Banter in the Garden
|Presenting the 51st… on Guest Post: Women’s Refu…|
|Fuck off, Bob Jones,… on Risky Business|
|Daniel Copeland on Risky Business|
|Emma on Risky Business|
|Deborah on A plea for your voice.|
Tea and Strumpets
Some things. For a start, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but this piece you wrote? Is supposed to be a news article, not an opinion piece.
I understand, also, that with a lack of solid information, it’s part of your job to speculate about different combinations of leaders and deputies. It’s just that normally I don’t expect “speculate” to quite so literally mean “make shit up”.
However. What the fucking FUCK were you thinking when you wrote this?
And Shane Jones is also an outside chance as a running mate. He and Mr Shearer together would represent a return to a more pragmatic party, with less emphasis on gays and feminists.
I’m not complaining about you starting a sentence with a conjunction, either.
Possibly you might have been tipped there was something wrong with this when you saw you’d put the words “pragmatic” and “Shane Jones” so close together. I’m not sure, but perhaps the word you wanted there was “phlegmatic”.
Because that word? Pragmatic? I don’t think it means what you think it means.
See, you know who disproportionately vote Left? Women. And “Gays”. What the hell is “pragmatic” about a left-wing party placing “less emphasis” on left-wing voters? Fucking hell. If the Labour Party put actual emphasis on LGBTI and feminist issues, you know what? I might actually fucking vote for them. If Labour secured the votes of all the chicks and fags, they’d be the goddamn government.
Though possibly only after someone had taken Shane Jones and Damian O’Connor for a long walk in the bush and lost them. That’d be FAB-u-lous.