(no subject)

[emony]

It really doesn't matter what Michael Howard says. The way he says it just makes my skin crawl. Eugh :P

Comments

[graculus.livejournal.com]

Why put yourself through all that when the Tory policy generator will do it for you? ;)

[emony.livejournal.com]

Hehe *g* It does have its good moments too. Watching an asylum seeker calling him evil was fun.

[seshat1.livejournal.com]

I know! You know, I only really paid attention to him when he was on TV yesterday. Before then I hadn't bothered. but anyway, I was surprised how much he sounded (a) scripted, and (b) a bit like Bush - i.e. really retarded. Obviously one appearance isn't enough to jump to conclusions, but it did nothing for my opinions of Tories. *laughs*

[emony.livejournal.com]

The thing about Michael Howard's voice is, as I understand it, because his voice has always been something people identify as a turn-off when it comes to voting for him, so he's been put through voice coaching and stuff. I think that's why it sounds slow and received. And, of course, most of it is scripted. The way he rattles off those five key soundbites policies is so practiced, there's no doubt in my mind that he drills them for half an hour a day to make sure he's got them off pat.

[seshat1.livejournal.com]

I was just astounded that anyone would want to vote for him given what he comes off like on TV. They should really pick someone else as head of party if they want a hope in hell of anyone voting for them based on TV appearances etc.

I would happily believe he does that. Ugh.

[emony.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately a lot of people do like him (for some reason), and a lot of people agree with his flimsy, very right-wing policies and his soundbite, xenophobic populism. Also, they're Tories. Look at their last few leaders. They're not exactly overflowing with charismatic options *g*

[seshat1.livejournal.com]

Pish. *throws rotten tomatoes at them*

[graculus.livejournal.com]

I believe that in the eyes of the Tory party, having charisma is seen as a Bad Thing (cf. Michael Heseltine, so they can't be completely wrong... ;))

Saying that, they have chosen some spectacularly uncharismatic types, haven't they? IDS, Hague, Major - Thatcher had more balls than all of them put together, bless her xenophobic withered little heart.

I was entertained to see a poll somewhere or other which said that people found Blair untrustworthy but charismatic and therefore were more likely to vote for him despite the untrustworthiness.

[emony.livejournal.com]

Well they are little-c conservatives at heart. Their ideology sort of forbids them from doing anything radical or different that might rock the boat, so they have a succession of safe, boring leaders, which, when it's up against a radical type on the left, looks like a safe, sensible option. When it's up against a smarmy but convincing centre-right type, it just doesn't cut it. The policies are so similiar, the interest suddenly has to come from the leader, and the Tories haven't quite caught up with that yet. Although I suppose Howard is a step up from IDS, Hague and Major. He might not be charismatic, but at least his creepy "don't worry, children, I won't hurt you. Why don't you come and have a look at the puppies at my house?" voice gets people's attention.