Six British prime ministers who wish they had declared martial law

MARTIAL law was briefly declared in South Korea yesterday because the president was in trouble, arousing wistful longings in these prime ministers: 

Boris Johnson, 2019-2022

Not a natural authoritarian, Johnson looks back at the beginning of lockdown and wishes he’d done the Churchillian thing by dissolving parliament, announcing a government of national unity headed by himself and suspending press freedoms indefinitely. For the Guardian, Mirror and BBC. All the rest are his mates, they’d be fine.

Gordon Brown, 2007-2010

On reflection, the credit crunch was an ideal opportunity to get the troops out given that money matters more than people, Brown often muses. Outlawing the opposition would have been an act of kindness. And imagine how much it would piss Tony off for his successor to be named president-for-life.

Theresa May, 2016-2019

Rebellious representatives not doing what you want? Young people protesting? Nobody listening even when you shout? May looks at president Yoon Suk Yeol and sees a reasonable man taking fair, measured steps to do what was right for his country. What a paradise Britain would now be if she’d done the same.

Tony Blair, 1997-2007

Not a bad kind of martial law. Not the Tiananmen Square kind that has such terrible optics. But a friendly, matey, sorry-I-have-to-do-this-guys kind of martial law, perhaps where soldiers are allowed to wear jeans and polo shirts. Yes a curfew, but understandingly enforced. Dissolving parliament apologetically. He could have got away with it, early on.

Nick Clegg, 2010-2015

Not technically prime minister but only an assassination away, and that would have made a marvellous pretext. A pause in democracy to rejig it and get it right; proportional representation, free university, justice for Cleggs. Still thinks back to that moment when he was behind David holding the knife. Instead he sliced the jamón for the sandwiches.

Liz Truss, 2022-2022

On day one. Obviously.

'Shall we double-barrel our names or stop being a pair of self-important pricks?' couple wonders

A PAIR of preening wankers are unsure whether they should make their inability to choose between surnames the world and their future children’s problem.

Couple Suzy Traherne and Tom Booker marry next year, but cannot decide whether they should keep their own names like adults or they should inflict a monstrous hyphenated hybrid on a baby that has done nothing to deserve it.

Traherne explained: “Ideally, I’d like to keep my own name, but that wouldn’t really irritate anyone in this day and age. Even his mum’s fine with it. So we’re exploring other options.

“The possibilities of forcing him to take my name while I take his, even though neither of us wants the other’s name particularly, excite us. Imagine the fuss we can make by putting them together in a polysyllabic mess that will make people think we’re landed gentry.”

“We both acknowledge that Traherne-Booker or Booker-Traherne is an awful weight to saddle a baby with, but surely it’s only right and fair that we annoy absolutely everyone?”

She added: “I’m already anticipating how self-righteously angry I’ll get when anyone misses out one half or the other. Mmm. Yes, our  love of the moral high ground means we really have no option.”