<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is there a UKIP / BNP partnership?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2009/05/is-there-a-ukip-bnp-partnership/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2009/05/is-there-a-ukip-bnp-partnership/</link>
	<description>In search of a European identity</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Jan 2012 12:16:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Casper &#124; Bourgeois Bum</title>
		<link>http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2009/05/is-there-a-ukip-bnp-partnership/comment-page-1/#comment-62623</link>
		<dc:creator>Casper &#124; Bourgeois Bum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:38:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/?p=2222#comment-62623</guid>
		<description>If it is correct, as someone wrote above, there are 2400 seats in total, and the BNP are contesting c. 500, and the UKIP c. 500, then one can easily calculate:

The BNP are contesting c. 20 % of the total seats.
The UKIP are contesting c. 20 % of the total seats.

In 20 % of 20 % (i.e. 4 %) of districts, BOTH parties run .
In 16 % of districts, EITHER the BNP OR the UKIP run.
In 80 % of districts, neither runs.

Sixteen is 80 % of twenty. So if the UKIP and BNP dont contest each other in 80 % of the districts where they run, this is absolutely statistically correct - by random chance.

Given that the data were correct, the conspiracy theory is nullified.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If it is correct, as someone wrote above, there are 2400 seats in total, and the BNP are contesting c. 500, and the UKIP c. 500, then one can easily calculate:</p>
<p>The BNP are contesting c. 20 % of the total seats.<br />
The UKIP are contesting c. 20 % of the total seats.</p>
<p>In 20 % of 20 % (i.e. 4 %) of districts, BOTH parties run .<br />
In 16 % of districts, EITHER the BNP OR the UKIP run.<br />
In 80 % of districts, neither runs.</p>
<p>Sixteen is 80 % of twenty. So if the UKIP and BNP dont contest each other in 80 % of the districts where they run, this is absolutely statistically correct &#8211; by random chance.</p>
<p>Given that the data were correct, the conspiracy theory is nullified.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Max</title>
		<link>http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2009/05/is-there-a-ukip-bnp-partnership/comment-page-1/#comment-62563</link>
		<dc:creator>Max</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 01:39:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/?p=2222#comment-62563</guid>
		<description>Really people...

They&#039;re competing for the same votes.

It could be an alliance, sure. Don&#039;t you think, though, that they both want to maximize their potential number of seats with a small target and a small budget.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Really people&#8230;</p>
<p>They&#8217;re competing for the same votes.</p>
<p>It could be an alliance, sure. Don&#8217;t you think, though, that they both want to maximize their potential number of seats with a small target and a small budget.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon</title>
		<link>http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2009/05/is-there-a-ukip-bnp-partnership/comment-page-1/#comment-62553</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Jun 2009 14:40:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/?p=2222#comment-62553</guid>
		<description>Disappointing that you backed down so easily. A back-of-the-envelope (literally) calculation shows that the phi coefficient is about 0.05, i.e. that there is a very weak correlation between the BNP standing in a seat and UKIP standing there. Whether that is significant or not depends on what you would expect the correlation to be -- if you think it should be higher, then the low value is evidence of collusion. What is required is some statistical evidence of the degree to which BNP voters are sympathetic to UKIP and vice versa. In the absence of that, the jury is still out.

@Nick: the point is precisely that you wouldn&#039;t expect the candidates to be randomly distributed, so something that looks like a random distribution is (arguably) in itself suspicious.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Disappointing that you backed down so easily. A back-of-the-envelope (literally) calculation shows that the phi coefficient is about 0.05, i.e. that there is a very weak correlation between the BNP standing in a seat and UKIP standing there. Whether that is significant or not depends on what you would expect the correlation to be &#8212; if you think it should be higher, then the low value is evidence of collusion. What is required is some statistical evidence of the degree to which BNP voters are sympathetic to UKIP and vice versa. In the absence of that, the jury is still out.</p>
<p>@Nick: the point is precisely that you wouldn&#8217;t expect the candidates to be randomly distributed, so something that looks like a random distribution is (arguably) in itself suspicious.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nosemonkey</title>
		<link>http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2009/05/is-there-a-ukip-bnp-partnership/comment-page-1/#comment-62476</link>
		<dc:creator>Nosemonkey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2009 21:27:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/?p=2222#comment-62476</guid>
		<description>Robin - much what Mat says. But also, increasingly now that all three major parties are fighting for the centre ground, I think there are nearly as many reasons for voting for a party as there are voters. Some (like me, mostly) vote based on the professed policies and perceived characters of individual candidates; some vote out of a desire to express their dissatisfaction with the government&#039;s actions over the economy, schools, the NHS, whatever; some vote based on whether their local council run by party x is doing a good job or not; some vote; some vote through ideology, belief, or ingrained party loyalty; some vote out of a desire to stick two fingers up at the current perception of the Westminster gravy train; most, however, I reckon vote because the current lot (whoever they are) are seen not to be doing a good enough job - and then all the other factors previously mentioned will come into play in varying degrees based on the individual. And there are countless more reasons than that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Robin &#8211; much what Mat says. But also, increasingly now that all three major parties are fighting for the centre ground, I think there are nearly as many reasons for voting for a party as there are voters. Some (like me, mostly) vote based on the professed policies and perceived characters of individual candidates; some vote out of a desire to express their dissatisfaction with the government&#8217;s actions over the economy, schools, the NHS, whatever; some vote based on whether their local council run by party x is doing a good job or not; some vote; some vote through ideology, belief, or ingrained party loyalty; some vote out of a desire to stick two fingers up at the current perception of the Westminster gravy train; most, however, I reckon vote because the current lot (whoever they are) are seen not to be doing a good enough job &#8211; and then all the other factors previously mentioned will come into play in varying degrees based on the individual. And there are countless more reasons than that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: septicisle</title>
		<link>http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2009/05/is-there-a-ukip-bnp-partnership/comment-page-1/#comment-62475</link>
		<dc:creator>septicisle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2009 19:53:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/?p=2222#comment-62475</guid>
		<description>The North/South divide doesn&#039;t entirely work across the board in any case: in the Euro elections here last time the BNP got nearly 4,000 votes; UKIP got just over 1,000, when I would have expected it to be the other way round.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The North/South divide doesn&#8217;t entirely work across the board in any case: in the Euro elections here last time the BNP got nearly 4,000 votes; UKIP got just over 1,000, when I would have expected it to be the other way round.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MatGB</title>
		<link>http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2009/05/is-there-a-ukip-bnp-partnership/comment-page-1/#comment-62471</link>
		<dc:creator>MatGB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:54:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/?p=2222#comment-62471</guid>
		<description>Robin, the answer is a mixture of all those reasons combined with a desire to &quot;give the other lot a go&quot;.  The motivations given when this sort of thing is studied are varied and sometimes weird (people planning to vote for Cameron because Brown is &quot;too right wing&quot; for example).

You can&#039;t ever say &quot;all voters for party X do so for reason Y&quot; but you can give a broad generalisation of a common motive.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Robin, the answer is a mixture of all those reasons combined with a desire to &#8220;give the other lot a go&#8221;.  The motivations given when this sort of thing is studied are varied and sometimes weird (people planning to vote for Cameron because Brown is &#8220;too right wing&#8221; for example).</p>
<p>You can&#8217;t ever say &#8220;all voters for party X do so for reason Y&#8221; but you can give a broad generalisation of a common motive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robin</title>
		<link>http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2009/05/is-there-a-ukip-bnp-partnership/comment-page-1/#comment-62470</link>
		<dc:creator>Robin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:51:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/?p=2222#comment-62470</guid>
		<description>Nosemonkey,

Why do you think people vote for Labour and Conservatives ? Because they agree with all their policies, or a tribalism and to keep the other lot out ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nosemonkey,</p>
<p>Why do you think people vote for Labour and Conservatives ? Because they agree with all their policies, or a tribalism and to keep the other lot out ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MatGB</title>
		<link>http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2009/05/is-there-a-ukip-bnp-partnership/comment-page-1/#comment-62468</link>
		<dc:creator>MatGB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:07:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/?p=2222#comment-62468</guid>
		<description>Tim, if there was an unofficial pact, I suspect the last person whoever agreed it would want to tell within the organisation was yourself (because if there actually is I don&#039;t think you&#039;d stomach remaining n&#039;est ce pas?).

NM, neither are competing strongly in all wards, local elections are a hard fight for them (Lib Dems struggle to get enough candidates and they&#039;ve significantly more members than the BNP for example).

As you know, I come from UKIP central, one of their MEPs used to be a friend of my parents when I was a kid (shared interest that they gave up when my sister was born). I now live in BNP central. Completely different voting demographic, UKIP are most likely to pick up seats in Tory held areas (and thus will do better once Cameron is in power), BNP fight hard in neglected traditional Labour areas.

Very little crossover—if they were competing in all wards then I&#039;d suspect something, as it is, merely completely different targetting strategies.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tim, if there was an unofficial pact, I suspect the last person whoever agreed it would want to tell within the organisation was yourself (because if there actually is I don&#8217;t think you&#8217;d stomach remaining n&#8217;est ce pas?).</p>
<p>NM, neither are competing strongly in all wards, local elections are a hard fight for them (Lib Dems struggle to get enough candidates and they&#8217;ve significantly more members than the BNP for example).</p>
<p>As you know, I come from UKIP central, one of their MEPs used to be a friend of my parents when I was a kid (shared interest that they gave up when my sister was born). I now live in BNP central. Completely different voting demographic, UKIP are most likely to pick up seats in Tory held areas (and thus will do better once Cameron is in power), BNP fight hard in neglected traditional Labour areas.</p>
<p>Very little crossover—if they were competing in all wards then I&#8217;d suspect something, as it is, merely completely different targetting strategies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim Worstall</title>
		<link>http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2009/05/is-there-a-ukip-bnp-partnership/comment-page-1/#comment-62467</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim Worstall</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2009 12:00:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/?p=2222#comment-62467</guid>
		<description>Well, you could have asked you know Clive. You do still know my email, no?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, you could have asked you know Clive. You do still know my email, no?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: john</title>
		<link>http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2009/05/is-there-a-ukip-bnp-partnership/comment-page-1/#comment-62466</link>
		<dc:creator>john</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2009 11:56:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/?p=2222#comment-62466</guid>
		<description>http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865

Former Soviet Dissident Warns For EU Dictatorship
From the desk of Paul Belien on Mon, 2006-02-27 22:13
bukovsky-1.jpg

Bukovsky and Belien

Vladimir Bukovksy, the 63-year old former Soviet dissident, fears that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union. In a speech he delivered in Brussels last week Mr Bukovsky called the EU a “monster” that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fullfledged totalitarian state.

Mr Bukovsky paid a visit to the European Parliament on Thursday at the invitation of Fidesz, the Hungarian Civic Forum. Fidesz, a member of the European Christian Democrat group, had invited the former Soviet dissident over from England, where he lives, on the occasion of this year’s 50th anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian Uprising. After his morning meeting with the Hungarians, Mr Bukovsky gave an afternoon speech in a Polish restaurant in the Trier straat, opposite the European Parliament, where he spoke at the invitation of the United Kingdom Independence Party, of which he is a patron.
An interview with Vladimir Bukovsky about the impending EUSSR
In his speech Mr Bukovsky referred to confidential documents from secret Soviet files which he was allowed to read in 1992. These documents confirm the existence of a “conspiracy” to turn the European Union into a socialist organization. I attended the meeting and taped the speech. A transcript, as well as the audio fragment (approx. 15 minutes) can be found below. I also had a brief interview with Mr Bukovsky (4 minutes), a transcript and audio fragment of which can also be found below. The interview about the European Union had to be cut short because Mr Bukovsky had other engagements, but it brought back some memories to me, as I had interviewed Vladimir Bukovsky twenty years ago, in 1986, when the Soviet Union, the first monster that he so valiantly fought, was still alive and thriving.

Mr Bukovsky was one of the heroes of the 20th century. As a young man he exposed the use of psychiatric imprisonment against political prisoners in the former USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 1917-1991) and spent a total of twelve years (1964-1976), from his 22nd to his 34th year, in Soviet jails, labour camps and psychiatric institutions. In 1976 the Soviets expelled him to the West. In 1992 he was invited by the Russian government to serve as an expert testifying at the trial conducted to determine whether the Soviet Communist Party had been a criminal institution. To prepare for his testimony Mr Bukovsky was granted access to a large number of documents from Soviet secret archives. He is one of the few people ever to have seen these documents because they are still classified. Using a small handheld scanner and a laptop computer, however, he managed to copy many documents (some with high security clearance), including KGB reports to the Soviet government.

....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865" rel="nofollow">http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865</a></p>
<p>Former Soviet Dissident Warns For EU Dictatorship<br />
From the desk of Paul Belien on Mon, 2006-02-27 22:13<br />
bukovsky-1.jpg</p>
<p>Bukovsky and Belien</p>
<p>Vladimir Bukovksy, the 63-year old former Soviet dissident, fears that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union. In a speech he delivered in Brussels last week Mr Bukovsky called the EU a “monster” that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fullfledged totalitarian state.</p>
<p>Mr Bukovsky paid a visit to the European Parliament on Thursday at the invitation of Fidesz, the Hungarian Civic Forum. Fidesz, a member of the European Christian Democrat group, had invited the former Soviet dissident over from England, where he lives, on the occasion of this year’s 50th anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian Uprising. After his morning meeting with the Hungarians, Mr Bukovsky gave an afternoon speech in a Polish restaurant in the Trier straat, opposite the European Parliament, where he spoke at the invitation of the United Kingdom Independence Party, of which he is a patron.<br />
An interview with Vladimir Bukovsky about the impending EUSSR<br />
In his speech Mr Bukovsky referred to confidential documents from secret Soviet files which he was allowed to read in 1992. These documents confirm the existence of a “conspiracy” to turn the European Union into a socialist organization. I attended the meeting and taped the speech. A transcript, as well as the audio fragment (approx. 15 minutes) can be found below. I also had a brief interview with Mr Bukovsky (4 minutes), a transcript and audio fragment of which can also be found below. The interview about the European Union had to be cut short because Mr Bukovsky had other engagements, but it brought back some memories to me, as I had interviewed Vladimir Bukovsky twenty years ago, in 1986, when the Soviet Union, the first monster that he so valiantly fought, was still alive and thriving.</p>
<p>Mr Bukovsky was one of the heroes of the 20th century. As a young man he exposed the use of psychiatric imprisonment against political prisoners in the former USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 1917-1991) and spent a total of twelve years (1964-1976), from his 22nd to his 34th year, in Soviet jails, labour camps and psychiatric institutions. In 1976 the Soviets expelled him to the West. In 1992 he was invited by the Russian government to serve as an expert testifying at the trial conducted to determine whether the Soviet Communist Party had been a criminal institution. To prepare for his testimony Mr Bukovsky was granted access to a large number of documents from Soviet secret archives. He is one of the few people ever to have seen these documents because they are still classified. Using a small handheld scanner and a laptop computer, however, he managed to copy many documents (some with high security clearance), including KGB reports to the Soviet government.</p>
<p>&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

