Nationalism 101: Blame it on the…

Picture: Theresa May pondering her next move; DonkeyHotey, Creative Commons. NB: this piece is a satirical interlude!

This one’s a simple trick, really. First you take your run-of-the-mill Conservative policy, designed to please donors but carrying the unfortunate side-effect of impoverishing your average citizen.

Then, and here is the magic, you twist it round, focusing on how it hurts FROGS, I mean, foreigners and, hey presto!, suddenly here’s a policy everyone (what I like to call the 52 per cent) can get behind! Putting in place the bureaucracy to deny people healthcare as the first step towards private health insurance? No problem! Passport checks for pregnant women are just stopping those NEGROES, I mean, Nigerians from comin’ over here, havin’ their babies, stealin’ our hospital beds [mmm, thank you Paul, just keep doing that DACRE, I mean, darling, no need to SCOUSE-BASTARDS, I mean, stop].

I was worrying about how Brexit would pan out for my ratings: relations are frosty already, an abrupt crash wouldn’t look good, and let’s face it, our plans for a tax haven Britain are only going to help wealth creators, not the plebs.

But THATCHER-IS-DEAD-LONG-LIVE-THE-THATCHER – excuse me, I’m not sure what’s happening to me today – then I thought: why think of it as cutting public services and workers’ rights to the bone? It’s actually plucky little Britain sticking two fingers up to the Europeans – if they don’t give us a deal, we’ll threaten their tax bases with a low-tax jurisdiction to put Juncker’s Grand Duchy to shame. Ha!

What people are getting at WINDMILL-WINDERS when they say patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels I don’t know –  it offers so much for every occasion, why would any SCUMBAG, sorry, self-respecting politician not turn to it first?

Anyway, now this tactic has been extensively road-tested, I’m going to roll it out on a much larger scale. Death taxes? It’s not just to cut the d..d..d..DEATH-TO-TRAITORS deficit, but let’s face it, the only way most youths are GYPOS, ahem, going to get housing is by inheriting it, and if the Romanians thought there was any future for the young here at all, frankly, where would we be?

As for those CUNTS, ahem, Corbyn-loving under-40s, by the time they’re old enough for their votes to be a threat, I’m sure my Glorious REICHvolution will be complete.

I hope you’ll excuse me now – I do seem to have a rather bad case of the Alberts this morning.

Thoughts on statecraft from the Mother-of-our-Nation Theresa, as told to Nick Dowson.

This piece is due to be published in the upcoming issue of DEFUNCT magazine! For more info get in touch.

Till death do us part: a marriage being wretchedly unhappy is no ground for ending it, say courts


Divorce. CC0 - Public Domain


Last week Tina Owens lost her appeal after the family courts refused her a divorce – saying her reasons for wanting it weren’t good enough. Has the time come for the law to be reformed?

This piece was written in the style of the Guardian’s Pass Notes as part of my portfolio for my MA Journalism course at Goldsmiths

* * *

Name: No-fault divorce.

Age: As yet, unborn.

Appearance: Very attractive according to former high court judge, Sir Paul Coleridge QC.

Don’t you mean, ‘It’s your fault’ divorce? No, that’s the point. Last week a woman, Tina Owens, was back in the family court to appeal its refusal to grant her a divorce from her unhappy marriage – but the judge was having none of it.

It’s not automatic? Not even close. Sir James Munby, the most senior family court judge in England and Wales, said at the hearing: “It is not a ground for divorce if you find yourself in a wretchedly unhappy marriage”.

Sounds rather 19th century to me. Quite. Specialist divorce lawyer Ayesha Vardag called it “beyond archaic”. Currently the only quick way to get divorced is claiming there has been adultery or “unreasonable behaviour” from your spouse.

No amicable separations here, then? A survey in 2015 found that 27% of faults alleged in divorce petitions were made up to satisfy the courts. Even if a couple have separated, this can only be cited as a reason for divorce after two years apart – and only then if both parties consent. Mr Owens did not.

If love can’t keep her with you, there’s always the law. She filed 27 allegations of “unreasonable behaviour” including an airport argument – but he told the court they still had “a good few years” left together. For his part, the judge said these sort of rows were a normal part of married life!

Time for reform, eh? Coleridge described divorce law as “antediluvian” – but politicians seem wedded to it. A 2015 attempt to introduce a no-fault divorce bill didn’t make it past its first reading. Whereas Sweden reformed its law to allow divorce through mutual agreement in 1915 – over a century ago.

Time for all unhappy couples to flock to liberal Scandinavia? Or to convert to Islam. A Muslim spouse married under Islamic law merely has to say “I divorce you. I divorce you. I divorce you” and the marriage is over.

Ouch. Can be, yes. One Saudi divorced his wife immediately when he saw her face for the first time on their wedding day.

Perhaps we can find a middle way? Maybe. Or we could just ignore the issue. I mean, it worked for Lords reform.

Do say: “But we only did it for the tax breaks!”

Don’t say: “I do.”