CHANCELLOR FORECASTS SIX MORE YEARS OF AUSTERITY AND RENDERS NEXT ELECTION COMPLETELY POINTLESS

At the release of the now-eagerly-anticipated Autumn Statement today in Westminster, the Chancellor outlined a distinctly grim prognosis. His forecast of six more years of austerity was warmly received by the nation’s monks and nuns, but went down like a cup of cold sick with the rest of the country. Such an unremittingly doleful outlook has effectively rendered the next election completely pointless; as whoever is voted into government, it’s clear that things are going to be shit anyway.

Many right-wing commentators are viewing this as a political masterstroke by the Chancellor; suggesting that because the Tories are losing so comprehensively at the polls and in the recent by-election, arguably their only hope of staying in government is to disillusion and disenfranchise the electorate completely, entirely sapping their will to vote.

Right-wing blogger and analyst for the Tory think-tank ‘Cut and Thrust’, Peter Smackworthy, gushed with praise for Osborne.

“He’s smashed a cover drive on a sticky wicket against some frighteningly-quick-bowling,” said Smackworthy, calmly applying lipstick to his face, “If no one cares about the next election, we have a real chance of winning it.”

American political columnist Hamilton Cincinnati-Botaigh was reported by several papers as suggesting that this kind of political manoeuvring is nothing new in the US.

“We have a term for this in the US, it’s a standard econo-electobuster,” he said, thumbing through thousand-page glossary of American political nomenclature. “It’s where the incumbent uses a negative economic outlook to disenfranchise the electorate. It’s a bold move, almost as bold as a nuclear-electobuster.”

The Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, was quick to point out that a Labour government would offer a viable alternative to Tory austerity.

“The British public are ready for something different, and we can deliver!” said Balls, to a rapturous House of Commons, “No more austerity! Yes we will have to continue with cuts, yes we will have to raise taxes and yes we will have to review the public sector. But austerity? No more!”     

Roaming Britain until 2018 at the earliest...

WHERE WAS PRINCE HARRY WHEN THE DUCHESS OF CAMBRIDGE GOT PREGNANT?

Within moments of Kate Middleton’s announcement of her pregnancy with the Duke of Cambridge’s child, Prince Harry’s press secretary released a statement providing a detailed itinerary for the entirety of March 2012 as an alibi to dispel any rumours of his paternity in respect of the child, claiming: “the Prince was at least 100km from the Duchess of Cambridge at all times in the run-up to, during, and after her baby’s conception.”

In an additional pre-emptive move by the Prince's PR team, a list of former ginger-haired members of the House of Windsor was released to various newspapers, evidencing a long-established genealogically-ginger lineage, in order to quell, in advance, any press speculation in the event that the Duchess of Cambridge’s baby is born with ginger hair.

“We can’t take any chances,” said Verity Himmler-Rimmel, a close confidante of the Prince. “He wasn’t anywhere near the Duchess actually, the night of the conception he was attending a polysexual genocide-themed midget-throwing party in Cumbria. Still we want to quell any rumours before they start.”

The Sun claims to have information suggesting that Prince Harry may not have been in Cumbria for as long as his publicity team are suggesting.

“We paid a known stalker and rapist to hack some of the Prince’s friends’ phones, and fuck a duck, we found out some juicy stuff!” said a reporter (Glenn Dontcaire) who wished to remain anonymous. “After our hired criminal violently-violated the privacy and whatever else of a number of Harry’s friends, he discovered that Harry had left the midget-throwing party at ten o’clock that night, but he didn’t go home! Where did he go after that? Eh? Eh?”

There are rumours that The Sun are prepared to ‘bribe every single person in the country’ in order to find out; vowing to stop at nothing in the quest to dig-up enough puerile, derisive garbage to humiliate the Royal family and drive another princess to an assisted suicide.  

Prince Harry learns of the Duchess of Cambridge's pregnancy

ZEITtruth…

FLEET STREET EDITORS’ OPPOSITION TO STATUTORY REGULATION IS BASED ON PRINCIPLE, NOT REALITY

What a difference a year makes. Well, eighteen months or so anyway. Back in the summer of 2011, the nation was simmering with rage at the discovery of a myriad of sordid abuses taking place at the News of The World. The public and policymakers alike, roundly denounced the now defunct publication, with the chorus of indignation reaching such a volume, old Lord God himself - Rupert Murdoch - was forced to intervene. Within the press, The Guardian lead the righteous charge for reform but columnists across all the major newspapers were exhorting the need for change. However, following the recent publication of the Leveson Report into press ethics, the establishment (with the laudably notable exception of The Guardian) has now closed ranks, displaying a haughty intractability to change, seemingly forgetting quite how gruesome  some of its members' abuses actually were.

As 2012 draws to a close editors from all newspapers are now decrying the possibility of reform and regulation (unthinkable a year ago), by clinging on to the notion that Leveson’s proposals – if backed or underpinned with statute – constitute an unacceptable intrusion into the freedom of the press. Whilst it is true that legislation in the manner proposed by Leveson would constitute a legal encroachment into press freedom - the like of which hasn’t occurred for hundreds of years – this is true in principle only. The de facto ability of the press to lawfully investigate and construct stories is not put under any pressure or restriction by Leveson’s proposals. Instead, a method of effective accountability (the Press Complaints Commission have hitherto been as ‘effective’ as the FSA at holding its industry to account) has been suggested, charged with the potency of the full force of law, which would allow recourse for normal members of the public to take action in the event that they suffer unjustly at the hands of the press. The press may argue that the libel courts are already there; but such a supposition is pathetically selective, as the financial cost of entering libel courts and using libel lawyers means they are simply not there for ordinary members of the public - like the members of Milly Dowler’s family. All the more for an offence which is not libel; or for the protection of a right – privacy – which is not enshrined in any piece of legislation. But the press are loathe to accepting this; instead arguing that the de jure ‘principle’ of press freedom outweighs the need for effective sanction against actual abuses by insalubriously motivated editors and hacks. A simple de jure versus de facto separation; it’s funny how those in the morally-wrong always seem to rely on the de jure argument, being unable to confront the de facto truth.

Take The Spectator for example. The magazine’s editor, Fraser Nelson, has been arguably one of the most vocal detractors from the idea of press regulation. So much so, he has vowed to ignore any regulatory arrangement that is statutorily based, saying ‘I refuse on principle’. In an interview reported by The Daily Telegraph, Nelson described how press freedom is a core tenet of The Spectator’s constitution and how any moves against it would ‘betray everything The Spectator has stood for since 1828.’ He goes on to cite two articles that the magazine published concerning this: one from 1828 and another from 1833. It is perhaps to his own good fortune that Mr Nelson is not a lawyer; as his ability to cite relevant and recent precedent is somewhat lacking. It is highly unlikely that the issues of press conduct associated with phone hacking surfaced in the 1820s in quite the way that they did in 2011. Similarly, defences of press freedom from state intervention in the editorial sense is one thing; defending the right of the press to conduct its affairs in a way that renders it supra-legal, is quite another.

Nelson, along with many other editors who have joined suit, may actually have nothing to feel all too guilty about. After all, not every newspaper was implicated in as damning a way as some of the tabloids. But the adoption of this ‘principled’ stand on press freedom is so ignorant of the facts that have precipitated the present scenario; it can only be considered as grimly disingenuous at best, alarmingly cynical at worst.

Any reader of the Leveson report would understand that there is no intention to curtail the editorial freedom of the press. Leveson is not the first step towards a state-run propaganda machine – merely a much-needed first step in attempting to curtail putatively discredited conduct. And yet this is what many newspaper editors are insinuating, suggesting that their hands would be tied by statute to such a degree, their editorial freedom would be irreparably damaged, with democracy itself being the primary casualty. The editor of The Independent, Chris Blackhurst, was interviewed by the BBC and suggested that a statutorily backed system of regulation would compel him to have to ‘phone a lawyer’ before printing every story. The idea that Leveson would suddenly create a legal minefield that was otherwise non-existent is a complete nonsense, and Blackhurst will doubtlessly have had to phone lawyers in the past (if he gave even a modicum of a shit about libel), so he may already be well versed in such unspeakable inconveniences like consulting legal counsel. In future, if his reporters lawfully and ethically acquire facts to construct their stories, he may never have to speak to lawyers any more than he does now. If his reporters want to hack unsuspecting peoples’ phones, then yes, he may need to start beefing-up his roster of attorneys.

Following the ‘conference’ at Number 10 yesterday where nearly all The Fleet Street editors met the Prime Minister, the press was left to mull a considerable (and predictable) concession made to them by David Cameron. The Leveson report will need to be implemented ‘line by line’, but with the fig leaf of a statute-free underpinning. The press will now have to convene and try and decipher a way to replace the PCC with another self-regulating authority – based on the Leveson proposals. The Prime Minister has suggested this process should take ten days to two weeks maximum: a timetable with a harshness that is clearly symbolic. How the press reacts now is key. It will determine whether the newspapers are simply as avaricious and self-interested as many of us think; or whether they're as democratically motivated as many of them like to believe.

REPUBLICANS SEEK TO BAN CONDOMS IN MID-WESTERN STATES IN ORDER TO INCREASE NUMBER OF WHITE CHRISTIANS

As the Republican Party wakes-up to a bitch-slap of an electoral hangover, there are fresh calls from within the party for its leaders to address the changing demographics of the nation’s electorate. Many have suggested that subsequent presidential nominees should spend more time eating tacos and listening to rap music in order to shore up ethnic minority votes; but others have advocated a whole new strategy.

“The problem with elections in this hyaaa country is that we can’t just win by relying on the White Christian vote anymore” said Tex McToughguy, a leading Republican strategist, “The solution? We gotta start making more White Christians….fast!”

Mctoughguy is one of a number of leading GOP figures to call for a blanket ban on all condoms for White Christians, particularly in the mid-west and southern states of the country. These areas are putatively Republican heartlands but, much to the consistent consternation of the party, are sparsely populated when compared to the densely populated Democrat-dominated seaboards.

“We need to get out there and start banging our way to victory!” McToughguy explained, as he wrote the word ‘communist’ on a nearby ambulance. “No more condoms, no more pulling out, no more fidelity. White Christians the country-over have got to bang each other till the cows come home! Switch your partners if you need to, hoe-down style!”

The Democrats are said to be unconcerned by GOP plans to alter the composition of country's population in their favour. With future demographical forecasts showing a growing trend for non-white participation in prospective elections, Democrat activists are understandably confident.

“They can turn trailer parks into orgies, we don't care. What those stupid rednecks forget is we got Mexico riiiiight there baby,” said Rufus Dufus, Democrat blogger and forty-year old virgin, “No one can make babies like Mexicans! Those icky Republicans don’t stand a chance!” 

Come on fellas, it's time to get your f**k on...

SUPERSTORM SANDY SMASHES AMERICA AS BARRY THE BREEZE MILDLY IRRITATES BRITAIN

The eastern-seaboard of the US was left reeling from the largest storm in recorded-history ever to hit the country. Superstorm Sandy has left an unprecedented trail of destruction, affecting some fifty million Americans and virtually paralysing the economy for three days. Meanwhile, Barry the Breeze is causing equal amounts of havoc in the UK, by blowing people’s hats off and causing umbrellas to go inside out.

“It’s like the end of the world out there,” said Hampshire resident, Phil McTackle, “There are leaves falling-off trees and no one is doing anything about it! What about our kids?”

The transport network in London was put under huge amounts of pressure by Barry the Breeze, as outer parts of the Central Line were crippled by six leaves falling on four-metres of track. Commuters tweeted of delays of up to two hours as TFL struggled to cope with the disaster.

“It was tough for us to get anyone out there,” said a TFL spokesman, shortly before entering a taxi, “Most of our maintenance guys were on their union-mandated compulsory four-hour lunch breaks, so we were a bit thin on the ground.”

In other parts of the country, families are coming to terms with the mild-annoyance caused by garden fences partially-collapsing, hanging-baskets falling on the floor, and free-standing birdhouses beginning to lean.

“I just don’t know how we’re going to cope,” said one homeowner from Hertfordshire, “it’s going to take me hours to clean this up.”

The Coalition government has responded in the only way it knows how: by announcing another round of swingeing cuts to public-services. David Cameron made a statement at a charity fundraiser (raising money for the advancement of ethnic majority children from over-privileged backgrounds) he was attending:

“The best way to cope with the marginal amount of disruption this has caused to the UK, is to cut the NHS budget by another 15%,” said Cameron, “unless we cut the deficit – with putatively discredited policymaking – Barry the Breeze will beat us!”

Chet realised his wife was not talking about her sister, when she said 'he was no match for Sandy'

TORIES PLAN TO REFORTIFY CASTLES IN ORDER TO QUELL PEASANT REVOLT

The Conservatives threaten to throw their own austerity plans into inglorious chaos by proposing to spend millions of pounds renewing antiquated and irrelevant military programmes. In addition to Philip Hammond’s mindboggling decision to spend £350 million renewing Trident – in order to fight a Cold-War which ended twenty-one years ago – the Conservatives’ surprising Keynesian-streak is extending to several other obsolescent projects.

Top of the list, are plans to refortify of thousands of Norman-castles the nation over, in order to quell what MOD insiders are describing as ‘the imminent threat of a peasant revolt’. As one Tory spokesman candidly stated, “It might have been a long time since the last revolt, but still, you can’t take anything for granted.”

The Navy is also set to benefit, with a whole new-fleet of 16^th century battle ships on-order to ward off the threat posed by the Spanish Armada. Admiral Brigadier General Larry B'Stard - in full Nelsonian military dress - was adamant in his reasoning: “It’s been over four hundred years, the Spanish may be an extinct power, but still, you can’t take anything for granted.”

In addition to increased naval expenditure, there has also been a growing call amongst London Tories for the re-installation of anti-aircraft batteries across the capital, to counter the supposedly insidious threat of a Luftwaffe attack. This has been presented alongside proposals to regenerate air-raid shelters and to modernise the ageing air-raid siren system, by sending alerts on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. Again, a Tory spokesman was on-hand to provide duly jingoistic candidness: “It may have been nearly 60 years, the Bosch may be an ally of ours and a major trading partner, but still, you can’t take anything for granted.”

Members of the Liberal Democrats have voiced their concern regarding the fiscal-responsibility of the measures; and also regarding the ostensible paranoia of their Coalition partners.

“God, they keep saying you can’t take things for granted,” said an unnamed Lib Dem spokesman, “They are pathologically suspicious. I saw Michael Gove leave the canteen and take his lunch to the toilet. They all need to chill-out.”

Defence-Secretary Philip Hammond presides over security at his local primary school

ZEITtruth…

ANDREW MITCHELL HAS HIS WORK CUT-OUT IF HE IS TO CONVINCE PARTY AND PEOPLE

The Prime Minister vociferously supported Andrew Mitchell at PMQs yesterday, as the Tory Chief-Whip faced another scathing examination from Labour MPs. The ferocity of the attack played into Mitchell’s hands; as it compelled Tory MPs who had hitherto been ambivalent towards his salvation, to rally together in rousing support of the Sutton-Coldfield MP (despite the 1922 Committee later providing a far more negative assessment of his actions in private). However, no matter how vocal the support he receives from his party in the main chamber - which claims he wasn’t behaving in an elitist and pompous manner in the much famed ‘Plebgate’ incident – his voting record does little to dispel the notion that Mitchell is an antiquated brand of Tory – the type that is more than capable of the odd alarmingly-flippant indiscretion, such as referring to serving Police-Officers as ‘plebs’.

Since 2001, Mitchell has only ever voted very-strongly on issues that represent the uber-traditional Tory agenda. Despite voting across a myriad of topics, it is no surprise that the Rubgy-educated former Royal Tank Regiment Officer, has only ever voted very-strongly on concerns of the strictly upper-class, such as: voting very strongly against the ban on fox hunting, against a more proportional voting system for MPs and against removing hereditary-peers for the House of Lords. If Mitchell claims not to be elitist, his voting record suggests otherwise, with his propensity to voice his intentions - very-strongly - manifesting itself only on expressly class-based subjects. On each of the three instances mentioned above, the principal motivation for voting has been the preservation of entitlement for the traditional land-owning classes. This is not to say that he hasn’t voted on other issues – some of which will support a liberal agenda – but never as strongly as he does on matters pertaining to the maintenance of the traditional class-system.

To his credit, Mitchell has worked extensively with youths in his constituency of Sutton Coldfield, and has a wealth of experience working in developing countries. Mitchell has worked in Africa for a number of years, beginning with his work at investment bank Lazard. His experiences in the continent lead him to become Minister for International Development, first in the shadow cabinet and subsequently in the Coalition government.

However, there is no doubt some speculation on whether Mitchell’s work in Africa is honourably intentioned – like much of the work that British companies do there – or if it is more akin to wanton post-colonial plundering, the like of which Mark Thatcher can claim to be a veteran. Rather worryingly, he has been a strong supporter of the CDC (formerly the Commonwealth Development Cooperation), who attracted widespread criticism following Private Eye’s disinterment of their shady dealings back in 2010. Mitchell has advocated widening CDC’s role, encouraging it to engage in higher-risk investments, even though accusations of CDC investing in over-valued companies in Nigeria are yet to be sufficiently explained away. However, aside from his treatment of CDC, it can be said that he has been a sensible (though not progressive) Minister for International Development; supporting the rights of oppressed people in Burma and taking a cautious yet pragmatic approach to the Democratic Republic of Congo.

But to critics on the Labour benches and on the Coalition benches alike, the real Andrew Mitchell is the man who said the words contained in the Police report published by the Daily Telegraph. Large parts of his voting record add fuel to this fire, as does his inability to bring to punish the widely discredited actions of the gloriously-imperialist CDC, in his role as Minister for International Development. His work is cut-out if he is convince the rest of the government and the country as to his egalitarian credentials, and following a sombre condemnation by members of the Tory 1922 Committee last night, it is unlikely that the ‘Plebgate’ affair will conveniently disappear. The fire that Andrew Mitchell saw his PM firmly douse at PMQs yesterday - could just as easily re-ignite in an instant.