11) ALL MY POLITICAL LIFE I HAVE STOOD UP FOR PEOPLE WHO PLAY BY THE RULES. IF I AM GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE MY COUNTRY, I WILL ENSURE THAT AT LONG LAST THEIR RIGHTS COME FIRST.
Wrong – And sycophantic: This smacks of the methods used by Uriah Heep; to ingratiate yourself into the company by saying what you think people want to hear rather than toiling over the detail to give credence to a just and humane society that for some reason, Mr Howard thinks will be solved by a term of “punishment” in prison. “Common sense, decency and humanity are qualities which the British people have in abundance”, his words were the very qualities totally lacked by the Conservative Party he served in during its last term of office. Incompetence, dishonesty, lack of responsibility, and lack of accountability was the trademark of the last Conservative government, a trademark he supported. DO NOT VOTE FOR THIS MAN!
Friday, May 06, 2005
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Michael Howard - 11 Reasons Not to Vote for Him - Reason 10
10) I BELIEVE PRISON SHOULD BE A PROPER PUNISHMENT. BUT PRISON MUST ALSO TRY AND PUT CRIMINALS ON THE STRAIGHT AND NARROW – TEACHING THEM TO READ AND WRITE, GETTING THEM OFF DRUGS.
RIGHT-ish – But the wrong way round: By his putting in order his belief of what prisons are for, Howard betrays his fully documented but often ignored negative stance on the human condition that is fully reflected in his forays into the immigration discussion. By using negative policies, bully-boy solutions and the “might is right” tactic of social endearment, he panders to the hawks at the expense of those less able to defend themselves. Give them the necessary tools to better themselves FIRSTLY through education and self-belief and the vast majority of citizens will never become criminals and prisoners will become the “better citizens” that, for some misguided idea, Howard thinks punishment will achieve.
Notice how he continues to use populist, well-worn phrases like “straight and narrow” and passes them off as a) his own and b) by using such phrases begins a thought process that makes a connection with Howard and the reader for entirely the WRONG reasons. Notice also how he also puts the dreaded “D” word at the end and wraps it in with illiteracy and class? This way he emphasises the “them and us” doctrine talked about in earlier works of mine. He reminds us that, in his view, only uneducated drug users commit crime, not us law-abiding, decent folk. He separates us from the criminal class making us (and him) superior to them, they are the great unwashed andsuspect, we the masters of their fate and punishment. Throughout all of his proclamations on crime and prisons, Howard makes it a class issue, remember?; we work hard, they are work-shy, we’re decent and they’re dangerous, we form social gatherings, they gather together in gangs…………………the list goes on.
Howard states that, “By challenging so-called small crimes head-on, you push back the burglars, car thieves and drug dealers responsible for so much of the crime in Britain today.” Push them back to where, exactly? Where, exactly in Howard’s vision for Britain do these people fit in? In prison, that’s where. He betrays his disregard and ignorance of what a society should contain with statements like this; statements that will become a part of the Conservative policy machine if he gets even one of his bony little chicken claws of the handlebars of power.
Howard recently said, “My approach was simple: to give the police the powers they needed to catch criminals; to give the courts the powers they needed to convict criminals; and to give our prisons the space to take persistent, serious and dangerous offenders out of circulation altogether.” and he failed in all three during his time in office. Police numbers fell, the prisons were overcrowded and, as point 9 illustrated, he released at least one dangerous drug dealer.
Grandiose statements like, “They want to know that, for a change, a politician means what he says, and will be prepared to take the rap if he fails.” is something he’s consistently failed to do over the years. But then, you’ve only to look back over his political career to see that he recycles old clichés and revamps old speeches in a cut-and-paste effort, crossing out ‘dog’ and inserting ‘goldfish’.
RIGHT-ish – But the wrong way round: By his putting in order his belief of what prisons are for, Howard betrays his fully documented but often ignored negative stance on the human condition that is fully reflected in his forays into the immigration discussion. By using negative policies, bully-boy solutions and the “might is right” tactic of social endearment, he panders to the hawks at the expense of those less able to defend themselves. Give them the necessary tools to better themselves FIRSTLY through education and self-belief and the vast majority of citizens will never become criminals and prisoners will become the “better citizens” that, for some misguided idea, Howard thinks punishment will achieve.
Notice how he continues to use populist, well-worn phrases like “straight and narrow” and passes them off as a) his own and b) by using such phrases begins a thought process that makes a connection with Howard and the reader for entirely the WRONG reasons. Notice also how he also puts the dreaded “D” word at the end and wraps it in with illiteracy and class? This way he emphasises the “them and us” doctrine talked about in earlier works of mine. He reminds us that, in his view, only uneducated drug users commit crime, not us law-abiding, decent folk. He separates us from the criminal class making us (and him) superior to them, they are the great unwashed andsuspect, we the masters of their fate and punishment. Throughout all of his proclamations on crime and prisons, Howard makes it a class issue, remember?; we work hard, they are work-shy, we’re decent and they’re dangerous, we form social gatherings, they gather together in gangs…………………the list goes on.
Howard states that, “By challenging so-called small crimes head-on, you push back the burglars, car thieves and drug dealers responsible for so much of the crime in Britain today.” Push them back to where, exactly? Where, exactly in Howard’s vision for Britain do these people fit in? In prison, that’s where. He betrays his disregard and ignorance of what a society should contain with statements like this; statements that will become a part of the Conservative policy machine if he gets even one of his bony little chicken claws of the handlebars of power.
Howard recently said, “My approach was simple: to give the police the powers they needed to catch criminals; to give the courts the powers they needed to convict criminals; and to give our prisons the space to take persistent, serious and dangerous offenders out of circulation altogether.” and he failed in all three during his time in office. Police numbers fell, the prisons were overcrowded and, as point 9 illustrated, he released at least one dangerous drug dealer.
Grandiose statements like, “They want to know that, for a change, a politician means what he says, and will be prepared to take the rap if he fails.” is something he’s consistently failed to do over the years. But then, you’ve only to look back over his political career to see that he recycles old clichés and revamps old speeches in a cut-and-paste effort, crossing out ‘dog’ and inserting ‘goldfish’.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)