What the actual Hell?

Keir Starmer has hinted that Labour might vote in favour of the Johnson government's shoddy deal, with the proviso that a second referendum is attached:

Speaking to BBC One’s The Andrew Marr Show, he said: “We will see what that looks like but it makes sense to say that by whatever means we get that referendum. 

The spirit of this is clear. We offered this to Theresa May. We said: we don’t think your deal is very good but if it’s up against the safeguard of being able to remain then we will allow it to proceed in that way.” 

He added: “The position we have adopted is whatever the outcome, whether it’s Boris Johnson’s bad deal or a better one which could be secured, it has got to go to a referendum up against remain.”

Backing a referendum amendment is common sense.  Backing the whole bill is stupid.

It was stupid when Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson was talking about it and it is stupid now when Starmer is talking about it. Even if it is just a ploy, a bait-and-switch, it will encourage rebels - "You were considering backing it, so you can't blame us for just taking it a step further."

And after all the rhetoric about the deal in the last few days either Labour look like liars if they are now willing to back a deal they'd described as so awful, or they look untrustworthy and cynical for saying it was so bad and then voting for it.

Of course, a referendum might result in Remain winning, and the whole sorry episode being brought to a close starting over again. But that's not a risk I am comfortable taking. I'd rather have Remain run off against Soft Brexit because - guess what - everyone was confident the British public would more likely than not reject Brexit back in 2016. They didn't.

Also, Labour voting for the deal makes it harder for them to then campaign against it. "You're tellig us to stay in the EU, Jeremy? But you voted for the deal."

Vote for the amendment and vote against the deal.

The only acceptable explanation to me is they are waiting for the EU to grant an extension, before coming out against the bill.

Remainers starting to sound like fascists

As Brexit comes to a grisly conclusion (perhaps) people on all sides are saying intemperate and uwise things.  Some, like the Daly Mail, have been doing it for years.

People as normally level headed as Jon Lansman are calling for automatic deselection of MPs who vote against a (likely) Labour three line whip for Saturday's vote on Johnson's crappy deal.

Johnson's deal will be a wrecking ball through the lives & well-being of ordinary people across Britain. Labour MPs cannot and must not vote for it. If they do, the NEC will have no choice but to replace them with a new, socialist Labour candidate at the next election

— Jon Lansman (@jonlansman) October 18, 2019

Others have called for automatic withdrawal of the whip for rebel MPs.

I can understand that people feel very passionately about this.  It's easy to preach moderation from the comparative safety of New Zealand.  But this extremism is worrying.

Crying out for automatic expulsion is Draconian. It's the sort of behaviour people have condemned 'Corbynisas' for in the past - all that talk of deselection, trigger ballots and crushing of internal dissent. Now - because this is an issue that tickles their fancy - these people are adopting the same language and tactics allegedly used by 'Corbynistas'.

Defying a three line whip has never lead to automatic expulsion, as far as I'm aware. It should lead to some sort of sanction, but that is at the behest of the Chief Whip - a set up that is deliberate, intended to prevent party leaders using direct threats against MPs to intimidate them.

Back in 2003, 121 Labour MPs (including a certain Jeremy Corbyn) defied a three line whip over Iraq and were not expelled. I think we'd agree Iraq was at least as serious as Brexit. Can no-one see how a reaction like automatic expulsion for defying a 3 liner sets a very dangerous precedent for the future?

Also, by adopting tactics similar to what self-described 'moderates' claim 'Corbynistas' are using in CLPs they're legitimising the 'Corbynista' tactics as well. The ends justify the means. Whatever these alleged 'Corbynistas' believe in, they doubtless believe in it just as strongly as the alleged 'moderates' believe in Remain.

Or, as another chap once wrote:

Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

The moderates are starting to sound like what they claim to hate, advocating crushing opposition to their vision by any means. It is disappointing how everyone seems willing to embrace dangerous precedents and endorse behaviour they would condemn in other circumstances; and how quickly they start to sound like a fascist if they are provoked just a bit.

We all like to think of ourselves as wise, rational, level headed, moderate lovely people but turn into swivel-eyed monsters demanding purges and punishments when we're scratched. Mike Tyson said, everyone's gotta plan until they get punched on the nose." You could say the same about calm rational moderation. We've all got it, until we realise it isn't going to get us what we want.

It is dangerous to start using the language and tactics of your enemy - it has a way of sticking, and after your enemy is defeated, you discover they've actually won, because you've become like them.

Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster.

Labour MPs supporting Johnson's turd-sandwich deal?

I find this unbelievable:

I've got one source saying more Labour MPs than expected are mulling whether to vote for the deal - including names who were not on the letter to Juncker and Tusk

— Emilio Casalicchio (@e_casalicchio) 17 October 2019

I've compiled a list of possible reasons why Labour MPs might consider voting for a dire, incoherent Conservative vision of Hard Brexit:

1. Because they actually believe in this Brexit thing, which is terrifying.


2. Because some of them accept the referendum result and want to see Brexit achieved, in some for or another.


3. Because some of them represent Remain constituencies.


4. Because they want this poisonous, divisive issue finished so they can get on with politics as normal.


5. Because they are idiots.


6. Because they are idiots.


7. Because they are actually alien replicants in the style of invasion of the Body Snatchers.


8. Because they would do anything - even endorse a Conservative uber-crappy Hard Brexit deal - if it meant sidelining Jeremy Corbyn.


9. Because they are idiots.

I think that covers it.

Swinson's swithering

Jo Swinson is doing even worse at this Being Sensible lark that I'd thought.  I've just become aware of the following utterance

.@KayBurley presses Lib Dem leader @joswinson on whether she would agree to a #Brexit deal 'no matter how bad a deal it is' as long as it had a second referendum attached to it.

📱 Watch #KayBurley live https://t.co/cMHO7fsDYJ
📺 Channel 501 pic.twitter.com/ol7qyySJcm

— Sky News (@SkyNews) 16 October 2019

Right at the end - after many attempts to avoid answering the question - she finally says, "I will vote in favour of a bill to put the deal to the public."

So she'll vote in favour of a crappy Conservative hard Brexit deal, with the inherent risk of No Deal following if the deal is rejected by parliament or the electorate; but not in favour of a Corbyn lead GNU to seek an extension and pass referendum legislation with the possible end result of a better deal or Britain staying in the EU.

And we're to believe her refusal to offer support to a Corbyn led GNU was about anything other than tactical, anti-Labour maneuvering?

Another day of bonkers GNUmours (again, sorry)

First, almost a score of Labour MPs seem to have sent a letter to the EU basically begging them to accept a deal - any deal - just so Britain can get the Heck on with Brexiting instead of being trapped in limbo:

To avoid no deal, deliver on the ref outcome and break the deadlock we have sent the letter below to Juncker and Tusk #Brexit pic.twitter.com/xnvEbLFlmI

— Emma Lewell-Buck MP (@EmmaLewellBuck) 8 October 2019

They are literally asking the EU to accept a Conservative Prime Minister's hopeless deal, rather than try to gain power and sort out a better deal for Britain. They are effectively enabling and extending an even-more-dangerous-than-usual Tory government, rather than trying to bring it down.

(The even scarier thing is they aren't even the maddest Brexiteers in Labour - you won't see Kate Hoey or John Mann's name on that list. It's far too diluted for them. They like their Brexit neat, if that isn't some sort of oxymoron.)

This is why I think a non-Corbyn GNU will struggle to get across the line. That's 19 votes that probably won't be available for an alternative candidate, whereas they probably would be available for Corbyn. Basically, they cancel out the Lib Dems. Assuming those 19 - and Hoey and Mann - refused to support a non-Corbyn GNU, and all the other Labour MPs did (a huge assumption) then then it would be at 283, still needing the pro-Remain Independents to support en masse. Possible, but difficult.

Where as Corbyn, the SNP, the Lib Dems, Plaid and the Greens can probably get there, or very nearly there, as he can expect his MPs to support him.

But wait, there's more ... According to the Financial Times, in a sort of exchange student MP deal, fifty MPs, including three cabinet ministers have threatened to walk out in Johnson makes a No Deal Brexit an election commitment:

Several prominent ministers would find a no deal manifesto problematic to support, including Julian Smith, Nicky Morgan and Robert Buckland. Same for plenty in the junior ranks too. https://t.co/GUbXW77Kir

— Sebastian Payne (@SebastianEPayne) 9 October 2019

Obvious the problem with this story is ... Tories. Until they actually walk out the door, assume they will do the opposite of what they say they will do. But it does suggest the antipathy towards Johnson's 'dead in a ditch' approach is growing.

(It also suggests the 50, particularly the cabinet ministers, are pretty dimwitted, as an fule could see from years ago (well, a few weeks back) that Johnson hadn't the slightest interest in a deal. If they actually thought they were assisting other than a Titanic style Brexit, they were clearly rather hopeless - which raises the worrying possibility that their resignations might leave the Johnson administration brighter and more dangerous, by some strange alchemy.)

So, yeah, just another day of lunacy in Brexitland.

Inside the Downing Street bunker

James Forsyth at The Spectator (I know, I know) has tapped one of his contacts inside Number Ten for an insight into the Johnson administration's thinking and strategy.

It is fascinating, unsettling and quite, quite mad.  Some key points:

• Negotiations have stalled and the Johnson administration are keen to blame the EU: "Varadkar was keen on talking before the Benn Act when he thought that the choice would be ‘new deal or no deal’. Since the Benn Act passed he has gone very cold ..."; of course, it has nothing to do with the Johnson administration wasting everyone's time, acting in bad faith and proposing a ludicrous alternative to the vexed Irish Backstop.

• It is all the fault of the Germans Boche and the French Frogs: "There are quite a few people in Paris and Berlin who would like to discuss our offer but Merkel and Macron won’t push Barnier unless Ireland says it wants to negotiate." This is like reading the story of Brexit as re-told by Commando Comics; which, now I think about it, is a very apt description of how the Johnson administration is approaching the whole thing.

• The Euro-meanies and the Remoaners are conspiring to Do Britain Down, but they will be shown up in time by British pluck and cold hard steel, which has always seen of their Continental guile: "Ireland and Brussels listen to all the people who lost the referendum, they don’t listen to those who won the referendum and they don’t understand the electoral dynamics here."

• The Johnson administration really is intent on going full steam ahead into the iceberg, because they are more scared of Nigel Farage than they are of ruining the country: "To marginalise the Brexit Party, we will have to fight the election on the basis of ‘no more delays, get Brexit done immediately’."; never mind the arguments about 17.2 million voters, this is about one man. Oddly, their plan for stopping him is to do exactly what he wants, which seems a bit silly, but they aren't interested in what is better for Britain here - it is simple psychopathic careerism. Cock up, blame everyone else and hope that people will fall for it so you don't lose your job.

• The Johnson administration intends to Subvert the 'Benn Bill' to prevent delaying Brexit: "Our legal advice is clear that we can do all sorts of things to scupper delay which for obvious reasons we aren’t going into details about."; one wonders if this 'legal advice' springs from the same mind that told them proroguing parliament for five weeks was legal, and that they could win court cases without presenting sworn affidavits?

• They will use bribes and threats to try to get the EU to vote against offering a further extension: "We will make clear privately and publicly that countries which oppose delay will go the front of the queue for future cooperation — cooperation on things both within and outside EU competences. Those who support delay will go to the bottom of the queue."; so,having failed to win any intellectual arguments, they will resort to bullying - "within and outside EU competences" is particularly ominous.

• The EU offering something that has been requested by the British PM acting on the instructions of the British parliament is "hostile interference in domestic politics, and over half of the public will agree with us"; presumably they will apply the same 'logic' to any attempt to form treaties or agreements in the future. And the cynical statement that the public will agree with them reveals they are intent on plunging even further down the Faragist populist bullshit rabbit hole. All, you know, to stop Farage.

• They actually still think this is all about them: "We will also make clear that this government will not negotiate further so any delay would be totally pointless. They think now that if there is another delay we will keep coming back with new proposals. This won’t happen." Hate to break it to you, guys and girls, but people are now hoping that it won't be "we" coming back with new proposals.

• They will take their toys and go home: "Any delay will in effect be negotiated between you, Parliament, and the courts — we will wash our hands of it, we won’t engage in further talks, we obviously won’t given any undertakings about cooperative behaviour, everything to do with ‘duty of sincere cooperation’ will be in the toilet, we will focus on winning the election on a manifesto of immediately revoking the entire EU legal order without further talks, and then we will leave." Yes, gentle reader, they actually think the courts and parliament are somehow irrelevant obstacles in all this, not the things that give them legitimacy. Heads up! If the courts say your are doing illegal stuff, it means lack legitimacy; if parliament refuses to back you, you lack legitimacy. You will not have the authority to put anything in the toilet. And for all their eager talk of elections, there is one simple way to get one - request an extension so an election can be held without the country falling out of the EU by default. But the Fear of Farage is overwhelming, and they can not bring themselves to do that Very Obvious Thing.

• They are deluded: "Those who pushed the Benn Act intended to sabotage a deal and they’ve probably succeeded." No, your bad faith negotiations, posturing and hopeless alternative' to the Irish Backstop killed a deal. Which you probably knew all along it would. The ferocity of the pro-No Deal language in this whole message reveals the lie in this weak attempt to pass the blame.

It is worth keeping in mind this might be what the 'strategic geniuses' WANT us to think they are planning.

But, nah.  I'm going with this actually being what they are planning - for want of a better word.

Are GNUs extinct?

Another round of tactical talks about forming a Government of National Unity have come to nothing with the Liberal Democrats still refusing countenance putting Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street:

Opposition talks on Monday made little headway over when to try and vote down Boris Johnson's government and who might succeed him as prime minister.

Labour said the Lib Dems were being "irresponsible" in refusing to back a temporary Jeremy Corbyn-led government.

But Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson said he did not have wide enough support.

The SNP called on the other two parties to "grow up" and warned that time was running out to stop the UK leaving the EU on 31 October.

The Lib Dems and the pro-Remain Independents and TIG4C (henceforth, "the Lib Dems") are being idiots over this. It is senseless. There is no logical reason not to throw their weight behind a Corbyn candidacy.

If Corbyn GENUINELY does not have the number then it could be proven in Parliament by simply having a VOC. But they know that - with their backing - he would win that (Tories + DUP = 298) and they don't want that. So they are making fantastical claims about some mythical 'number' he needs and can not achieve and insist that he 'step aside' for some equally mythical unity candidate that they can not even identify, far less demonstrate that this unicorn of a candidate has the 'numbers.'

They say they don't want Brexit, but talk is cheap. Actions speak louder. The Lib Dems are exaggerating their anti-Brexit credentials as a unique selling point but fundamentally don't seems to actually intend to live up to their rhetoric.

They've nicely put themselves into a position where they are either going to have enable No Deal Brexit, or renege on their loud talk about being unable to support Corbyn under any circumstances, or have to sit sullenly on the sidelines while Labour actually go about trying to do the thing the Lib Dems have been saying they really, really want to do.

Any of those scenarios leaves them looking like posturing clowns playing politics and not even doing that well; diminished, irrelevant, mealy-mouthed and ineffective.

Guido Fakes

So the other day, the slightly-better-known-than-me-blogger Guido Fawkes aka Paul Staines aka a big fat Tory FIBBER posted a big fat Tory Fib about this Brexit thing that has happened while I have been Otherwise Engaged.

The tl/dr version of his post is that people who didn't like Brexit were big fat liars because they had predicted the end of the world would commence the day after the referendum and when this didn't happen (because in the strange world Staines inhabits, the pound hasn't relentlessly tanked) and now the Remoaner fibbers are trying to say that they never actually said that at all and the End of the World would kick off after Britain actually left the EU blah blah blah, and this was all lies, lies I tell you!

He produces DEVASTATING documentary evidence to back up his claim - a report issued by HM Treasury, no less, assuring us Brexit apocalypse would be 'immediate' and he quotes some absolutely DEVASTATING evidence to PROVE beyond a SHADOW OF A DOUBT that ALL REMAINERS are lying deviants who molest hedgehogs.  To whit:

This paper focuses on the immediate economic impact of a vote to leave and the two years that follow. Such a vote would change fundamentally not just the UK’s relationship with the EU, our largest trading partner, but also our relationship with the rest of the world. The instability and uncertainty that would trigger is assessed. 

The Treasury analysis in this document uses a widely-accepted modelling approach that looks at the impact of this uncertainty and instability on financial markets, households and businesses, as our economy transitions to a worse trading arrangement with the EU. 

I am grateful to Professor Sir Charles Bean, one of our country's foremost economists and a former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, who has reviewed this analysis and says that it “provides reasonable estimates of the likely size of the short-term impact of a vote to leave on the UK economy”. 

The analysis in this document comes to a clear central conclusion: a vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000, GDP would be 3.6% smaller, average real wages would be lower, inflation higher, sterling weaker, house prices would be hit and public borrowing would rise compared with a vote to remain. 

He even draws red oval shapes around some bits of it, a skill I have yet to evolve.  But, I mean, why would you need red oval shapes when the evidence is so DEVASTATINGLY PROOFY as that?  The Remainers predicted the End Of Times would be IMMEDIATE after a VOTE FOR LEAVE and - well, the GDP figures released the other day show growth of 0.5%.  GROWTH.

Only, yeah, Paul Staines is a big fat Tory FIBBER so it will come as no surprise at all to learn that this is just a big ol' FIB.

I mean, he didn't invent it or anything, the paper exists.  Though, curiously, Mr Staines doesn't link it on his bloggy-woggy or anything, because that might result in some people stumbling across the truth or something and Ol' Stainy doesn't want THAT.

Unlike Stainsey, I'm happy to linky.

Because here's the thing.  The paper he is quoting is a legit paper released by Her Madge's Gummint and everything.  But the bit he's quoting is a bit written by the former Chief Idiot To The Treasury, Mr Gideon "Call Me George" Osborne himself, a man whose occupancy of the office of Chancellor was somewhat akin to a stalker's relationship to romance - he isn't wanted, he doesn't get it, but he won't go away.

So enough of George, because it isn't nice to kick a man while he's down (a lesson that the Tories never learned) and back to Paul Staines.

Like I said, Mr Staines makes a bi deal of the words 'vote to leave' which are prefaced by immediate and OHMIGOD it looks soooooooooo bad, until you actually look at the original report.  The bit written by the experts who knew what they were talking about, I mean, not the bit written by the Gidiot in Number 11.  Because then you discover that - unfortunately for Stainsey - when grown up economist people (as distinct from moron bloggers) use words like IMMEDIATE they don't mean RIGHT NOW.

If Staines had bothered to read a bit beyond the foreword written by Gideon Osborne he'd have found this out for himself.

'coz if he'd read only as far as PARAGRAPH FRIGGIN' FOUR of the Executive Summary (and who really reads beyond the Executive Summary?) the Stainsinator would have learned that when those clever economicky type people use words like IMMEDIATE they have a bit of a special meaning that is lost on both him and on Gideon:

The analysis in this HM Treasury document quantifies the impact of that adjustment over the immediate period of two years following a vote to leave. Such a vote would trigger a redefinition not only of the UK’s economic relationship with the EU and the rest of the world, but also of much of the UK’s domestic economic policy, regulatory and legislative framework. A vote to leave would cause an immediate and profound economic shock creating instability and uncertainty which would be compounded by the complex and interdependent negotiations that would follow.

"The immediate period of two years," GEDDIT??

So, yeah, what do you make of that, Staines, you big fat Tory FIBBER?

Of course, its not Paul's fault that George Osborne was almost as useless a writer of forewords as he was a Chancellor.  But the evidence was all there in black and white and all he had to do was read it and be honest.  He massively failed on one of these counts.  Because if you look beyond the Wise Words of Gideon's foreword, you'd have to be pretty damn thick not to realise that when the EXPERTS (as distinct from idiot bloggers) used the term immediate they meant a two year time scale.

They even have a section called, "Part 3: Modelling the immediate impact on the public finances of a vote to leave the EU," (page 74) which is examining the impacts through to 2018. Which is two years away. 'Immediate' appears to cover the period from the vote up until exiting, working on the assumption that Cameron stuck to his word and triggered Article 50 pretty much immediately after a referendum.

Which possibley suggests a worrying lack of scientific rigour on the part of the authors, because, you know, Tories and their word ...

But, anyhoo, either oor man Stainsey did not bother to read the report before ranting his branes on the interwebs; or he is a klutz who did not understand what he read; or he is a Big Fat Tory FIBBER who understood it and decided to misrepresent it to the readers of his blog, because, you know, the truth isn't much good if it doesn't advance the Tories.

Which was it, Paul?

"Invoke Article 50 now!" - Corbyn

One of the persistent criticisms encountered about Corbyn is that he surprised his own party by calling for article 50 to be invoked immediately.

I assumed he actually had done so, but digging around, it is hard to confirm. There are lots of places saying he said it, but the actual video evidence has proved elusive.

Labour List gives a transcript of what he said:

“The British people have made their decision. We must respect that result and Article 50 has to be invoked now so that we negotiate an exit from European Union.

“Obviously there has to be strategy but the whole point of the referendum was that the public would be asked their opinion. They’ve given their opinion. It is up for parliament to now act on that opinion.

“Quite clearly negotiations must take place. There must be the best deal possible in order to ensure strong industries in Britain stay strong and strong industries that have big export markets protect retain those export markets. But we are in some very difficult areas. That’s obvious to everybody."

Interestingly, Labour List glosses his remark as calling for Article 50 to be trigger "immediately."

But I am not sure that is actually what he says at all.

I suppose it depends on if he said that crucial 'now' with emphasis. But it reads like he means, "Now we have to invoke article 50," rather than, "We have to invoke article 50 immediately."

I am a bit surprised that the evidence of his evil ways are not being replayed constantly, a sort of British Zapruder film.  But I can't find it anywhere, thus far.  It's almost enough to make you wonder if there is something afoot, a desirable impression to be created which awkward reality doesn't quite fit with ...

In other words, yet another one of the endless spin operations being deployed by his enemies within the party?

The Divine Right of Kings

I think it is important that who has the power to invoke Article 50 is given due consideration.

It is a concern that the Royal Perogative is being suggested as a means to avoid having to put a bill into parliament. This isn't the 15th century. Our elected parliament should be making these decisions.

The more we use administrative conveniences like the Royal Perogative, the more likely they are to be abused. The limits of the RP need to be clearly defined and in ALL OTHER CASES, parliament should be consulted.

As usual, people are seeing their own short term advantage in abusing the system, and not worrying about the consequences of the abuse. What if, in the future, an unscrupulous PM decided to take us back into the EU, or implemented some other massive change, invoking the Royal Perogative and without reference to parliament? As long as they could point to an opinion poll favouring their position ...

I think the Conservatives are playing a dangerous tactical game here. Their manifesto commitment was to 'honour' the referendum result. Before the 2015 election, they were not anticipating a majority, so 'honouring' the referendum result could mean putting up a 'Trigger Article 50' bill into parliament, anticipating it being shot down by the opposed majority.

They now have the majority, so can pass the trigger bill.

Damned by their own success - or by Labour and the Lib Dems' unspeakable failure.

As it is, their majority is small and if they did put a bill before the house, it could dangerously split the party. They haven't got the luxury of being able to tolerate a few rebels. And the rebels won't tolerate being whipped. Schism beckons.

I suspect they don't want to do it, and are treading water, hoping for something to happen. Perhaps they are waiting for their small majority to erode naturally (i.e. for MPs t die off and for seats to be lost in by-elections) or for some realignment on the centre left and a split int heir own party ... or for the consequences of imminent exit to sink in and people to change their minds ... But by not simply putting a bill before the house and invoking the Royal Perogative immediately slows everything down, as endless constitutional quibbling and argument seems inevitable.

Or, of course, I might be wrong and the Tories might not care about the potential dangers of using the Divine Right Of Kings to deal with issues.

Cologne attacks - a quick comment

A lot of people are getting a bit excited over a news story about a report into the assaults on women that took place in Germany over the New Year:

At least 2,000 men sexually harassed women on New Year’s Eve across Germany, but it will be impossible to track them all down, police said, adding that the attacks have been linked to mass migration. 

Police said there were cases involving over 1,200 women, adding that apart from Cologne, sexual harassment was reported in Hamburg, Düsseldorf, Stuttgart and other cities across Germany. 

The report from the Federal Office of Criminal Investigations (BKA) was seen by Germany's Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper and broadcasters NDR and WDR. 

According to the report, at least 642 crimes of a purely sexual nature were reported in Germany. Plus, police registered 239 other “combined crimes” that involved both sexual assault and theft. 

Of the 2,000 alleged attackers, only 120 have been identified so far, according to police reports. Many of the attacks were carried out in large groups. 

“We need to assume that many of the perpetrators will not be investigated,” BKA President Holger Münch said, as cited by the paper. 

According to police estimates, most of the identified offenders came from North Africa and over a half of the attackers had spent less than a year in Germany.

This actually tells us nothing new.

Of the 2000 attackers, only 120 have actually been identified.  The statement that "According to police estimates, most of the identified offenders came from North Africa and over a half of the attackers had spent less than a year in Germany," has to be read with that in mind. "Most of" refers to the 120 identified offenders, not the 'gross' figure of 2000. The identity of 94% of the perpetrators is simply unknown. They might be white, black, brown, yellow or green.

I don't suppose that will stop the anti-Muslim, anti-refugee making a predictable unpleasant fuss about it, though.

Downfall?

Well, it looks like it is all up for Corbyn.

The whole Shadow Cabinet are reportedly set to walk out, even the ones who didn't want him to quit.  They recognise he can't survive the sort of damage the Benn-Bliar wing are intent on inflicting.

Which is a fucking shame as it shows the Labour Party have learned nothing rom 2010, the SNP overthrowing them in Scotland, 2015, Corbyn's election, or the Brexit referendum. They have not got clue what their membership wants, far less the general population of Britain.

EDIT - Well, the hammer seems not to have fallen yet.  A lot of fighting talk from Corbyn's team, and only the one resignation so far.  A lot of bitter sniping from back benchers like Chris Leslie.  Interestingly, Hilary Benn refused to say how many resignation he was expecting to happen.  Maybe he's not as sure of his support as he was 24 hours ago.  Maybe those late night calls went unanswered.

Two Down ...

This could get interesting.

Heidi Alexander, Shadow Health secretary, has quit the Shadow Cabinet.

Her reasons are a bit bemusing - apparently Labour should be gearing up to fight an 'increasingly rightwing and inward looking Conservative Party.'  And she thinks this end can be achieved by precipitating a Blairite coup, leading to an extended civil war within Labour.  Seems like it won't just be the Conservatives that will be 'inward looking' over the next few months.

I've always thought the British Labour Party was far more stable and sane than the antipodean ones, which seem to swap leaders every five minutes and are engaged in eternal factional wars.

Clearly, they've just been saving it all up for a massive, massive dust up.

Half of Shadow Cabinet to Resign?

Obviously, Hilary Benn has been busy.

Just been told half the shadow cabinet to resign this morning

— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) 26 June 2016

I despair of the Parliamentary Labour Party.  They really don't get it.  Corbyn is not the problem.  They are the problem.  They were dumbfounded by the Brexit result because they have NO F-CK-NG CLUE about anything beyond their self regarding, narcissistic little bubble.

I'm baffled that the political class seem to have been so confounded by this. If I could see it coming from the other side of the world, what the Hell were they doing? What were all those MPs surgeries and local meetings and focus groups and 'soundings' and 'learnings' about? Clearly, not about finding out what people actually thought or wanted.

And their solution to the discovery that people are not listening to them?  "Hey, we've got a leader who actually seems to broadly reflect public opinion on something! Let's try to get rid of him and replace him with some clueless cumstain whose opinions reflect what we think people should think, not what they actually think. Because that will make them listen to us! They just haven't been told what to think by the right person yet! Tony, could you maybe .."

Wankers.

Labour lunacy

I'll assemble some thinks on the Brexit vote ... when my brain comes out of orbit.

But, hilariously, Labour seem to have found a way to make things worse, by trying to unseat Corbyn.

A motion of no confidence is to be tabled, and this could trigger a leadership election.

Hilary Benn's name is being muttered.  But with 60% membership backing Corbyn, I think Benn might be committing political suicide.

The Labour leader is chosen by the membership in a One Member, One Vote election, using the Alternative Vote run off system.

Last time, Corbyn secured 59.5% of that vote, in the first round.  There is no reason to think he has lost substantial support.

The only route MPs may have to stop him being voted back into the top job is by keeping him off the ballot - I think the rules still require 15 MPs nominate him for him to be included.

But if they do that, they will be crucified.

And it might not even work - Corbyn's supporters could just write his name on the ballot.  It would have no legal weight, but if a lot of them did it (and they would) then the new leader would be utterly screwed, right from the start.

The End of Cameron

Cameron really is hopeless, isn't he?

He's arguing that if we leave the EU the world will immediately dissolve into a state of war, famine, plague and Mantovani.

So why did he risk unleashing this apocalypse by offering a referendum as a sop to a few grumpy MPs and UKIP voters?

If he loses (and it is looking, insanely, like he will) he is finished; if he wins, all the problems that made him offer the referendum remain, and are worsened, if anything.  It shows an impressive lack of strategic foresight.

But then, we are talking about the man who could only manage a draw against Gordon Brown, even with the 2008 Financial Crisis to help him.  And could only defeat his coalition partner in 2015, not Ed Milliband's Labour in 2015.

A hopeless clown, a blustering buffoon, strutting and fretting and soon to quit the stage.

The only Prime Minister of the 21st century so far, to whom the label, "As bad as Blair," can be applied.

Anyway, get used to this:

The Fall of Cameron?

It is quite spectacular how Cameron has collapsed.

A few months ago, he was a great man, a modern Churchill, having won the most audacious electoral comeback in recent history.

Then came his hopeless EU 'renegotiation', George Osborne's incompetent budget (which has possibly ended three political careers - Duncan Smith's, Cameron's and Osborne's - which is quite an impressive achievement), the Panama revelations and his shifty, mealy mouthed responses, and now further dubious looking behaviour with inheritance tax, the humiliation of polling behind Jeremy Corbyn and the possibility of LOSING the show referendum that he set up to placate his internal, anti-EU fifth column ... It's like the collapse of John Major's government, only playing at speed.

He indicated he didn't plan on fighting a third general election, but I imagine he planned on bowing out looking like a man leaving at a time of his choosing, not some family embarrassment being bundled out of the house after raiding the drinks cabinet and smashing an heirloom.

Events, my dear boy, events, as Harold MacMillan may have said.

Labour should take heed of this.  By absurd coincidence, they seem to have lighted on the perfect leader for the times.  Not because Corbyn is a great leader, but he actually seems to be morally righteous and incorruptable.  Just as Blair was the perfect leader for the 90s, almost seeming designed to make charges of Evil Red Intentions impossible, Corbyn is one of very few MPs who can (probably) castigate the Tories for their venality and not come across as an opportunistic hypocrite.  No-one can accuse him of adopting left-wing sanctimony as an electoral convenience, or of only being interested in winning power.

(Of course, a Corbyn castigation isn't exactly a terrifying prospect, but I think his unabrasive style is starting to connect with the public.)

Best of all, Corbyn is immune to the tired "Well Labour were in power for eons and did nothing about ..." and "Labour were no better when ..." counter arguments.  His position as perennial backbencher and malcontent gives him protection.  He had nothing to do with any of it.

Interesting times, and all that.

Alexandra Mezher

This is, of course, completely horrible:

The mother of the young social worker who was allegedly stabbed to death by a 15-year-old asylum seeker at a shelter for refugee children today spoke of her anguish as the family blamed Sweden's migration crisis for her death. 

Alexandra Mezher, 22, was working alone with ten youths aged between 14 and 17 when she was attacked at the home for unaccompanied young refugees in Mölndal, near Gothenburg. 

She later died of her injuries in hospital. Chiméne Mezher, 42, today told how she had lost her 'angel', as a close cousin said: 'It is the Swedish politicians' fault that she is dead.'  

Sweden is one of the main destinations for refugees and migrants entering the EU and police warn they cannot cope with the tide of migrant-related crime.

The Mail et al have been quick to bang their drums to a very predictable tune.  But I think Ms Mezher - who wanted to help refugees - deserves more than to become another right wing tidbit, a poster-girl for Europe's violated womanhood (even though her family was actually from Lebanon).

She obviously didn't think we should be stopping refugees from coming here.  She worked with them to try and help them recover from the trauma of what they had endured - which included being separated from their families.

It is unspeakably tragic that she died, violently, at the hands of one of the people she was trying to help.  It is disgraceful that she was left alone on a night shift at the centre.

It is also disgraceful that Sweden has had to take in so many refugees while other countries try to avoid sharing the load.  Sweden has the highest number of asylum seekers, per capita, in the OECD.  Last year, according to the Mail article, it accepted 160,000 new refugees.

In contrast, Britain has a TOTAL of 116,000 refugees (as of 2014).

And bear in mind that Sweden's population is 9.5 million, about a seventh of Britain's.

Sweden is doing more than its fair share in addressing this crisis.  So was Alexandra Mezhert.  David Cameron - and most other European leaders - desperately tried to avoid doing their bit.  Cameron, you'll recall, has pledged to take 20,000 Syrian refugees.  Over five years.

It is possible Alexandra Mezhert would be alive if other European counties had not tried to avoid taking in their own share of refugees - because then Sweden would not have been so desperately over-extended that it left a 22 year old woman alone on duty at night.

And keep in mind there is not one victim at the centre that night.  There were eleven - Ms Mezher and the ten youths she was supervising.  It has been said the killer is a fifteen year old boy from Somalia.  It is hard to imagine how much horror he, and the others at the centre, must have endured in their short lives.  The effect this has had on them.  The loss of their families.  The issues and mental illnesses corroding their minds.

Ms Mezher understood, and wanted to help.  European politicians stood back and did nothing, and contributed to her death.

It will be a travesty if this tragedy was allowed to become another 'reason' for refusing refugees.  A more appropriate response would be for European countries to agree to take their fair share.  Honour Alexandra Mezher by trying to help, not smashing the door closed.

Sweet Baby Jesus Wept: The Mail

Unsurprisingly, the Daily Mail has been having a fine old time with the horrible accounts emerging from Cologne.

What better way of stirring up bigotry and hysteria (the Mail's stock in trade when Kim K is not showing us her arse) than running dozens of stories about Muslims molesting European women?

Even better when it is being claimed that the perpetrators are asylum seekers, ungrateful refugees repaying German generosity by sexually assaulting and robbing vulnerable women?

Today the Mail reached a pinnacle of irresponsibility, running a story headlined, "18 Cologne sex attackers were asylum seekers". The implication is pretty clear - 18 people charged with sexual assaults were refugees.

The juxtaposition is pretty clear, leading the reader to think, reasonably, that 18 people who committed sex attacks at Cologne have been revealed to be asylum seekers.

Only, no-one has actually been charged with a sexual assault in relation to the events on New Year's Eve.

So far, 31 people have been arrested.  As the Mail admits, far down the article, "None of the 31 has been accused of specifically committing sexual assaults, the aspect of Cologne's disturbances that attracted most public outrage at home and abroad."

So the 18 "sex attackers" were - based on what they have been charged with so far - likely thieves and brawlers.

But let's not miss a chance to smear refugees and drum up a bit of hate, eh?

This whole story has been horribly exploited by the neo-fascist right.  Social media has been brilliantly manipulated.  Rumours and unsubstantiated claims have been spread, supposed conspiracies exposed and continual conflation of any Arab or North African involved in criminality with 'refugees' .

It is depressing - though not entirely surprising - to see the Mail following this lead with such gleeful insouciance.

Power without responsibility, and all that.

People of Turkey, Ukraine, I salute you!

For some reason, I seem to be getting a lot of visits from Turkey.  Or perhaps that's just where IP address disguisers are presenting as at the moment.  But I like to thin the Ruritanian nature of New Zealand politics is immensely amusing to my Turkish comrades.  We are all brothers under the skin (or sisters) and we can all unite in laughing at John Key.

the second most popular source of hits is what is currently Ukraine, who I salute in all seriousness.  Having overthrown one insane, bloodthirsty crackpot, they are now being menaced by another.   It's all a bit like the 1930s, with 'civilised' Europe pointing the accusatory fingers at the nasty man and telling him to stop, and the nasty man cheerfully ignoring them and wondering how on Earth he is getting away with it.

The situation in Ukraine is what real Dirty Politics look like, when the oligarchs and power crazed decide to stop even pretending to play by the rules.