same.

Dave: Yeah, I remember hearing something about it last year, something about handing them over. But I didn’t know we were still paying for them.

This is almost certainly a good reflection is people’s level of interest in the Chagos Islands before this news story.

Moderator: Reports say it could be up to £18 billion.

Paul: Eighteen billion?! You’re joking.

Dave: Jesus Christ. I thought we were supposed to be tightening our belts, not chucking money at some islands in the middle of nowhere.

Sophie: I don’t get why we even still have it. I thought the whole point was we were giving the islands back?

I’m sure this is very realistic as to how the number has been received. Notice how they straight away draw the link between how much money we are sending overseas and how little money we get told the government has for domestic issues.

Moderator: Do you all know about the Chagossians?

Lisa: Yeah, weren’t they kicked off the islands ages ago?

Sophie: Yeah, Britain forced them out so the base could be built, didn’t they?

I doubt people would even be this aware of Chagos Island history in real life.

Paul: So he’s just trying to squeeze more money out of us, basically?

Dave: Sounds like it. I mean, fair play to him—he’s looking out for his own country. But if we’ve already made a deal, why are we even still talking about this?

Mo: Yeah, but if the UK agreed to link the payments to inflation, that’s not Mauritius scamming us, that’s just bad negotiating on our part.

Dave: Typical politicians. Bet it was all rushed through so they could look good on the world stage.

Lisa: And now we’re the ones footing the bill

Regardless of the actual figure, the story makes Britain look weak or naïve. But the key is that tax-payers are now paying for the government’s mistake.

Paul: The cost. Plain and simple. I don’t care about some islands in the middle of the ocean, but I do care if we’re chucking billions down the drain.

Lisa: Yeah, same. We’ve got people in this country struggling to heat their homes, the NHS is still on its knees, and yet somehow, we’ve got £18 billion lying around for this?

Dave: That’s the thing, though, isn’t it? Every time we ask for better public services, they say there’s no money. But when it’s some foreign policy thing, suddenly the coffers are open.

Karen: And for what? Like, what do we actually get out of it? That’s what I don’t get. If we’re paying for this base, I want to know exactly why it’s so important.

Dave: The whole thing just feels out of touch. Like, most people don’t even know where these islands are. They don’t know why we have this base. And yet, the government is making massive financial decisions about it without asking us.

Lisa: Exactly. We get told we have to make sacrifices, but apparently, there’s always money for these kinds of things.

Mo: And it’s frustrating because no one really cares about this in their daily lives. But when it turns into a cost-of-living issue, that’s when people start paying attention.

The thing the group picked up on was the money and why UK citizens aren’t seeing it spent on their needs, so I then gave ChatGTP the additional context of the winter fuel payments becoming means tested.

Paul: They’re telling pensioners, “Sorry, you don’t qualify for heating help,” while sending billions to Mauritius? It writes itself.

Dave: This is how you lose trust. They cut support for people here, but somehow there’s a magic money tree for foreign payments. You couldn’t make it up.

Lisa: If I were running the Conservative campaign, I’d be making ads right now showing pensioners in coats indoors because they can’t afford heating, with the caption: “No money for you. £18bn for Mauritius.”

Paul: Yeah, or: “Cold at home? Labour sent your money abroad.”

Karen: Because it’s true! This isn’t some abstract foreign policy thing anymore. It’s about choices. And Labour is choosing to fund this deal over helping people here.

Lisa: Yeah, and hypocrisy. If Labour had any sense, they’d be out now explaining why this isn’t as bad as it looks. But if they just dismiss it, it’ll haunt them.

Dave: It’ll be in every Tory leaflet next election. “Labour cut your heating, but paid Mauritius.” Boom. Done.

The short time between cutting winter fuel payments and this deal means people will draw a link between the two on their own. What should opposition parties slogan be?

Paul: "Billions Abroad, Cuts at Home."

Lisa: "Your Money, Their Mistake."

Dave: "Starmer Wastes, You Pay."

Karen: "Pensioners Freeze, Mauritius Cashes In."

All of these are already really good, but eventually the group settled on:

£18bn for Them, Cuts for You.

I then asked the moderator to expand the conversation to get people to suggest alternatives to ‘Cuts for You’ and see which they liked best.

Paul: “Nothing for You.” Just cut straight to the point. They’re sending money abroad, and at home, we’re getting nothing—no extra help, no support.

Lisa: “More Tax for You.” Everyone’s talking about taxes, right? People are so sensitive to anything that could mean higher taxes, especially in the current climate.

Dave: “Bills for You.” Like, make it feel like people are already drowning in bills, and Labour’s giving our money away to others while we’re struggling to make ends meet.

After more discussion, they settled on this being the most effective slogan:

£18bn for Mauritius, Nothing for You

It draws attention to the story, gives you the (alleged) amount, highlights the government’s wrong priorities, and makes it clear that you are losing out because of their decisions.

The Takeaway: The group generally feels that the story is complex but damaging due to the unfairness of spending on Mauritius while dealing with austerity and rising living costs. The group would react to anything that links foreign spending to their personal struggles, such as rising bills, cuts to domestic support and inflation.

The Big Picture

For full transcript click here

I then re-tested all the individual slogans to a new focus group.

Sophie: ('Save. Fix. Fund') Sounds like a to-do list.

Gary: Yeah, like a DIY job. Bit basic, isn’t it?

Amy: But that’s kind of the issue, though, isn’t it? The NHS is broken, so “fix” is the right word.

Lisa: I like it. It’s simple. Straight to the point.

Dave: I dunno, “save” sounds a bit dramatic. Like, is it about to collapse?

Peter: Well, is it not? You see the news, you hear about waiting lists…

Amy: It definitely feels like it’s collapsing from the inside.

A particularly positive response from those who believed the NHS was in crisis.

Moderator: And what about ‘Care, Not Crisis’?

Lisa: That sounds a bit... I dunno, softer?

Dave: More like an advert for a charity than a government plan.

Amy: But “crisis” is the word we all use, isn’t it? It is a crisis.

Gary: Yeah, but every party says “crisis.” It’s been a crisis for years

Gary’s remark that it felt like a charity slogan stood out. I also agree that ‘crisis’ has been overused so much it has dulled its impact.

Moderator: Okay, let’s move on to the Cost of Living slogans: ‘Stop the Squeeze’ and ‘Stop the Rip-Offs’. What do we think?

Sophie: (laughs) “Stop the Squeeze” just makes me think of squeezing toothpaste.

lol

Dave: “Stop the Rip-Offs” is stronger. Makes me think of energy companies, big supermarkets, people taking the mick.

Gary: Yeah, that one hits harder. Feels more like they’re actually pointing at someone to blame.

Lisa: I don’t like slogans that just moan. “Stop the Rip-Offs” makes me think of someone shouting at the telly.

Peter: But aren’t we all?

‘Stop the Rip-Offs’ was clearly the better received. It gave people something concrete to be angry about whereas ‘Stop the Squeeze’ felt vague.

Moderator: Right, let’s talk about Economic Growth. Two options: ‘Better Pay, Lower Bills’ and ‘Fair Growth For All.’

Sophie: I like the first one better.

Gary: Me too. It actually means something.

Dave: Yeah, “Better Pay, Lower Bills” is stuff I want. “Fair Growth” sounds like a school project.

Amy: “Fair Growth” just sounds like the sort of thing politicians say that doesn’t mean anything.

This was a clear win for ‘Better Pay, Lower Bills’. People don’t want vague words they’ve heard so many times before, like ‘fair’ and ‘growth’.

Moderator: Let’s go to Immigration: ‘End The Chaos.’

Sophie: Oh, that’s blunt.

Peter: I mean, is it wrong?

Lisa: I don’t know, “chaos” sounds dramatic.

Gary: But that’s what it is, isn’t it? You hear about boats, backlog, people stuck in hotels.

Dave: I like that it’s direct. A lot of parties talk in circles about immigration. This just says it straight.

Amy: I don’t like the word “chaos.” It makes me think of panic.

Peter: But don’t we have panic? That’s what I see on the news.

Lisa: It makes me think they’re just trying to make people worried about it.

Interesting that there was a clear gender divide in the reactions with men responding well to the toughness, but women more skeptical. The fact that there was a gender divide over this is a win for ChatGPT’s realism, I think.

Moderator: Let’s go to Crime: ‘Action, Not Excuses’ and ‘Crush Crime.’

Gary: “Crush Crime” is a bit much. Sounds like a slogan for a Marvel film.

Dave: Yeah, I don’t want the police to be crushing things, I just want them to actually solve stuff.

Sophie: It’s a bit American, isn’t it?

Gary: Yeah, sounds like “Zero Tolerance” and all that.

There was a sense that ‘Crush Crime’ was cartoonish. Given how popular superhero movies are, a slogan like this might still work in the right context, but doesn’t suggest it works here.

Peter: “Action, Not Excuses” is much better.

Lisa: Yeah, politicians are always making excuses, so I get what they’re saying.

Dave: I prefer “Action, Not Excuses.” We hear so much from politicians about why things can’t be done, so it’s refreshing.

This seems to work much better because it tapped into a more general frustration with politicians.

What about a campaign slogan that sums all this up into a common theme?

Dave: Well, looking at those slogans, they’re all about sorting stuff out. Fixing messes, making things fairer.

Lisa: Yeah, it’s all about things being wrong and needing change.

Amy: And being strong about it, not just saying fluffy things.

Gary: Right, none of those are soft slogans. They’re all quite direct.

It was good to hear that people didn’t see the slogans as vague or weak.

Dave: Something like Sort It Out.

Lisa: That’s very blunt.

Peter: Yeah, but maybe too casual. Sounds like a dad telling kids to clean their room.

Lisa: What about Time for Change?

Dave: Nah, every party says that. It’s nothing.

People clearly wanted change, but were sick of politicians promising it without delivering.

Peter: We need something that says, this is a mess, we need to act now.

Lisa: But also something that makes us feel like things are actually going to change.

Eventually, the group says they like ‘Enough is Enough’ as a slogan. However, they also suggest ‘Take Charge’ and ‘Get Things Done’ separately, so I got the moderator to put these two together and see what they say.

Gary: Hmm. I like that. Take Charge is strong, and Get Things Done gives it purpose.

Amy: Yeah, it's really clear. It's action-focused.

Sophie: It’s got power behind it. Like, they’re not just talking about change—they’re making it happen.

Dave: I like it, but what if we tweak it a little? Instead of Get Things Done, maybe Get something a bit more specific?

Lisa: Yeah, like Get Results or Get Things Moving?

Peter: Get Results sounds good. We all want results. It’s like saying: “Enough talk, time for real change.”

Sophie: Take Charge, Get Results—that’s pretty solid. Feels like they’re in control and they’ll actually deliver.

Gary: It’s more concrete. Take Charge, Get Results doesn’t leave any room for ambiguity. You know exactly what’s expected.

This slogan sets a high bar and it demands actual results from politicians, but that’s exactly what people want.

The Takeaway: The group responded best to direct, no-nonsense slogans that convey action and urgency. They are frustrated with vague or weak messaging and prefer direct, confident leadership.

The Narrative

For full transcript click here

A slogan grabs attention, but a narrative makes people believe in the mission. A party needs a story that explains not just what they want to do, but why it matters.

To explore this, I gave a new group the slogans we’ve developed and asked them to articulate the story behind them.

Tom: First off, I like how punchy it is. There’s no fluff, no politician-speak. It’s just straight to the point.

Sarah: Yeah, I mean, you read it and you think, ‘Thank God, someone’s actually going to do something.’ It’s all about action, which is what you want. Not just more talking.

Lucy: To me, it’s saying, ‘Things are broken, and we’re finally going to sort them out.’ It’s like someone coming in, rolling their sleeves up, and just getting on with it.

Mike: Exactly. And it’s got a bit of frustration behind it. Like, they’re fed up with excuses too.

Moderator: So, it’s about competence?

Mike: Yeah, but also accountability. Because right now, it feels like no one’s in charge. Everything’s just happening, and no one’s stopping it.

It’s good that these slogans are tapping into frustrations like this. If the next few years bring more legalistic scleroticism, this feeling will grow.

Moderator: Alright, so let’s pull this together. What’s the overall story this party is telling?

Sarah: Things are broken, and they shouldn’t be.

Mike: And the reason they’re broken is because no one’s taken responsibility.

Lucy: But now, finally, someone’s stepping up to fix it.

Jordan: And they’re on our side. They’re not just managing decline, they actually want things to work properly again.

Tom: Yeah, that’s the key bit—it’s not just about ‘change’ for the sake of it. It’s saying, ‘You deserve better, and we’re going to make sure you get it.’

Already, that’s a very coherent story. It follows a structure people instinctively understand: a problem is identified, a cause is named and a solution is presented.

But let’s finally put my GCSE in theatre studies to good use.

A ‘story archetype’ is a narrative pattern that appears across cultures and time, shaping how we understand events and give them meaning. One of the author Kurt Vonnegut’s basic plot structures is called ‘Man in a Hole’. Here’s how it works:

1. First, things are good.

2. Then, something goes wrong.

3. Finally, someone takes action to put things right.

This is one of the oldest and most compelling story arcs, and is deeply ingrained in how people make sense of the world. This means politicians can harness it to shape a narrative that feels intuitive, credible and emotionally resonant.

Moderator: So what happened? What changed?

Tom: I think it all started with the financial crash in 2008. That was the moment everything turned.

Jordan: Yeah, but the real problem is that instead of fixing things after that, politicians just made it worse.

Moderator: So they stopped taking responsibility?

Tom: Exactly. Instead of governing, they just blamed each other and hoped no one noticed how bad it was getting.

Mike: The government just makes excuses. ‘Oh, it’s complicated. Oh, it’s the economy. Oh, it’s global.’ But nothing ever changes.

Lucy: It’s like they’ve just given up.

Jordan: They’re not even pretending to fix things anymore.

If you’re lamenting the rise of populism, ChatGPT just explained it ☝️

When politicians say, ‘it’s complicated, nothing can be done,’ people don’t see that as realism, they see it as giving up. And if you’re not even trying to fix things, why should anyone trust you?

Moderator: Okay, but imagine things can get better. What does that look like?

Sarah: First, someone needs to actually take charge. Stop blaming, stop dithering, just do something.

Mike: Someone who says, ‘Right, we’re fixing this, and here’s how.’ No more excuses.

I then asked ChatGPT to sum that up in a neat narrative:

There was a time when life felt fair. You worked hard and it paid off. The basics weren’t a struggle. You could plan for the future without feeling like the ground might shift beneath you. Things weren’t perfect, but they made sense. The people in charge weren’t geniuses, but they at least kept things running.

Then came the slow unraveling. Bit by bit, things stopped working. Prices crept up, wages stood still, services frayed. The people at the top made excuses. “It’s complicated,” they said. “Not our fault.” They weren’t fixing problems – they were managing decline, watching things fall apart like it wasn’t their job to hold it together.

Life became a fight – against broken systems, rising costs, unfair rules that only seemed to benefit the people already winning. And through it all, those in charge shrugged. “Tough luck,” they said.

But now, things are changing. Someone is stepping in. Not to tinker, not to talk, but to fix it. No more excuses. No more dithering. Just action. Competence. A sense of purpose. They aren’t here to “manage” things, they’re here to make things work again. Because you deserve better. And this time, you’re going to get it.

The Takeaway: The group liked the direct, no-nonsense tone. However, they were sceptical, because politicians often promise action but don’t deliver. The message must emphasise competence, fairness and restoring what was lost—not just abstract ‘change.’

The Start Up Party

For full transcript click here

Everything so far could be used by any of the established parties. But what about a brand new political party? What would Dominic Cummings’s ‘Start Up Party’ have to do to stand out and make people open to voting for it?

Sarah: One thing that would make me consider it is if they didn’t look like the usual politicians. I mean, you know how it is now with the same old people recycling the same ideas. I’d want to see a party that’s different in terms of who’s leading it – not just the usual suspects, but fresh faces. Maybe even people from outside of politics, you know?

John: Yeah, I’d agree with Sarah. It can’t just be a bunch of career politicians. If they got someone from outside, like an expert in something, even like a business leader or someone who has actually run something well, I’d be curious. Someone who’s had real-life experience, not just a degree in political science. They’ve got to look like they’ve actually done something in their lives.

Speaking as a (soon to be 🤞) political science PhD, I agree 100% with this!

John: Well, if they promised to only have people in senior positions who’ve actually worked outside of politics – like business owners, community leaders, or people who’ve worked in healthcare or education – I’d like that. It’d show they know what it’s like to run something real, not just talk about it.

Sarah: Yeah, I’d back that. Maybe something like, “We’ll appoint experts who’ve actually worked in the real world, not just politicians who’ve been in Westminster for decades.” That would show they’re serious about being different.

People have grown disillusioned with typical politicians who have no experience outside of the bubble. They want leaders who can have real-world experience.

Sarah: Well, one thing I’d really want to hear is a bold promise that they’ll deliver a clear plan for every major policy within the first 100 days of being in power. None of this “we’ll get back to you later” nonsense. Something like, “We’ll have a clear roadmap for tackling the top five issues facing the country by the end of our first month.” I’d respect that.

Tom: Yeah, and maybe a promise like, “We’ll release a fully transparent plan for every key decision, no vague promises, just specifics.” I think that would hit home with a lot of people – we’re sick of general talk.

John: I’d like something like, “We’ll put out quarterly reports on every policy we’ve promised – no excuses.” A regular check-up to show they’re sticking to what they’ve said would be reassuring.

There’s a clear desire for a party that not only makes strong promises but one that backs them up with transparency. Regular updates are seen as a way to hold MPs accountable and ensure they’re delivering on their word.

Tom: Now, on accountability, I think a really bold promise would be something like, “If we don’t meet our major targets within the first year, we’ll freeze our own salaries and take a pay cut.” That shows they’re serious about owning up to failures, not just blaming others.

John: That’s a good one. I’d also like them to say something like, “If we don’t keep our promises, we’ll hold a national review to explain why things went wrong, and ask you what we should do next.” It’s about involving people when things don’t go right.

Helen: I’d like a promise like, “If we fail on key promises, we’ll immediately introduce a new accountability system where voters can petition for a recall election.” That would show that they’re putting the power back in the hands of the people, not just letting them sit with the disappointment for years.

There’s a strong emphasis on real consequences for failure. Voters want politicians who are willing to put their money where their mouth is by taking personal hits when promises aren’t kept.

The moderator then sums up what they want from the new party:

1. Real-world experience – A promise to only appoint leaders who have experience outside of politics, such as business owners, community leaders, or professionals in key sectors.

2. Clear plans – A promise to release detailed, transparent plans for major policies within the first 100 days, and to regularly update the public on progress.

3. Accountability – A promise to be personally accountable for failures, such as taking pay cuts, holding national reviews, or introducing recall elections if promises aren’t kept.

What slogans do they want for each of these?

Sarah: Something about “real people,” maybe? Like, “Led by Real People”?

John: Hmm. I like “real people,” but “Led by” sounds a bit corporate. Maybe just “Run by Real People”?

Helen: That’s better, yeah. But we need to really make the contrast. It’s not just that they’re real people, it’s that they’re not career politicians.

Tom: What about “Not Politicians. Leaders.”?

John: Ooh, I like that. It says they’re different, but also competent.

Sarah: Yeah, that’s good. Or maybe “Real Leaders, Not Politicians”?

Helen: That works. I’d also like something like “Experience Over Politics.” It’s short and makes the point.

And for updating progress:

Tom: Something simple, like “We’ll Tell You.”

Sarah: Hmm. But that’s a bit weak, isn’t it? Politicians always say they’ll tell us, then they don’t. It needs more bite.

John: What about “We Say. We Show.”?

Helen: That’s better. It sounds direct, like “We’re actually proving this to you.”

Sarah: Yeah, or “We Speak. You See.” Like, they talk, but they prove it.

Tom: “Promises You Can Watch.” That’s interesting—because it suggests we’re keeping an eye on them.

John: That’s a bit long, though. What about “Nothing Hidden. Ever.”?

And for accountability and skin in the game:

Sarah: First thought—“We Fail, We Pay.”

John: Oof, that’s strong. I like that.

Helen: Yeah, it’s direct. They’re not just walking away from failure.

Tom: What about “Failure Costs Us First”? It makes the point that they take the hit before the rest of us.

Sarah: That’s good too.

John: What about “No Reward for Failure”? Because that’s the problem—politicians mess up, and they still get promotions.

Helen: That’s a solid one. But I think “We Fail, We Pay” is even sharper.

From these, the group agrees on ‘Real Leaders, Not Politicians’, ‘Nothing Hidden. Ever.’ and ‘We Fail, We Pay.’

However, for the second one, someone suggested ‘We Say. We Show.’ To me, a more obviously memorable way to say this is ‘We Show, You Know’.

John: That’s really clever. It’s simple but really effective. It tells you they’re not just talking, they’re proving things.

Helen: I agree, it’s short and memorable. It shows confidence, too—like, “We’ve got nothing to hide.”

Tom: Yep, I think it would resonate with a lot of people who are fed up with empty promises.

Sarah: Definitely. It speaks to what we want, transparency and regular updates.

The Takeaway: The group’s response was positive toward the idea of a new party that is genuinely different. Voters want leaders with real-world experience, not career politicians. They want transparency, with specific, actionable plans and frequent progress updates. The party must take responsibility for mistakes, including personal consequences for leaders.

#chatgpt4pm

ChatGPT's focus groups are a really accurate representation of voters. There was nothing it produced that was obviously not how a cross-section of the population would respond. It wasn’t just about the words it used, but how it was able to capture people’s underlying frustration, disconnect and desire for change in a way that was indistinguishable from human-run focus groups.

Whether the actual slogans ChatGPT came up with are the absolute perfect words to win voters’ support is beside the point. The key things is that it was able to come up with things that would likely have a strong appeal to the median voter and to word them in a way that was persuasive, action-orientated and non-cliche.

On the one hand, this is obviously a bit unnerving. Are we really that predictable in what we want from politics that ChatGPT can easily tell us how we think with just a brief prompt?

But on the other hand, it’s game changer. This could very well represent the long-term future of market research. You can now so easily and cheaply know people’s preferences and concerns. And not just for the median person but for any micro-demographic on any niche issue that you want.

If you’re a traditional market research company who has just won the account of a client in an area you have no idea about, using a ChatGPT focus group can quickly get you up to speed with what, for example, 40-50 year-old divorced childless white women who are primary school lunch ladies without a university degree who voted Leave in 2016, voted Lib Dem in 2019, own a German Shepherd and are Take That fans living in a Glasgow suburb most likely want from a new hard-water stain remover.

It can guide what quantitative survey questions you put out. It can prevent you wasting time during a human focus group with ideas that obviously won’t work after testing with a synthetic focus group.

In politics, there’s no excuse for a politician to speak in vague, predictable cliches. Even ChatGPT knows people are sick of them! Just run your speech through an LLM and say: ‘Remove and replace the phrases politicians use all the time and speak in a language normal people understand and respond to.’ Here is that done on a recent Keir Starmer speech on the NHS. I’ll let you make your mind up to which is better.

There’s also no excuse for a politician to say they don’t know how people feel (or could feel) about an issue. Even with a small bit of information, ChatGPT responded to the Chagos Islands story in virtually² the same way irl humans did.

The big issue, though, is that if a political party was caught using ChatGTP instead of listening to real voters in a human focus group, the outrage would be intense. Politicians are already criticised for being out of touch. Using AI instead of real voters would feel like the ultimate expression of this disconnection.

People want and need to feel heard. The idea that their concerns are being simulated rather than listened to directly would feel deeply disrespectful and dehumanising.

However, this is ironic for two reasons. First, politicians routinely ignore traditional focus group findings anyway (just look at persistent public concerns about the NHS, crime and immigration).

Second, if AI-driven insights led to better outcomes (if a party really did save, fix and fund the NHS), would you really care about the methodology?

What ChatGPT created in the synthetic focus groups were just slogans, not an actual plan or policy. Slogans can get people’s attention. They can even get you elected. But if they aren’t followed by a concrete plan, they will become same old failed political promises – which the synthetic focus groups were weary of.

The real question isn't whether AI or human focus groups are more representative, it's whether politicians actually act on the insights they receive regardless of source.

The ChatGPT Party Manifesto

Main Theme: Take Charge, Get Results

NHS: Save. Fix. Fund.

Cost of Living: Stop the Rip-Offs

Economic Growth: Better Pay, Lower Bills

Immigration: End The Chaos

Crime: Action, Not Excuses

The master narrative that The ChatGPT Party would use:

And if it were an opposition party looking to exploit the Chagos Islands story:

£18 billion for Mauritius, Nothing for You

And if it were a brand new party trying to differentiate itself, it would promise:

Real Leaders, Not Politicians: Only appoint leaders who have experience outside of politics, such as business owners, community leaders or professionals in key sectors.

We Show, You Know: Release detailed, transparent plans for major policies within the first 100 days, and to regularly update the public on progress.

We Fail, We Pay: Be personally accountable for failures, such as taking pay cuts, holding national reviews or introducing recall elections if promises aren’t kept.

1. Hanging paedos optional

2. Geddit!!??!