Yesterday in Parliament, acting-but-delaying-the-leadership-election-as-long-as-she-can Labour leader (sic), Harriet Harperson, exposed a dastardly plot to radicalise British Youth and turn them into Tory voters. Invoking Parliamentary Privilege, she accused Top Tory Toff, George ‘Abu Chancellor’ Osborne, of proposing a budget which would continue the economic recovery of the UK. Struggling to be heard above the laughter, she claimed that the plot involved increasing the minimum wage, encouraging people to go ‘on work’ instead of ‘on benefit’, and accused Abu Chancellor of fulfilling election pledges to slash the tax credit bill and achieve a budget surplus. In the heat of the moment, she appeared to forget that this was precisely what a clear majority of British–OK, English–voters had elected the current government to do.
TUC (Trades Union Congress) General Secretary Frances ‘Striker’ O’Grady has yet to make any public comment, but a close friend claimed that loud sobbing had been heard coming from her office.
A spokesperson for the Federation of British Slave Labour Employers, Silas Scrooge, claimed that small businesses could not possibly afford to pay the new minimum wage and would have to lay off thousands of workers. When pressed, he admitted that these would mainly be in the illegal immigrant sector. It was put to him that British Businesses would have to get their act together, slash dubious management performance bonuses and actually have to pay a decent wage to those who produced company profits. In response, Scrooge claimed that this was not the British way of doing things and if not strenuously resisted, might actually lead to an increase in productivity, which in turn would lead to rising pressure for an increase in wages, which in turn would severely limit management’s ability to react to a changing business environment and could mean the end of lengthy ‘power lunch’ planning meetings, which are such a vital part of British industry.
In an unrelated event, ScotsPolice spokesperson Hamish MacHolmes, offered an explanation of the case of the couple who had been reported missing over the weekend and were subsequently found in a crashed-car. The crash had been reported some three days earlier, strangely co-incident with the report that the couple were missing. MacHolmes clarified that this was not an instance of police failing to investigate an accident, nor was there any failure to connect the report of the missing couple and a description of their car, which happened to include colour, make and registration number, with the description of the crashed vehicle. Current Police thinking was that in all probability the couple, one deceased and one severely injured, had left the scene of the crash for, at present, undetermined reasons. Should the passenger survive her injuries, she would be questioned on the matter and probably charged with wasting police time and not reporting the couple as un-missing.