Was Powell a racist?

Former South Down MP Enoch Powell has been in the news again recently. Tim Roll-Pickering has an interesting piece on what he sees as the difference between what Powell said, and what it is often assumed that he said.

  • Joey

    Any writer who quotes Simon Heffer as their main source of analyss has serious intellectual and emotional problems. The nicest thing you could say about the writer of that piece is that he may need to be psycho-analysed. The basic problem is that it fully misses the perspective of Britain’s voluminous immigrant population. What happened to them after Powell made that speech? All of the West-Indian people of that era I know in London and the Midlands – not to mention the North – remembered with dread the day Powell made that speech. Racially motivated attacks shot up. They remembered excrement posted daily through their letterboxes, being drenched in spit in the street, as well as even more abuse hurled in their direction.

    Instead he riffs along on the idea that Powell loved Indians (a pretty dubius assertion in itself). What on earth does that have to do with the Rivers of Blood aftermath?

    It is also fatuous and a fallacy to suggest the Labour ministers of the day ever used biblical ‘rivers of blood’ style rhetoric in relation to policy. There is not one example of a Labour figure of that time peddling phrases like that. It is one of the many absurdities propounded by Roll-Pickering.

    Ted Heath, as Powell’s OWN party leader, of course did realise the implications of Powell’s bile, by removing him from the Shadow Cabinet. Heath wrote later in his autobiography that he received hundreds of letters in support of Powell ‘possessing his same wharped and malign position’. Evidently some elements of the great British public can sometimes be found wanting; along with Powell they represent the pure vermin they regard foreign peoples as.

    It was a great day when Eddie McGrady ended the dinosaur’s career in the 1987 Election.

  • kensei

    I have read it.

    Powell espoused repatriation in the speech, and gave an example of the impact – that it was terrible that an old woman couldn’t pay her bills because she wouldn’t let to Black tenants and all the white ones had moved out.

    Of course it was racist. There were things worthy of debate in there, like the rate and impact of immigration, but it was obliterated by the rest of it.

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Was Powell a racist?

    Yes. Big time. Just surprised that Benn said this speech wasn’t in itself racist. It’s a staggeringly hateful bit of racist incitement.

    Perhaps what freaks out a lot of Tories is that they agree so wholeheartedly with every loathsome word.

  • pith

    Whether that particular speech was explicityly racist or not, it certainly encouraged racism. There is racism to be implied in the reference to the woman with the “whites only” only boarding house.

    I don’t think his impact in Northern Ireland was particularly strong but he was certainly a poor day’s shopping for the UUP.

  • Harboy

    Were his words racist? Yes. Obviously.

    How else could you characterise a speech where the only contribution of black people to Britain worth expanding on is putting excreta through an old woman’s door and raising grinning “picaninnies” whose only word of english is “racialist”.

    Not true then, not true now.

    Was he racist? Possibly but more likely he wanted make a bold move not unconnected with his own failure to reach the political heights he thought he deserved and the way there was by the acclaim of the fearful and small-minded sections of society who were unable to deal with necessary and healthy change.

    No wonder he ended up an Ulster Unionist in the 1970s.

    All political careers end in failure but it takes a complete egotist to end up as a pariah to all fair-minded people for two generations.

  • An Lochlannach

    Joey wrote: ‘It was a great day when Eddie McGrady ended the dinosaur’s career in the 1987 Election’

    Yes indeed. I remember a fantastic photograph from the Polling Centre – Powell with a face like thunder. Strange that when you think of Powell you place him further back in time than the late 1980s – or at least I do.

  • Peadar O’Donnell

    Powell gets a pass because he was patrician (in style, if not origin) and held the nation and its empire dear as so many after him: Niall Ferguson, Gordon Brown.
    Had he been a leftie like EP Thompson or Terry Eagleton he’d be eternally damned as a fellow traveller, islamofascist, crypto-totalitarian etc.

    But then there’s this lovely and unavoidable quote:

    “I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:

    ‘… When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. “Racialist,” they chant.'”

  • Sam Hanna

    What about the greatest racism “Brits Out?”

    Perhaps our Greener friends here could sort that one out before attacking Mr Powell and when they are at apologise for the ethnic cleansing of the border Protestant community

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Sam Hanna

    “What about the greatest racism “Brits Out?””

    Ah Sam, you committed the cardinal error. You actually began your sentence with the words: “what about….?”

    Quite literal whataboutery! Textbook stuff.

  • Stiofán de Buit

    Sam

    If they ever get round to giving prizes for whataboutery I’ll nominate you. That was a cracker.

  • Joey

    What in sod’s name has this got to do with ‘Brits out’ politics? Some people are so narcissitic they reduce every issue the world over to something pertaining to the Troubles. If there were flamingo-dancing communists in Peru on strike that idiot would link it in some way to ‘Brits Out’.

    And to begin with ‘what about’, oh Lord.

  • Peadar O’Donnell

    Sam H

    You’re right – the provisionals were about ethnic cleansing in the border areas.

    Doesn’t stop Powell being a racist.

  • Ulster’s my homeland, not Ireland

    Was Powell a racist?

    No, Gerry adams is a racist. He demands all Brits out!, and dictates the island is just for the Irish

  • lib2016

    Gerry Adams and SF generally have gone out of their way to welcome the new-Irish, and the largest contingent of new-Irish are the many British who have moved here.

    Hard to reconcile that behaviour with accusations of racism.

  • nmc

    Dear Jesus. If you think that English people are a different race fair play to you. No harm in being wrong. And if you take it one further, (Brits out refers to the soldiers usually) then you think that Soldiers are a race of their own.

  • pith

    Ulster’s etc.,

    Ah right. Adams is a racist so Powell wasn’t one? Can there only be one racist at a time or did Adams take over from Powell?

    To make a serious point, the Brits and the Irish are of the same race as far as I am aware. Furthermore, British and Irish nowadays describes people from more than one racial background.

  • Ulster’s my homeland, it doesn’t matter what gerry

    Gerry Adams and SF generally have gone out of their way to welcome the new-Irish, and the largest contingent of new-Irish are the many British who have moved here.

    lib2016, now that did tickle my ribs, New Irish lol

  • Ulster’s my homeland, forever!

    Dear Jesus. If you think that English people are a different race fair play to you. No harm in being wrong.

    nmc, the Irish national anthem describes the English as Saxons, are they racist because they are generalising?

  • lib2016

    Please do on and tell us what you find funny about the expression ‘new-Irish’. It has always seemed to me to be an excellent way of describing the newcomers brightening up the place in the last few years but I’m quite prepared to listen to your point of view.

  • picador

    Please do on and tell us what you find funny about the expression ‘new-Irish’. It has always seemed to me to be an excellent way of describing the newcomers brightening up the place in the last few years but I’m quite prepared to listen to your point of view.

    Liberal elitism at its finest. Sounds like something New Labour would have come up with pre 7/7.

  • Ulster’s my homeland

    Please do on and tell us what you find funny about the expression ‘new-Irish’. It has always seemed to me to be an excellent way of describing the newcomers brightening up the place in the last few years but I’m quite prepared to listen to your point of view.

    lib2016, why can’t you allow these ‘new-Irish’ the privilege to their past identity, just in the same way the Irish migrant of old insisted on becoming Irish-American when they settled in the new world?

    If it was good enough for the Irish of old to decide their identity, why can’t you let these new immigrants decide their own identity? are you afraid it will dilute the Irish nationality to an identity?

  • pith

    Could we get back to Powell-bashing? I remember hearing a story once that when the UK decided to proceed with independence for the Indian sub-continent, Powell spent the night walking the streets of London in total despair. I don’t know if it is true and couldn’t be bothered finding out. Anyway, what a twit, I thought when I heard the story and I never thought he was anything but a twit.

  • The ironic thing is that the first five paragraphs of the speech itself are spot on – that politicians must be willing to buck the consensus in the cause of right. For instance, paragraphs 2 and 3 would be very apt in describing the Bush administration’s view of climate change.

    Powell’s speech bucked the consensus all right, just not in a right cause. He failed because he did not provide leadership to the constituents who contacted him by putting forward an alternative course such as how Commonwealth citizens could reasonably adopt British societal norms without invalidating their heritage – instead he called for shipping overseas any immigrant not staffing the NHS.

  • Ulster’s your Bantustan

    Always liked the mention of Enoch Powell in the famous Christy Moore song!
    The name change is just to annoy that previous poster.

  • lib2016

    No substantial disagreement with the term ‘new-Irish’ then? Or were the Irish, particularly the Famine Irish, not new Americans?

    Pith.

    It would seem that his followers live right down to his standards.

  • cut the bull

    If Enoch was still about and living in Belfast at present, He would most likely be looking forward to participating in the Pride of the Raven protest march on the 24th November.

    To give him his dues, now I said dues he would probably be more honest than most involved with this march and admit the desired intentions behind the parade.

    RACISM…SECTARIANISM the smae thing the only difference is the spelling.

  • DavidD

    Was Powell a racist? Well in a sense of course he was. Imagine that the British (and most especially the English) people been asked fifty years ago “Do you want a population in your major towns that is 50% non-white and differs from you not only in culture but also in many cases religion, what is your answer?” When, they had finished laughing at the sheer absurdity of the question, they would have simply said’ No’. Herein lies the problem – they were never asked and have been given no opportunity to prevent such an outcome. Half the threads on Slugger, one way or another, are about the failure of the ‘natives’ to accept a group that differed in no way other than religion – yet what would the Irish have answered to a similar proposition in 1600 where ‘non-white’ is substituted for ‘non-Gael’. So I would ask those smug and strident critics of Powell “Do want the major cities of Ireland in, not fifty but twenty, years time to be inhabited predominately by a non-white, non-Christian population?” What is your answer?

  • lib2016

    DavidD,

    “..the failure of the ‘natives’ to accept a group..”

    The ‘natives’ are very ready to accept newcomers. It would seem to me that one group of newcomers have refused to assimilate with the ‘natives’ and are slowly fading away as other groups (e.g.the Quakers)have before them.

    That’s frequently the longterm choice for an exclusive minority, assimilation or a failed attempt to pretend that they are tourists.

  • I remember the first time I read this speech wondering how anyone could argue that it wasn’t racist; it was almost universally seen as being so at the time. Remember, even some of Powell’s closest political friends ostracised him overnight afterwards.

    Powell was the classic example of the man too clever to take any heed of the mere mortals who surrounded him… and then drifting off into intellectual and moral deep space. Cruiser is another classic of the type.

    Sad, but that’s life.

  • cut the bull

    David D I dont know if that would be such a bad idea. After the overspill of white Christians sent to this island during the plantation and the centuries of murder,theft and turmoil.

    I would only ask that these non-white non Christians would hopefully come from countries that have been robbed and plundered in an attempt to build a now dead and defunct british empire.

    Although there would be much diversity among and between us. I believe we would be all the richer for that because the one common thing that would
    gel as together would be a love for freedom and justice and a hatred for oppression and inhumanity. All the best

  • dewi

    Cruiser Sammy ? Who he?

  • Joey

    To me, the answer to this inane question posed by DavidD – in a discussion about Powell, turned on the Irish Republic(!?) – is ‘yes’ – I and many people who live in cities have absolutely no problem with swathes of coloured faces and different ethnic backgrounds ‘coming over here’ to use your own appalling terminage. 50% or other. There is nothing untoward about the presence of different races or cultures populating major cities by 50% (though this percentage is a pathetic exaggeration). In fact you’ll find that the most prosperous cities of the world usually have that kind of diversity in their make-up. Powell was wrong then and is now, though I realise it must be difficult for stunted mental and cultutral dwarfs such as yourself to accept that precious integration.

  • dewi

    Of course ! Thanks

  • DavidD

    Many thanks Joey. I rather think that you lost the argument with the personal abuse. Nice try though.

  • Joey

    I think you may have lost this entire argument when you started talking about the Irish Republic in relation to the subject, which was Enoch Powell. If you were asked a question in an exam (say, Was Powell a racist?) and you started writing rhetorcally and highly speculatively about a totally dfferent country or person, you would get a very bad mark dear boy. This is where you can’t beat a decent education. But I apologise for referring to a ‘mental and cultural dwarf…’

  • DavidD

    Ok Joey, if insults don’t hack it then try condescension. Did your education include the word analogy?

  • Joey

    Did your education include referring to the question in hand? This is an early, and basic, lesson that many are taught.

  • It’s the end of a long working day and I don’t really have the time or the patience to reply to the long list of pretty pathetic contributions to this thread, except to say that I’m sorry Enoch ended up in South Down when I wish he’d ended up in Number 10. That’s where he should have been, not least because it would have annoyed the hell out of the “anti-racialists” posting their complete tripe on this thread.

    Powell’s point, and Heffer makes it at more length than I will do tonight, was that the immigration was really about numbers, not race. The higher the immigration, the less likely it would be that there would be adequate integration. He predicted that there would communalism as a result. That has come to pass. Take Bradford for example.

    Joey says he has no problem with multi-ethnic cities. I don’t either, up to a point. But, to take London as an example, the flip side of its much lauded diversity is an atomised, fragmented and unsettled society where different ethnic groups may live together but having little real contact with each other.

    When you add to the equation that most of the immigration will affect the already over-crowded south-east of England, with all that that means for already creaking public services, it’s difficult to see how immigration would not be a major topic even amongst the second and third generations of those who settled in the UK since 1945.

  • pith

    The Watchman,

    How absurd. His intellect was no greater than that of many of his peers at Westminster. He affected an accent which is always cause for suspicion (viz John Taylor). He was a non-entity in Northern Ireland politics. He provoked racism. Powell as British prime minister? Wrong country, wrong era.

  • picador

    The argument that foreigners and in particular ‘the coloured races’ are somehow less racially or religiously bigoted than ourselves – I include the Irish and British in the definition of ourselves –
    is of course completely fatuous and, dare I say it, racist. Grow up!!

  • pith,

    Tell me how many of his “peers” took a First in Classics, become a Professor of Greek, went from Private to Brigadier in 6 years, and sat in the Cabinet?

  • pith

    The Watchman,

    I cannot but nor can I tell you how many of his peers wrote appalling poetry crassly imitative of Housman; affected a method of speaking not heard in England since the Pilgrim Fathers set sail; wasn’t good enough to teach classics at Oxford; and sat on the Ulster Unionist Council.

  • Dewi

    And learnt to speak Welsh by the way……Sammy’s point is prescient – a type of self focussed individual who somtimes seemed to be deliberately contrary. CC O’B similar in that.

    I remember Powell saying on Desert Island Discs (of all places) when asked his biggest regret replied.
    “I wish I’d died in the War”
    His wife wasn’t that pleased with that.

    Speech undoubtedly racist.

  • Diluted Orange

    On the face of it Powell’s speech mainly targets ‘immigrants’, so seeing as there is no explicit racist sentiments I would say that it was more xenophobic rather than racist. However, you care to classify it it’s certainly distasteful and very paranoid. You could argue it was racist, given that at the time of his speech Britain was experiencing waves of immigration primarily from the West Indies and the Indian sub-continent.

    I agree with Sammy Morse in that Powell was undoubtedly a very intelligent man, but with a position in the government/ shadow cabinet of the day comes a responsibility. He certainly crossed a line with this speech, which probably led to many racially motivated attacks being committed in its aftermath.

    It’s a shame that his speech seems to be dragged up at every opportunity by those who fear to have a serious debate about immigration – a debate that I feel needs to happen in the UK. There are many good things that come out of immigration, which the UK has undoubtedly benefited from but there are also added burdens on the natives of that country. However every criticism of immigration or every call to control it seems to labelled as ‘racist’ in political circles, which is unhelpful, avoids the issues and only succeeds in whipping up bad feeling against immigrants amongst the natives.

  • Mandys Nose

    The Irish national anthem describes the English as Saxons.

    Really? where?

  • An Lochlannach

    “The Irish national anthem describes the English as Saxons.”

    I always thought that the Soldier Song is an awful auld dirge. Especially the Irish text which is full of archaic words and unnatural compounds (‘gunna-scréach’ ‘tráill’ and so on). I would gladly see it replaced by something like a rejigged ‘Mo Ghiolla Mear’. But for all its martial sun-bustery ‘Amhrán na bhFiann’ is far from racist. If anything, it goes over the top in simplistic ‘we’re all in this together’ sentiment e.g. ‘Buíon dár slua thar toinn do ráinig chughainn’ (Some have come to us from across the sea). Isn’t there a rarely sung verse with something about ‘fuil Gael is Gall’ (of Gaelic and non-Gaelic descent). I don’t like talk of blood and ancestry but that don’t make it racist.

  • ulsterfan

    Reference has been made to Powell’s intellect.
    I understand he learned one foreign language per year without any difficulty and spoke over 20 languages . The last one learned was Urdu so that he could properly understand and represent the newly arrived Immigrants to Britain.
    He was no fool whatever his politics may have been.

  • ulsterfan

    Checked on sources to confirm fluency in twelve languages and was learning Hebrew when he took ill.
    In addition he could read others so my first mention of twenty is on the high side.
    Nevertheless this is a great achievement.

  • PeaceandJustice

    Sam Hanna – “What about the greatest racism ‘Brits Out?’”

    Agreed. But you won’t get the Sinn Fein IRA blogging committee on here to admit it. Because it’s always the fault of everyone else.

    Billy Pilgrim – “Ah Sam, you committed the cardinal error. You actually began your sentence with the words: ‘what about….?’ Quite literal whataboutery! Textbook stuff.”

    Textbook stuff from ‘Billy Pilgrim’ at avoiding the question.

    The ethnic cleansing by Sinn Fein IRA around the border areas forced Protestant families out. Sinn Fein IRA might as well have put up signs ‘No Orange, No Dogs, No Ulster-British’.

  • I think he was a rascist and just because people start agreeing with him again on some of his points don’t make his less rascist.

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Peace and Justice

    I see your stakeout of my posts has begun!

    Just questioning the relevance of Sam Hanna’s point on this thread. If he’d brought it up on the Enniskillen thread, fair enough. But what does the IRA’s murderous campaign in Fermanagh have to do with whether or not Enoch Powell’s speech was racist hate-mongering?

  • I remember that speech and the impact it had.It was all Monday Club stuff.
    Anyway a very happy Diwali to you all.

  • me

    NO

    all you who say he was are PC scumbags, who are afraid to talk about immigration so they pull to out the racist card to stop others talking about it. can anybody actually tell me what was offensive in Enoch Powell speech?

  • Dewi

    Me – that bit truly offensive.

    “When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies.”

  • I wonder how many of Powell’s critics have actually read his speech in full. Heath hadn’t when he sacked him. Neither had Whitelaw the chief whip. Even Darcus Howe admitted he hadn’t actually read it until after Powell’s death in 1998. But, hey, it’s easier to attack someone on what you think they’re like rather than back up your argument.

  • darth rumsfeld

    what a shower of whining leftie kneejerkers you lot are.When even proto-tankie Patricia Hodge starts complaining about the problems associated with immigration, and the government hasn’t enough money to pay for translation in the health and education services then you know there is a problem in parts of England. And the guy who predicted it gets the pelters! We’ve spent the past 40 years as a society following exactly the opposite policies of Powell, and ….er…it’s been a stunning success, hasn’t it?

    Unlike any of you,I’ll guess, I met Enoch several times and endeavoured to discuss politics with him with varying degrees of success. I’ll be the first to admit he was a terrible politician- he admitted it himself in the famous riposte to a heckler in the 1974 general election “Judas was paid!”. He wasn’t pragmatic or a warm personality- in fact he was bloody unpleasant to many people.
    It’s amazing he was accepted by South Down Unionists given the complete lack of empathy they would have had with High Toryism.

    The “Rivers of blood” speech is perfectly defensible as an intellectual analysis, but Powell ought to have considered it would have been interpreted by others with baser motives. Also, it’s tone was illjudged.Trouble is, he had no more notion of how to court popularity than he of the works of Jimi Hendrix. The claim that this was an attempt to destabilise the odious Heath is risible, because even such a blundering fool as Ted couldn’t miss the chance Powell presented him with to sack him.

    Enoch was an British nationalist first and foremost- very similar in many ways to Tony Benn who of course shared very many of Powell’s views on the constitution- but he’s a loveable old eccentric. He was of his time. You would cringe at anyone using the term “picanninny” in 2007, yet 35 years ago one of the most popular programmes on TV was “Love thy neighbour” which was appallingly racist. And yes of course if someone propagated ideas of “repatriation” in 2007 it would be politically unacceptable.But while Powell was devastated when India was granted independence in 1945 he wasn’t banging on about it in 1985, and he knew there was no going back to the time pre-Windrush.

    Powell is still the best analyst of the dangers of the Europea project, and was more anti-American than any of the pigmies who come on this thread to condemn him. And the idea that the permanently semi-comatose Eddie Adenoid is a better representative for the people of South Down is as risible as comparing Darren Gibson with George Best.

  • Rory

    I may have told this story in connection with Powell before but it bears repeating. My dear old Aunt Minnie who, widowed at the age of 70, took up drinking whiskey in the local snug bars and began actively chasing men a few years later, met Powell in Downpatrick while she was shopping and he was trolling for votes.

    “Mr Powell”, she said, “I hear you want to send all the blacks back home. Is that right? But, Mr Powell, we don’t have that many blacks around here so you’re going to have to import some more so we can send them all back home agin”.

    Powell’s response has not been recorded.

    Yes, he was a racist. The speech was quite deliberately provocative racist agitprop. The letter bemoaning the plight of the old white woman was a fabrication and the (well considered) impact of the speech was to stir up racial hatred and attacks by National Front and associated thugs upon immigrant families. It is a disgrace, but hardly out-of-character, that the UUP selected him and a terrible shame on those who elected him to represent South Down.

  • ulsterfan

    It is always dangerous and unfair to put a tag of racist on Powell because of one speech and ignore 45 years of public service.
    Immigration as a topic was not very important to him and he spoke on the subject on a few occasions only.
    He was preoccupied with the fledgling Common Market and how this would diminish Britain’s influence in Europe.
    He rightly feared the balance of power would shift to Paris and Bonn leaving London on the margin.
    He also had very interesting views on economics.
    As a communicator he was supreme second only to Churchill.He was a real wordsmith with a wonderful command of the English language and it was always a pleasure to listen to him.
    His great disappointment at losing South Down meant that he lost the privilege of sitting in the House of Commons which he always considered
    the greatest achievement of his life.
    On balance he was a brilliant academic ,linguist champion of democracy but he was not a Racist although he was very foolish in the language he used in one particular speech.
    I will not judge him on that speech alone but will take into account the rest of his public service and what he subsequently said about the “Rivers of blood” speech.

  • PeaceandJustice

    Rory – “It is a disgrace, but hardly out-of-character, that the UUP selected him and a terrible shame on those who elected him to represent South Down.”

    What’s your opinion on all the Roman Catholics across Northern Ireland who have voted for Sinn Fein IRA over the years – with their racist ‘Brits Out’ slogan? And unlike Powell, they put it into practice by murdering people. The ethnic cleansing of Protestants along the border was the real disgrace. Pan-Nationalists on here need to admit that first of all before judging other people.

  • Darth,

    I did have the pleasure of meeting Enoch on a number of occasions and he was always very graceful talking to a precocious schoolboy like myself. Someone who knew him better told me that Powell was the only unionist MP with a genuinely open mind. If he was presented with a contrary argument he would always consider and give a response reasoned from first principles. I wonder what he would make of the his flip-flopping erstwhile chauffeur from Lagan Valley.

    Rory,

    The problem with people like you who throw the racist epithet is that you don’t have the evidence for it. Powell never advocated compulsory repatriation. He never believed the law should distinguish between people on the grounds of skin colour (unlike some professional anti-racists). He was an impartial constituency MP in Wolverhampton, which a genuine racist could not be.

    The crux of his famous speech was that immigrants could never properly integrate into society if the rate of immigration was too high. He specifically stated that skin colour was not relevant: any influx of immigrants in the numbers that were coming to Britain would have had the same result.

    If he had been a racist, would there not be some more tangible evidence of it? Some of his language eg picaninnies is unacceptable today but it’s unfair to judge the past on today’s linguistic standards. As for the woman he quoted, someone else investigated it, discovered she was called Drusilla something and lived until 1978.

  • darth rumsfeld

    well done rory- as infantile a post as I can recall.Why do nationalists have to gloat in the display of their illthought prejudice and think it’s clever?

    There’s no evidence that Powell invented the letter; the National Front weren’t active when the speech was made, and Powell was openly contemptuous of their politics;and Powell can be regarded as one of the main bulwarks against that “devolution at any price” brigade within the UUP which wanted to breathe life into the rotting corpse of Stormont.

    When he lost his seat, Thatcher offered him a life peerage which he turned down on principle because he didn’t believe in them. Pity there weren’t a few more like that. And if Tony Benn didn’t think he was a racist- a man who had many reasons for portraying him as such, but didn’t , because he knew the man- what right have you to?

    Yes, an infuriating man, but no racist. My favourite story concerned some constituent who was his neighbour in Loughbrickland, and who had a flood in her house. She knocked on his door and told him the problem. He said “Madam, you can write to me at the House of Commons, London SW1” Perhaps that was your auntie too.

  • I forgot the final and most obvious point why Powell was no racist: he wasn’t opposed to a certain amount of immigration, so long as it was not so large as to preclude integration. Rory et al, how do you explain that?

  • Dec

    And the idea that the permanently semi-comatose Eddie Adenoid is a better representative for the people of South Down is as risible…

    The electorate of South down obviously disagrees but you know best, eh?

    …as comparing Darren Gibson with George Best.

    Still not over that one yet? Aww bless. Still your statement is correct. As far as I know Darron Gibson has yet to beat up a woman, publicly refer to Andy Cole as “that nigger”, or regularly appear drunk on television. Gibson will never get an airport named after him at this rate.

  • I wonder how many of Powell’s critics have actually read his speech in full.

    Many times, the first of them many years ago. I’ve even read it in translation in German. It is a racist speech, in my view clearly so. Your mileage may vary. What is your point?

    what a shower of whining leftie kneejerkers you lot are.When even proto-tankie Patricia Hodge starts complaining about the problems associated with immigration

    Darth – moi, a leftie? Honey, I never knew you cared so much! I think I’m going to frame that comment and use it the next time someone calls me a fogeyish, crypto-Tory, bigot.

    Why are you assuming that a reactionary, imperialistic political philosophy like Communism has more in common with liberalism or social democracy than it does with a reactionary, imperialistic doctrine like High Toryism? I thought you would have been to bright to fall for that simple left-right scale nonsense.

    It would not surprise me that Hodge, Benn and Powell got on famously. All possess(ed) political views that are frankly dangerous. All wanted to shove them down other people’s throats. I have the misfortune of having had to work with Hoxha, sorry, Hodge, on occasion and she is a truly repellent individual virtually lacking in any moral compass and totally lacking in political nous. Her handing propaganda coups to the BNP does not make Enoch right, Darth.

  • Sammy Morse,

    My point is that many of Powell’s critics happily attacked him and then had to admit that they hadn’t actually read his speech in full. I’ve named three of them: Heath, Whitelaw and Howe. I simply wondered out aloud how many Sluggerites who rushed to the attack were in the same position: outrage covering up ignorance.

    Perhaps you might come up with an answer to my 1.19 question. Even in German.

  • darth rumsfeld

    “I thought you would have been to bright to fall for that simple left-right scale nonsense.”

    I am (hopefully) Sammy. I gree with you to an extent, but then I am a Whig( of the Scots variety), and my political hero is Joe Chamberlain, of municipal socialism and liberal Unionism fame ( interestingly also a hero of Powell). High tories are not really my soulmates.

    Dec-poor for you
    In 100 years they’ll not be talking about Darren Gibson. They’ll remember the genius with feet of clay ( bloody hard to play footie with those). And as we know only too well in NI, the electorate have a tradition of electing dull worthies because they are “local stiffs for local people”.

  • thekinkslfc

    The man was a genius,and he was bang on the money, immigration fundamentally changed UK society by the end of the 20th century (to the long term detriment of the UK I might add).

    Unsurprisingly we have waffling stories above about “all of the west indian people” of that era treating the speech with dread- such patronising guff.

    Ironically it is many West Indian immigrants, and their descendents (not to mention African and Asian counterparts) who are NOW making the very same comments Enoch did!

    You marginalise such sensible debate in the eloquent and moderate hands of the likes of Enoch, and you push people to the extremes you so patronisingly offer concern about.

    Tick tock

  • Joey

    There has been much twaddle about the whole immigration debate relating to Powell being ‘really about numbers’. This is garbage. It’s to do with willingness to live alongside men and women of other creeds. And the fear of the unknown; the foreigner. The propensity for these people to pile out of the woodwork whenever someone such as Simon Heffer – laughably viewed by some on here as some kind of guru – decides to stir the fires, is a shame, and people could behave better in this day and age. However its unsurprising that the very worst – and unrepresentational – elements of Northern Ireland society sympathize with Powell’s malign sentiments. Paddy Devlin said the Unionists were ‘mesmerized by this Edwardian relic with his hissing voice’ when he rolled up on these shores.

    One more historical innacuracy from the deluded double barrel man who wrote this piece here. He says: ‘Many of the comments about poor integration are comments that numerous politicians in all parties are making today (and, as Powell pointed out, were made by Labour ministers at the time).’ Perhaps this guy doesn’t think people will look up the genuine history of these times. Such complascency won’t be followed by all however. If Roll-Pickering had researched Powell properly he would have known that Powell had called and organised the speech in Birmingham at the Midland hotel IN RESPONSE to forthcoming racial equality legislation to be introduced by Harold Wilson’s Labour Gaovernment – the Race Relations Act of 1968. Powell’s speech was a deliberate response to basic human rights legislation.

    To the denizens of the minute and wretched ‘Enoch was right’ club, try and move forward in your attitudes and minds else waste merrily away and begone.

  • thekinkslfc

    “There has been much twaddle about the whole immigration debate relating to Powell being ‘really about numbers’. This is garbage. It’s to do with willingness to live alongside men and women of other creeds.”

    You are talking garbage, any way you shake it “numbers” are at the heart, if it was one immigrant, no problem, 1 million plus, problem – all numbers dear boy.

    Integration is the key to any successful immigration policy, the failed multi cultural doctrine was a form of semi apartheid and was patronising to immigrants and treated them as “not really British”- it died many years ago, although the death knell for most of the chattering classes (who do not really feel the day to day effects of immigration) was when fellow Britains mutilated other Britains on the streets of London in their transport attacks.

    ” And the fear of the unknown; the foreigner. The propensity for these people to pile out of the woodwork whenever someone such as Simon Heffer – laughably viewed by some on here as some kind of guru – decides to stir the fires, is a shame, and people could behave better in this day and age.”

    The dismissing of legitimate concerns about large scale immigration should be a thing of the past- such debate surpressors are yesterday’s men.

    “However its unsurprising that the very worst – and unrepresentational – elements of Northern Ireland society sympathize with Powell’s malign sentiments. Paddy Devlin said the Unionists were ‘mesmerized by this Edwardian relic with his hissing voice’ when he rolled up on these shores.” ”

    “the unionists”, how ironic from a patronising chap such as yourself talking about “fear of other” and “creeds”- invariably such people end up talking themselves into knotts

    “If Roll-Pickering had researched Powell properly he would have known that Powell had called and organised the speech in Birmingham at the Midland hotel IN RESPONSE to forthcoming racial equality legislation to be introduced by Harold Wilson’s Labour Gaovernment – the Race Relations Act of 1968. Powell’s speech was a deliberate response to basic human rights legislation. ”

    Once more the visionary, “equality” legislation and debased notions of “human rights” have turned into a freak show- all they do is dehumanise people into specific victim groups (although, not always to the satisfaction of these “equality” merchants, reference poor white boys underperforming and Chinese & Indian kids excelling!) and feather the nests of people making a living out of race and division.

    Powell’s legacy as a superb British visionary is assured, and no amount of narrow minded waffling on here will change that

  • Joey

    And still they bark. I marvel at how Powell supporters know all these coloured people (in England) ‘NOW making the very same comments Enoch did!’ Pray tell child, what evidence for this? A poll? A conference organised by people of African and Asian origin who all declared ‘Enoch was right’? What a ludicrous lie.

  • thekinkslfc

    “And still they bark. I marvel at how Powell supporters know all these coloured people (in England) ‘NOW making the very same comments Enoch did!’ Pray tell child, what evidence for this? A poll? A conference organised by people of African and Asian origin who all declared ‘Enoch was right’? What a ludicrous lie. ”

    It is quite easily referenced and, shame on you, patronising non whites for not having a range of views on immigration, sort of pseudo colonialist, tsk tsk, the folly of the dehumanisers

  • ulsterfan

    I want to express my admiration to the British people who have created a modern multi- cultural State which has evolved over the years to respect and support the rights of minorities.

  • Joey

    I had posted that before I checked back to see an absurd big rant full of half-truths but mainly no truth whatosevers. I shall proceed to deal with the welp. What a ghastly little shell this lad is.

    First off ‘invariably such people end up talking themselves into knotts’. This makes little sense and doesn’t really mean anything at all. Perhaps the fake truism is an attempt to bamboozle others ito not saying anything. Think about this phrase: what you have just said here doesn’t mean anything.

    Oh dear, we don’t understand the concept or importance of the Race Relations Acts? Pity, I could explain how vital such legislation was, but to someone who displays such an obsequious and thoroughly obnoxious deovtion to Powell, it would go over your little head. It’s a shame you regard such important law as a ‘freak show’. Such a description must then refer to any important Act or piece of legislation or government-endorsed group who has ever legislated in the history of any parliament or country. Once again, half-baked cod-‘Daily Mail’ drivel is your main sustenance in this debate, with not one shred of evidence.

    ‘if it was one immigrant, no problem, 1 million plus, problem’. Ho ho very nicely researched precise evidence there chappy (not to slick on that in your case?). Such pitiful generalisations and evasions are prominent on those seeking to make a living out of discrimination and peddling racial slurs.

    More to follow…

  • dewi

    Loved “proto-tankie” ain’t heard tankie for a good while.

  • thekinkslfc

    ” had posted that before I checked back to see an absurd big rant full of half-truths but mainly no truth whatosevers. I shall proceed to deal with the welp. What a ghastly little shell this lad is. ”

    what an insufferable pretentious oaf

    “First off ‘invariably such people end up talking themselves into knotts’. This makes little sense and doesn’t really mean anything at all. Perhaps the fake truism is an attempt to bamboozle others ito not saying anything. Think about this phrase: what you have just said here doesn’t mean anything. ”

    It was quoted in the context, if you cannot understand it, perhaps you are a shallow pretentious shell? You talk on the one hand of “other” and living with “creeds”, then completely contradict yourself with disparraging talk of “unionists”- how very easy, yes?

    “Oh dear, we don’t understand the concept or importance of the Race Relations Acts? Pity, I could explain how vital such legislation was, but to someone who displays such an obsequious and thoroughly obnoxious deovtion to Powell, it would go over your little head. It’s a shame you regard such important law as a ‘freak show’. Such a description must then refer to any important Act or piece of legislation or government-endorsed group who has ever legislated in the history of any parliament or country. Once again, half-baked cod-’Daily Mail’ drivel is your main sustenance in this debate, with not one shred of evidence”

    Ahh, the “daily mail” response, too easy to reply “Guardianista”- such a poor little debate surpressor, so filled with cliches he thinks are terribly cutting edge!. Powell was a visionary, in the case of “race” and “equality” he was bang on, such legislation only serves to divide and dehumanise.

    “if it was one immigrant, no problem, 1 million plus, problem’. Ho ho very nicely researched precise evidence there chappy (not to slick on that in your case?). Such pitiful generalisations and evasions are prominent on those seeking to make a living out of discrimination and peddling racial slurs. ”

    That wasn’t a case of “reasearch”, it was a response to your nonsense about numbers being irrelevant- it is all linked with numbers silly sausage, as without “one” there would be no immigration, never mind mass immigration

    Patronising glipe

  • Joey

    My oh my, now the accusation of ‘dehumanisation’ has been turned on I. By the same standards laws relating to the Scots, Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies and devolved governments must involve some level of, wha did you say, ‘dehumanisation’? How stupid you are. And you must seriously check on this idea of the importance in the Westminster village of the Act of Parliament. Basic but essential stuf, you’ll find.

    Child, you still have not referenced the African or Asians ‘NOW making the very same comments Enoch did!’ This is basic evidence-accruing procedure. You must follow it to be taken seriously. You can’t because there is no reference for it: the lie is just your (woeful) opinion, and it would be a plan to admit this.

    And do stop lying about London and the failure of ‘multi-culturalism’, which you patently have not the faintest idea of. (The definitions of multi-culturalism are ina any case numerous and are often distinct, but I see you use the term in the ‘tabloid’, Bruce Anderson/idiot sense), as you have clearly read some tripe about it and written it back on here). You blatantly have never lived in the city of London as some as have (for, oh, a decade or so), and just because your reaction to a coloured face would be to run away or puch it is a turgid and sad reflection of your own existence.

    Bt not understanding the Race Relations Acts or Modern British history is a far more serious offence. I must recommend some books…

  • dewi

    Not a huge Westminster fan myself but have to say that the combination of legislation and education has suceeded pretty well in reducing racism.
    The casual derogatory remarks have largely disappeared. BNP still dangerous however in places.

  • Joey

    Child,

    I am grateful that you appreciate my reponse so much tht you quote it back in blocks at me. I used the reference to ‘Unionists’ in the same way Paddy Devlin did. I know this represents a real source which must be baffling and shocking to yourself, resemblig as it does some level of veracity, but I cannot suffer a fool gladly at all.

    As for this ‘numbers’ suggestion, the number of immigrants you referred to was 1 million, a number plucked quite simpy out of the air, with no reference whatsoever to real immigration figures (the cases of whom would have to be individually assessed at any rate).

    Hoho, the old Guardian paranoia to boot. Too tame a newspaper for me, child. The biggest cliche here is the often-espoused notion that Powell was some kind of ‘visionary’, which is the one word you seem able to describe him as. Your greatest flaw in a crowded field is that you regard the position of supporting Powell as being in some way radical: the debates re-gurgitates every now and then. The key is to hammer the pond-life still clinging on to Powell’s every word down. Clearly when Heath sacked Powell and received a small but concerted campaign of Powell-supporting letters from various myopic drones who sent him a letter expounding their bile, you were clearly among them. Very sad, child.

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Darth

    “We’ve spent the past 40 years as a society following exactly the opposite policies of Powell, and ….er…it’s been a stunning success, hasn’t it?”

    I would have thought the answer to this question is a resounding Yes.

    I think one has to hand it to the Brits: yes there have been problems along the way, but the changes in British demography over the last century have been handled far more successfully than some other countries have managed. The Britain of today is a hugely interesting, exciting and attractive place precisely because there is so much difference within it. If I were British, I’d feel an enormous sense of patriotic pride in that. As a neighbour, I’d have to say I respect the Brits for it.

    Vive la Difference!

  • Tochais Síoraí

    ‘Irish nationalist praises British society while Unionist says it’s a failure’.

    Stop this. I still haven’t got over the Chuckle Brothers.

  • There are 2 problems about debating with you, Joey.

    The first is that you are personally offensive in your comments to those who disagree with you:

    “… its unsurprising that the very worst – and unrepresentational – elements of Northern Ireland society sympathize with Powell’s malign sentiments …”.

    The second is that when your opponents state their position, rather than engage with it, you turn it around and assert, without evidence, that it’s not really their position at all:

    “There has been much twaddle about the whole immigration debate relating to Powell being ‘really about numbers’. This is garbage. It’s to do with willingness to live alongside men and women of other creeds. And the fear of the unknown; the foreigner.”

    That’s the problem with people like you. You don’t like debate and seem to regard anyone who doesn’t share your world view as a racist. So when people stress that the immigration is about numbers rather than race, you are unable to respond in a non-abusive fashion and resort to jibes like “pond life”.

    How familiar are you with South-East England where most of the predicted immigration growth will take place? (I am.) There is simply no way that the infrastructure can cope with that growth, given it is creaking right now. Where are all these people going to live? Where are the 10 Birminghams going to be built that will be necessary, according to the government’s own figures, by 2032?

    It’s time you came up with answers, not vitriol.

  • topdeckomnibus

    You’re not wrong Watchman.

    I am an allotment gardener in the north of england.

    Recently we let an allotment to a family of Kurdish immigrants.

    People lent them tools and noticed that the man did no work but that the women were struggling to break the ground and dig out mares tail cooch grass etc.

    The Kurdish women were given tomato plants, bean plants, celeriac etc and often the ground was cleared for them and the gift plants planted for them.

    But resentment was growing because the Kurd man did diddly. He has seven kids and is on benefits by the way.

    On one plot a mast was eretcted and from it a large Cross of St george flag flutters.

    This is the allotment of a great guy to share the planet with. A Wets Indian who came to UK in 1959 and worked (until Maggie interventions) as a mining faceworker. His mate, another West Indian who has also never been unemployed in UK and was also a faceworker, is another great bloke.

    The West Indian’s daughter is an RGN. Good laugh too.

    One day a notice appears on the allotments notice board

    It being against the culture of Kurds to seek materials and build their own sheds and greenhouses if has pleased social services to make a grant for the purchase of new flat pack greenhouse and shed for the Kurdish family.

    Volunteers are sought from the allotments association to dig and lay foundations and erect the said buildings for these permanent guests in our land.

    “Great bit of wind up Toppy” guffawed the West Indians.

    Basically Watchman. people who like each other and each others ethics will get on.

    The West Indian is awaiting hip surgery and a bit unsteady now. His allotment is dug by the white northerners who used to be his colleagues atb the pit. He is given a lift to and from the allotments each time by one of the white northern ex miners.

    Racist ? Not England.

  • dewi

    Mining solidarity is wonderful worldwide – from the WMF in USA to the Fed in Wales – same sort of community feeling.

  • Unwitting Pariah

    It’s a sad day when you talk of immigration being out of control and you’re immediately labelled a racist. Powell predicted that immigration would lead to ‘irrevocable change’, and rioting and blood-shed due to racial conflict. July 7th bombings. Race riots in the North… when migrants from completely different cultures come to a country a million miles away socially, religiously and culturally, and then do not integrate, what do you expect? Yes, integration is a two-way thing, but immigration levels have been so high that integration wasn’t necessary and ghettoes have formed. When intelligent British Muslims with A-levels and hope in their lives feel they have to blow themselves up, and hate this country.. their country, so much, then well, there’s a fucking problem if ever I saw one.

  • Ulster McNulty

    Unwitting Pariah

    “Powell predicted that immigration would lead to ‘irrevocable change’, and rioting and blood-shed due to racial conflict. July 7th bombings. Race riots in the North… when migrants from completely different cultures come to a country a million miles away socially, religiously and culturally, and then do not integrate, what do you expect? Yes, integration is a two-way thing, but immigration levels have been so high that integration wasn’t necessary and ghettoes have formed.”

    Well, it isn’t even slightly ironic that he came to represent the decendants of immigrants to Ireland who failed to integrate socially, culturally or religiously, sparking off centuries of rioting, bombings and people (still) living in ghettos.

    I think that for Enoch im/emigration, or even empire, was fine if your British, but not for dark skinned foreigners and that’s the the crux of the matter – that people of different races are not equal.

    Enoch was a clever man and he tried to rationalise his racism (as you see in this speech) but you can’t rationalise racism because it is based on universal, gut, human fears and instincts (fear of the dark, literally, in Enoch’s case)

  • You prove my point handily, Ulster McNulty. Powell and others like him can’t have their thinking taken seriously because it is obvious that they are really racists who try to disguise it by clever rationalisation. So even when their arguments are not racist, the people making them really are.

    As for Powell’s opposition to immigration on the grounds of skin colour, I think he rebutted this conclusively in a debate c. 1968 with Trevor Huddleston where he claimed that skin colour was irrelevant to the issue, that the same number of white Germans etc. would have the same impact.

  • Ulster McNulty

    The Watchman

    “You prove my point handily, Ulster McNulty”

    Actually I don’t, let me expand – Enoch didn’t go around spray-painting “Pakis Out”, “Nig Nogs Out” or “Chinkies Out” (he’s a professor of classics for fuck sake, not Nick Griffen) but that’s exactly what he advocated. He never advocated “Paddies Out”. He didn’t seek repatriation of Aussies or Americans. Why send West Indians back but let the Irish stay? What’s the objective criteria?

    “Powell and others like him can’t have their thinking taken seriously because it is obvious that they are really racists who try to disguise it by clever rationalisation”

    This is where you literally don’t know what you are talking about. I always took what he had to say very seriously, he represented how millions feel, and as I pointed out before racism is based on universal gut human instinct. At it’s worst it leads to the slave trade or the Nazis – the complete dehumanisation of other “races”. Enoch was a racist by degree, more than the average but a long way from a nazi or a 7/7 bomber.

    “So even when their arguments are not racist, the people making them really are.”

    How can a “Wogs Out” argument “but let the Rhodesians stay” be anything other than racist?

    “As for Powell’s opposition to immigration on the grounds of skin colour, I think he rebutted this conclusively in a debate c. 1968 with Trevor Huddleston where he claimed that skin colour was irrelevant to the issue, that the same number of white Germans etc. would have the same impact.”

    That just shows he was as xenophobic as he was racist. Ironically, if large numbers of “white Germans” hadn’t immigrated to the British isles then the culture he imagined he was defending from them wouldn’t have existed in the first place. Enoch was a professor of the classics, but obviously not very well informed about the origins of British culture. No German immigration = no English = no Sheakespeare – and he loved Shakespeare.

    Consider this if you really want to appreciate just how absurd his arguments were – after the tories he joined the UUP whose leader, James Molyneaux, was the descendant of huguenot immigrants.

    In a world theoretically governed by Enoch Powell arguments his party leader, James Molyneaux, wouldn’t have existed because the immigrants he descended from would never been allowed into the country in the first place. I can’t speak on Enoch Powell’s behalf but I know he wouldn’t have had a problem with the idea of a future James Molyneaux, and he wouldn’t have argued that the Huguenots had a negative impact on Britain.

    He never argued that the British going out and colonising other countries had a negative impact on those countries. His arguments just didn’t add up.

    He was clever, but nobody is so clever that they can make a coherent “Wogs Out” argument that isn’t based on racism.

  • Ulster McNulty,

    I sometimes feel that I am endlessly repeating arguments. The key point is numbers of immigrants and the fact that assimilation would be impossible if numbers grew too large.

    You say “racism is based on universal gut human instinct”. Maybe it is. But would a racist have returned home to fight against Nazi Germany? Powell’s argument was that once immigration passed a certain level there would be adverse consequences in terms of community polarisation and separate development. That has happened. Even the race relations industry that has demonised Powell for 40 decades has had to concede this point.

    I repeat: your argument (and others like it) refuses to accept the opinion of others on its face value because you are convinced it is a front for racial supremacy. Powell didn’t racialise the issue, it was his critics on the left, as Heffer pointed out.

    Even when I point out that Powell’s words that he would opposed large scale immigration even if the people coming were white-skinned Europe, you add xenophobia to the charge of racism. You can’t have it both ways. How many xenophobes do you know are fluent in half a dozen languages? In fact, do you know anything at all about Powell the man (his love for Russia for example)? Nothing is his make-up is consistent with a hatred of foreigners.

    Powell didn’t advocate “Irish Out”, although he did once press for the preferential status of the Irish Republic’s citizens when it came to access to the UK to be ended. (Oops, maybe that’s xenophobia.) As for the white Rhodesians, I suspect many already held British passports, and in any event, as I have said again and again, their numbers or those of Americans or Aussies were simply not comparable with later immigrant surges.

    I don’t mind how clever a man is supposed to be, genuine racism will always shine through. So to recap:

    1. Would a racist have hated and fought against Nazi Germany?

    2. Would a racist have failed to support compulsory repatriation?

    3. Would a racist have had a profound life-long love for India and its people?

    4. Would a racist have been renowned for even-handedness toward constituents from an ethnic minority?

    5. Would a racist have supported full equality for everyone before the law?

    6. Would a racist of that time not have openly aligned himself with the National Front, growing force in the early 1970s?

    The answers to all these questions is No.

    Oh by the way, Molyneaux is Norman in origin not Huguenot.

  • Ulster McNulty

    The Watchman

    You are definately having difficulty understanding my argument. I am completely open to being persuaded that Enoch Powell wasn’t a racist, and nothing I’ve said suggests otherwise.

    I haven’t got time for a detailed reply but my belief that Enoch Powell was a racist is based entirely on the fact that he wanted to see the “picaninies” packed off back where they came from but had nothing to say about US, Aussie or Irish immigrants, umpteen thousands of them in his life-time.

    “2. Would a racist have failed to support compulsory repatriation?”

    He wasn’t a national front type thug. He advocated “voluntary repatriation” – in other words, you don’t physically eject them, you just do everything in your power to encourage them to leave. What was his difficulty in tolerating their presence?

    I wonder how you would rationalise it if the likes of Gerry Adams declared Sinn Fein were going to pursue a policy of “voluntary repatriation” of prods in Northern Ireland back to Great Britain. You wouldn’t accuse him of sectarianism would you?

    “Oh by the way, Molyneaux is Norman in origin not Huguenot.”

    I’ve always assumed his people were huguenot – it makes no difference to my point, Powell’s arguments would have precluded their entry to Britain anyway.

    You might be a Russian loving, multi-lingual, Raj loving, even-handed parlamentarian but if you’d sooner send a west indian “back where he came from” than give him your daughter’s hand in marriage – it’s odds-on you are a racist.

  • Phil

    I’ve no time for racists or bigots, but for someone to have concerns about multi-culturism and racial integration (or lack of it) does not mean that they are automatically a racist although in all probability Powell was, as were many people of his generation and class. That doesn’t mean he didn’t have a point though, as the rivers of blood that flowed through England’s capital on 7th July 2005 showed.

  • Should Nigel Hastilow remain loyal to the Conservative Party that sacked him as its Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for saying “Enoch was right”?

    Vote at

    http://www.1party4all.co.uk

    Nigel Hastilow says he wants to do nothing to harm the Conservative Party of which he is still a member and confirms that he wants a Conservative government.

    What is the point of remaining loyal to a Party led by a leader infamous for his lack of policies and principles, who predictably had him sacked the moment he voiced the genuine concerns of his prospective constituents?

    Does this mean he lacks the qualities to be either a career politician (because he spoke the truth) or a conviction politician (because he apologised for speaking the truth)?

    Did he BLUNDER into this controversy without a strategy?

    Is it good riddance to someone who will only enrage his masters for not toeing the party line and disappoint his constituents for not sticking to his guns?

    LINK FOR LIVE INTERVIEW:
    http://www.thestirrer.co.uk/hastilow-0711071.html

    “Nigel Hastilow, forced to quit as a Conservative candidate in the Black Country after endorsing Enoch Powell’s views on immigration has insisted – “I’m no racist.” But in his only full-length, unedited interview since the controversy broke, he admitted to Stirrer TV it was a mistake to use Powell’s name to support his argument.

    Looking weary after days of being hounded by the media, Hastilow explained that he has no issue with anyone’s skin colour, religion, or heritage – what concerns him is the growing population of the country and the infrastructure needed to sustain it.

    He also launched a broadside against the welfare state, which sustains 1.7 million unemployed even though (as thousands of Poles have discovered) there are clearly jobs available.

    Although he has been courted by UKIP and the BNP and encouraged to stand as an independent, Hastilow said that he was still a Conservative member and would do nothing to hurt the party.”