By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982
In yet another interview with the US Media, Daniel Hannan has praised Enoch Powell as one of his poltical influences.
The right-wing Tory MEP, who previously called the NHS "a mistake" that he "wouldn't wish on anybody" has now praised the fearmongering Conservative MP of the 60s and 70s, who was most famous for saying:
"In 15 or 20 years time, the black man will have the whip hand over the white man. We must be mad, literally mad as a nation, to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependents who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre...She is becoming afraid to go out; windows are broken; she finds extreta pushed through her letterbox. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children: charming, wide-grinning piccaninees...Here is their means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise and consolidate their members...to overawe and dominate the rest."
That speech was given in reaction to the introduction by the Labour Government of the Race Relations Act 1968 which prohibited discrimination on the grounds of race or ethnicity on the provision of housing, employment and public services.
The video is below, and Hannan praises Powell after 1 minute 50 seconds.
According to Paul Waugh, David Cameron is again unwilling to completely distance himself from his "eccentric" posterboy. Conservative HQ says had Hannan "explicitly praised Powell on race or immigration, David Cameron would have had a different response".
Personally, I don't think it matters in which context Hannan praised Enoch Powell: the praise as a hero of this at best ignorant and at worst xenophobic Conservative anachronism is unbefitting of any modern British elected representative, especially one who is employed to represent us abroad.
That said, David Cameron is not going to cut off his nose to spite his face, and - from a Labour perspective - we shouldn't want him to.
We know that the Tories have an unweildy right wing, which is loud and influential in spite of Cameron's own cuddly PR positioning. But we also know that Cameron sees Hannan as an asset - that's why he presented him with a podium, a microphone and a keynote at the Conservative Spring Conference just a few months ago.
So Labour should not be campaigning to get the Tories to sack Hannan, because he can do more damage to their modernisation attempts than we ever could. As the self-appointed international spokesperson for the Conservatives, he will not be able to contain himself in the future - and each time he speaks he reveals the hardened right behind our so-called "government in waiting".
Why deprive the Tories of their biggest, baddest, backfiring weapon?
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
basically won some support from the sort of people who get angry at Daily Mail/Express headlines and wish for a plain-
speaking warrior of what they see as traditional conservative values. Basically, what Cameron won't/doesn't want to say,
Hannon does say. And thats why some grassroots tories like him so much.
QED.
Well, no, actually.
Look where the BNP is stationed: Labour heartlands. Like Adolf Hitler who was a Socialist with a red flag, like Stalin, who was a Socialist with a red flag, and like Pol Pot, who was a Socialist with a red flag, the BNP is a left wing group. If you read Dan's web page, you would see that he has actually blogged about this too.
were influenced by the "mother country" in terms of the dispersal of powers and second, he portrays Jefferson as
only being influenced by British values.
First and foremost, the "founding fathers" were avid believers of federalism not because of the "mother counrty" but
rather due to the lessons of Europe namely the French revolution. Moreover, American independence was initially
ignited by the "mother countries" refusal to loosen power over taxes. History has it that Jefferson was
influenced by Islam so to believe it was only a single set of values that influenced him is undermining him.
These views are very imperialistic and centuries old. Hannan for sure is a conservative.
Frankly, Hannan's understanding of history is misplaced so maybe in terms of Enoch Powell he must not have read or forgot
Powell's views on immigration and race.
at things in a broader context.
"the "founding fathers" were avid believers of federalism not because of the "mother counrty" but
rather due to the lessons of Europe namely the French revolution."
So the Founding Fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776, fought the War of Independence 1775–1783 and drafted the US Constitution between 1787-1788 had learned the lessons of the French Revolution... which began in 1789.
Thanks for pointing out the dates, I ought to have made myself more clearer. When I talk of the "lessons of Europe"
im refering to the teachings of the Enlightement, the belief in individual rights - That pre-dates the French Revolution
and infact played a huge part in bringing about the changes in France, this is the lesson the "founding farthers" of
America were influenced by.
The belief that in independence and rights of individuals British is arrogant, imperialistic and of course outdated.
The belief in rights for the masses pre-dates European Renaissance, on that basis one can argue it has been borrowed
and only developed by Europeans.
In an overview then - my history is anything but distorted.
1) Read the writings from the likes of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin et al and find out what they actually believed
2) Go to Runnymede and see which country, Britain or America, shows more reverence for Magna Carta.
Your attack on me is baseless and is indicative of your failure to fully read
and comprehend what im stating. Ask yourself this. What need is there for dates
when im placing things in the broader context for reasons of simplicity and NOT
lack of knowledge as you attack me for - What satisfaction do you get from believing
you know more than someone else.
By the way from the outset I said "Hannan has a very narrow and distorted veiw of history. For one, he
believes the "founding fathers" of America were influenced by the "mother country" in terms of the dispersal
of powers and second, he portrays Jefferson as only being influenced by British values".
I hope you paid particular attention to "influenced by the "mother country" IN TERMS OF the DISPERSAL
of powers". Maybe its not me but you who needs to do the reading huh
Hannan doesn't say that. At 2:03 he says "the Patriot leaders founded the US on British political principles". He goes on to list exactly what he means and he does not mention "dispersal of powers". What he lists is as follows: executive constrained by a legislature, laws only passed by popular consent and the idea of taxes not being raised except by elected legislators.
All of these are correctly attributed to English/British precedent. Constraint was placed on executive power when King John was forced to sign Magna Carta. The principle that taxes can be raised only by elected legislators was settled when Charles I was beheaded after he had tried and failed to suspend Parliament and raise money without it. The principle of laws being passed by popular consent was settled by the Glorious Revolution, in which the Catholic King James II, the rightful heir to the throne, was deposed without a shot being fired because his attempts to assert absolute monarchy and Catholicism were universally unpopular.
From now on, the British people would get the King they wanted, taxes would only be raised by a Parliament of elected representatives (albeit a system with many imperfections) and the King and his Ministers would never again enjoy absolute power like the monarchs in Continental Europe; they would be constrained by the Houses of Parliament. All these principles were justified in historical terms by the likes of Edward Coke as an assertion of the common law that preceded the Norman Conquest. Such writings became an inspiration for the Levellers and the American Revolutionaries.
For your information your own answer undermines your line of argument. In response you state
that Hannan states "the Patriot leaders founded the US on British political principles".
He goes on to list exactly what he means and he does not mention "dispersal of powers".
What he lists is as follows: executive constrained by a legislature".
There is no question that the constraning of power was influenced by Britain and this is perfectly
understandable in light of the close relationship between England and America. However, the Americans
dispersed power in order to constrain the executive hence, why the two political systems are so different.
The reson why they are differnt is because they were other forces influencing the "founding fathers" and not
just "British political principles" as Hannan states and to believe they were is a narrow and distorted view
of history.
Your problem is your missing the broader point and analysing specifics like your in a court of law.
Just accept defeat with grace and STOP going around in circles Phil.
For your information your own answer undermines your line of argument. In response you state
that Hannan states "the Patriot leaders founded the US on British political principles".
He goes on to list exactly what he means and he does not mention "dispersal of powers".
What he lists is as follows: executive constrained by a legislature".
There is no question that the constraning of power was influenced by Britain and this is perfectly
understandable in light of the close relationship between England and America. However, the Americans
dispersed power in order to constrain the executive hence, why the two political systems are so different.
The reson why they are differnt is because they were other forces influencing the "founding fathers" and not
just "British political principles" as Hannan states and to believe they were is a narrow and distorted view
of history.
Your problem is your missing the broader point and analysing specifics like your in a court of law.
Just accept defeat with grace and STOP going around in circles Phil.
No, it was not merely "understandable", it was a very conscious act of creating institutions guaranteeing rights that in their minds belonged them all along. Until the Revoluution took place the vast majority of them considered themselves Englishmen. There's a reason America was created by such men, and not by colonies founded by Frenchmen, Portugese, Spanish etc. The Americans had a British mindset evident at home in the Levellers and in the works of writers like John Locke.
You are ignorant and you haven't bothered tell us your name so I'll make one final parting shot and then leave you to troll here to your heart's content. The idea that America was founded on British political principles is not Hannan's suggestion. American lawyers, constitutional experts, historians and academics believe that their country was founded on British political principles. That's why at Runnymede you'll find the largest commemoration of that historic event is not a British dedication, but the American Bar Association Memorial. If you go there you'll also find the John F. Kennedy Memorial (Kennedy was a famous President of the United States).
I'll say it once again and sorry to be harsh, but you've already had far more dialogue than you deserve: before spouting off about someone else having a distorted version of history, do your homework (both the broad sweep of history and also the specifics) and while you're at it visit Runnymede for yourself.
You are defending the indefensible. You can't go around calling other people's notions of history distorted if you think the French Revolution came before the American Revolution. It's an absolute clanger. I don't understand why you are trying to salvage any dignity from this car wreck. The posting in question was anonymous, was it you by any chance?
"the French Revolution came before the American Revolution"
"the founding fathers were avid believers of federalism...due to the lessons of Europe namely the French revolution".
"the founding fathers were avid believers of federalism...due to the lessons of Europe namely the French revolution".
So according to you, did the French Revolution take place without any thought process?
It was just a spontaneous event right.
In fact the American revolution (as exemplified by the Boston Tea Party) was a revolution of the merchant class against a government that was taxing them. The liberty they gained was not to be taxed by a foreign power. After the revolution, the land owners still owned the land and the poor were still poor, the slave owners still owned slaves, and women still didn't have the vote. The only difference was that the merchants (the equivalent would be investment bankers today) were taxed less. In fact, the Americans were quite lightly taxed. Mark Kurlansky points out that at the time of the revolution, a yeoman (farmer) in England was taxed 14 times more than a farmer in the American colonies, which raises the question of why we didn't have a revolution in England rather than why there was a revolution in the colonies.
“He was one of the great figures of 20th-century British politics, gifted with a brilliant mind.”
I've got news for you, criticising the NHS is not treason and the voters don't think it is which is why #WelovetheNHS didn't move the polls. Agreeing with some of Enoch Powell’s views while rejecting those on immigration does not make you a racist. Who said in 1999, "He (Enoch Powell) was one of the great figures of 20th-century British politics, gifted with a brilliant mind". Answer Tony Blair. Was he a racist too?
January 11, 2009
Cabinet minister admits immigration ‘free for all’
Isabel Oakeshott Deputy Political Editor
RECOMMEND? (4)
A CABINET minister has admitted the government has presided over an asylum and immigration “free for all” and warned that the recession could be a recipe for racial tension.
Enoch Blears, the communities secretary, said Labour had failed to manage the system effectively, allowing many people to enter the country under false pretences.
“Initially it was a kind of free for all,” she said. “We had a big surge of asylum seekers, a lot of people coming as economic migrants, but through the route of asylum seeking.”
Gordon Brown.
Only C20,000 people have ever voted for him.
Even before he became PM, it was clear that the man is psychologically unfit for high office (as well as having no qualification to run anything either). His towering rages, his inability to accept that he might be wrong or has ever done anything wrong means that as PM he was - as we now know - a recipe for total disaster. And thanks to him, we will be be paying an arm and a leg for his profound stupidity for years
I don't agree with Hannan on a number of things; indeed, I am not a Tory. However, I like it that he has ideas that shock people into thinking about the issues. His statement on the NHS (widely misreported, of course, by the supine press) - we know find front page news that patient care in some hospitals is appalling. There is no such thing as a sacred cow, and New Labour's pathetic attempts to iconise such institutions invariably end up with you shooting yourselves in the foot, as the gap between you portray things, and how they actually are, grows wider and wider.
Brown will destroy you as surely as he has laid waste to the UK. But don't you worry, you keep wittering on about Hannan if it keeps you happy.
You wrote your own obituary when you waved Brown into Number 10.
John Feltham - yes. Upper school debate level, sticking your tongue out at the Conservatives. Radical man.
Anyway, to misquote some Liberal a while back ... "Go away, and prepare for utter obliteration".
And it will happen - how do I know? Because friends of mine in the public services, whose hackle arose whenever I attacked Brown and New Labour, now sadly nod their heads in agreement. Brown is slowly losing his client state, which he pissed our money into trying to build his 1000 Year Reich. He will be reviled in history, and rightly so. He is a pathological liar, and a menace to society. As are his acolytes, the Balls, the Harman, Cooper. What has their service been to the country, whilst they have been quietly building their property portfolios.
Sick.
"For what it’s worth, I think Enoch Powell was wrong on immigration. The civil unrest that he forecast, and that many feared in 1968, didn’t materialise. Britain assimilated a large population with an ease that few countries have matched. Being an immigrant myself, I have particular cause to be grateful for Britain’s understated cosmopolitanism."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/3677651/Journalists_magic_word/
So Hannan's been interviewed saying he agrees with Enoch Powell on small government and he's said on numerous occasions that he agrees with him on the EEC/EU. On the other hand, he has stated very publicly that he disagrees with Enoch Powell on immigration.
I know you lefties are demoralised but I didn't realise things were this desperate.
If Hannan subscribes to this, then all well and good. But such an affirmation wasn't in the video, and given the importance of the topic, Alex was right to raise the question.
It only seems important to you because your mind has been corrupted by years of New Labour spin and smears. You have become acclimatised to the New Labour tactic of demonising opponents as racists, instead of engaging with their arguments and winning the battle intellectually. You cannot see that Enoch Powell stood for many things that have been vindicated in the fullness of time. But as they say, people prefer to be right than be happy, and leftists don't want to accept that all the old mantras of socialism were flawed and that the collapse of the Soviet Union proved it beyond all reasonable doubt.
So the enthusiasm for linking Hannan with Enoch Powell in the public mind, and reminding everyone not that Enoch Powell stood for national democracy, sovereignty and small government -- the things listed by Hannan in the interview -- but dragging up the most inflammatory speech the man made in his entire career is an attempt to tarnish Hannan with the same brush. You are even more extreme than Alex Smith, because you now actually know that Hannan is on the record denunciating Enoch Powell's views on immigration, and yet you nevertheless think it's noteworthy that "such an affirmation wasn't in the video".
It is true that Powell held some interesting, commendable and far-sighted views. He was intellectually gifted, and one of the first British politicians to see in the late 1940s that the age imperial greatness was over - and that we would need to cut our cloth accordingly. However, he was also a maverick (who switched between Tory and Labour, remember) with whom many colleagues found themselves unable to work, and so was not effective as politician.
But what he "stood for"? This surely means what he stood for in the political classes and public's minds. You suggest monetarism below - do me a favour. He didn't represent it because as soon as the party wouldn't accept his ideas, he flounced off. Likewise the free market.
WHat he came to "stand for" was the rivers of blood speech. It is his misfortune, but there it is; It's in the nature of politics to make shorthand from some figures, and he is one. Hannan knows that very well, or else he is a moron. And he knows that mentioning Powell in any way is inflammatory and a way of pushing at a door to see what happens.
Interesting though that Hannan seemed to believe like many that the 1968 speech was about immigration levels. This was only indirectly so; in fact it was aimed at the 1968 Race Relations Act, which many, many Conservative MPs (and labour voters) loathed.
You need to unclench.
When you've cleared the froth from the screen, you might also like to unpack this little nugget:
You cannot see that Enoch Powell stood for many things that have been vindicated in the fullness of time.
Like what, for example? Or am I just to take your sycophancy without proof?
He was a tireless advocate of low inflation, a policy that is now almost universally agreed. He was an advocate of the free market, for instance calling for the privatisation of the telephone network as early as 1964. Leftists still spout anti-free market dogma but who wants to make the case for abolishing O2, Vodafone, Carphone Warehouse etc. and recreating nationalised British Telecom, any takers? Face facts, the argument is over and Enoch Powell was absolutely spot on.
You state this as though it has any relevance to the man's views.
As for the EU, he opposed entry on the basis that it would undermine Parliamentary Sovereignty. Is there anyone who seriously denies this today (and how's that Constitution coming along)?
Peter Jukes: He was out of the Cabinet in 68.
Moi: You state this as though it has any relevance to the man's views.
Peter Jukes: It has complete relevance to his power within Government and Party.
Conclusion: It does indeed have relevance to his power within Government and Party, but it has no relevance to what we were discussing.
Hilarious!
If Cameron really, really believed in what he said he's abolish the CBI and enforce voting for middle management. But he won't do that because that's where his chums are and where the dirty money is coming from. What's next? Zero taxation for the City of London and principality status for his drinking buddies?
It's lurid. It's shocking. It's Attack of the 50 IQ Man..
There already is voting for middle management, by proxy, in that shareholders vote on top management and then they get to choose who works for them. Somehow I get the feeling you didn't have shareholders' rights in mind when you advocated "voting for middle management". I could do with a laugh, who do you think should vote for middle management?
"Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party's policy: the encouragement of re-emigration. Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent. Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted."
He wasn't just calling for an end to immigration, he was advocating banana boats.
I agree with others, though, that it's going far too far to interpret any words of praise at all for Powell as backing for, or association with, that speech. It's impossible to come up with parallels - none are truly parallel to Powell's case - but I don't see praise for Nye Bevan, for instance, as meaning you think Tories are "lower than vermin". Different case, Bevan's remark weighing much less heavily on his career than Powell's longer and more deliberate speech - but still.
I don't think this sort of "shock horror" argument succeeds, either: people soon realise Hannan said nothing about immigration and think lower of us for implying he did.
Having said that, Hannan must have known there was an element of dog whistle in what he says. Though I won't condemn him on this issue, I'll suspend judgement, and watch like a hawk for further utterances on this subject: too important to left unexplored.
Very true.
Going round and trying to stifle debate by labelling or insinuating people as racist isn't going to win Labour any friends. Especially when Hannan wrote in 2007 that he disagreed with Powell's view of immigration.
Intellectually Enoch Powell was a titan while Hannan is a dwarf. And let's not forget that Powell endorsed the Labour Party at Shipley on 25 February 1974, advocating that as many citizens as possible vote Labour in the coming election!
I am astonished that so many Tory Trolls have crawled out of the woodwork to rant, rage and support Dan "Loose Cannon" Hannan while totally ignoring the damage he has done to their elected leader Dave "Age of Austerity" Cameron. Lamentable really. I do so wish that Labour List could attract a better class of Tory Jeremiah.
I always thought Dan "The Saboteur" Hannan was just a loud-mouthed self-promoting balding Dr. Nobody, when in fact, according to you, he's actually more like the Bond villain Dr. No!
Just goes to show you!
All in all very disappointing.
Tory Trolls are such pushovers there isn't much sport in baiting them or refuting their repetitiously similar and invalid tiresome arguments.
Can I appeal to any Tory Trolls (who might be literate enough to read these words) to pull their socks up and try to do better.
Thank you.
Say guys - what do you say about Nye Bevan being a huge supporter of the mass murderer, Josef Stalin?
Powell's "river of blood" speeches, sadly - thanks to your idiot government - may well come to be fact.
Also, I find it interesting that whilst the Conservatives are prepared to allow a lot of differing views and ideas rattle about, Labour stamp on any deviation from the message.
May I suggest you research Powell? You will find that he was not a racist man but staunch anti immigration. The speach re played what a constituent had told him were his concerns.
What Powell had in spades was integrity. Compare that to our front bench.
The alternative is to let Tory hypocrisy introduce or make worse the very fears people are concerned about. Some in Labour have wobbled. Some are resigned. But, some are more in a quasi-acceptance mode. Calm is exactly the place to be and the launchpad for a more robust campaign that takes the fight to the Tories.
Hannan is winning the argument only because we fail to table good responses. Far from lauding him as a secret weapon against the Tories, he is becoming the person to fear most by the Labour party.
We have had one reasoned article opposing Hannan's piece on the NHS and that's all.
The Labour party is giving the impression that they are no more than a bunch of fifth formers engaging their opponents with slurs and with little or no philosophy behind their movement.
We really do have to snap out of it if we are to be seen as a serious force in the future, and stop apeing the foolish behaviour of those in the New Labour camp
For what it’s worth, I think Enoch Powell was wrong on immigration. The civil unrest that he forecast, and that many feared in 1968, didn’t materialise. Britain assimilated a large population with an ease that few countries have matched. Being an immigrant myself, I have particular cause to be grateful for Britain’s understated cosmopolitanism. To be sure, inward migration should be controlled: we want a rough sense of whom we are admitting and in what numbers; and (in large part because of Europe) we are losing that sense. But a measure of legal settlement can benefit a country.
Hannan's blog - penultimate paragraph.
Just when you think LL might have learnt its lesson about smearing people.
If it's the former, I'm much happier.
Incredible.
Nice try, Mike, with the 'reform' healthcare tweak. But Hannan thinks the NHS is 'Marxist' and a '60 year mistake. He wants government out of healthcare.
At first, I thought you were being disingenuous. But no, you're trying to be sly. To make the point so clear even you can't miss it.
Minimal government, obsessions with national sovereignty, and complaints about a cosmopolitan mix of people in the the UK are staples among many on the right wing. Didn't you notice that? Enoch Powell himself being a case in point (though I think he was more an Imperialist than racist).
You want me to provide the links to references to EU, the State and the dangers of Muslim overrunning our cities? Plenty available even here on a Labour blog. God knows what they must be like on your GF.
If Hannan isn't avowing all three, all credit to him, but your defensive tone makes me wonder...
Who made you a moral judge of someone's character? Do you have a divine or institutional right to sit and decide of the behalf of others who is right or wrong?
No. You are just a member of the public.
That big-headed, inflated ego arrogance; it's like a big red neon sign and you see it coming long before you get to the predictable punchline.
If you are so convinced and your evidence is so incontravertible you are better than every print and media journalist in the country and abroad.
So do it, go on, double, triple dare you. You rely on intimidation and threats, you rely on insults and smears to bully people into silence.
He has political views that disagree with yours.. whoop-de-do-dee-doo. I have political views that differ with yours... rope up the scaffold.
Your vote is the same as mine, in the grand scheme of things, we are grains of sand on a beach.
Problem is, your narcissism doesn't let you accept that.
And the way things are panning out, your political views are going to be like last year's must have fashion. It's going to take many years before "it'll come round again."
Project much, Mike? Hysterical - in both senses of the word.
If buried in that outpouring was a challenge to find a post which combines nationalism, xenophobia and libertarianism... just check on the first Wire or last BNP diary. All over the place. Case closed.
I find your eagerness to cast around the innuendo of racism morally repugnant, in fact, as repugnant as the racists themselves; it is the act of the morally and intellectual bankrupt. A 21st century Thought Crime.
The zenith of hubristic behaviour amongst supporters of the political left.
Of course it is. All those broken bones, terrified children, racial attacks, all those millions lying in mass graves, and you find someone who dislikes Enoch Powell - or notes the combination of xenophobia and libertarianism in comments on a blog - just as bad.
How about that for a moral somersault. Jujutsu!
(PS - you should have used 'nadir' not 'zenith')
Has anyone seen Parmjit Dhanda's absolute and blatant lie about Hannan's comments? http://short.ie/ej9t05
Powell was widely viewed as a brilliant thinker and politician, other than his views on immigration. Hanna was quite clearly talking about his views on monetarism and small government.
To quote from a comment on playpolitical.com:
"...little like like praising Churchill's leadership during the war and glossing over his shocking viewes on race and immigration...Or a little like praising George Washington's bravery in leading the continental army to victory during the american revolutionary war and glossing over the fact that he was a slave owner..."
Mind you, this from the same party who thought Ian Duncan Smith was a fabulous leader, and David Willetts the biggest brain in Britain. And Michael Gove the new Orwell.
The American revolution was not about slavery, although slavery was the ultimate context. It was mostly to do with power.
THe fact is that Powell was being incidiary. You can't can't belittle what he said in that speech, what you can do is refuse to allow it to cloud the reputation of the man as a whole.
According to Powell, who was regarded by many as a man of integrity, the speech was given in response to comments made to him by a constituent. The 'whip hand' part was him quoting that constituent, so you are right Alex that Powell said it but the way you have presented the information does not make that clear.
Similarly,the quotation you attribute to Powell is a collection of the words he used but you will not find that passage in the speech, and are inconsistent with your .....'s. Poor scolarship, Alex.
Thirdly, according to your bête noire Order-Order [Fawkes] Hannan made his Powell remarks before the NHS remarks; they have just emerged in this order.
Fourthly Dan. Julius Caesar it was not.
I am now going to take my aged parents shopping, and will return to answer all charges later, fortified by coffee and a doughnut.
If you're suggesting that he responded to a constituent spontaneously, you should recall that he tipped off his local newspaper that he planned to make the speech. It was planned and calculated.
It would be sensible to assume the speech was planned and calculated, this is the default position after all, and who has ever suggested otherwise?
Have you read the speech, Dan? The overriding impression that I get from having done so is that Powell was a man of high principle. He was of course the epitome of 'old school' and 'empire', and his use of he word 'piccaninees', whilst so offensive today that it doesn't appear in my spell checker, would, I suspect, have appealed to him as the proper word to use in the circumstances. If you take the trouble to learn a little about him, you may appreciate him for the brilliant and principled man that he was. This is not to be taken as an assertion by me that he was right, or that all his ideas were helpful, other than in the context of all ideas being helpful as part of an intelligent debate.
This posthumous rehabilitation of Powell is indicative of the true feelings of those on the Right. Powell should be remembered for what he was - the man who did a considerable amount to stir up racial hatred, and someone whose death certainly didn't mourn. I wish that more had told the truth then - that we were well rid of this unpleasant little worm
"I see wars, horrible wars ; and the Tiber foaming with much blood" (vi.86)
Trying to drag Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech, which was misquoted anyway is like dragging in the more juvenile rantings of messrs Blair, Brown and Prescott. The reference to Powell was in passing when asked about how he viewed a number of political figures of thepast.
Just for information this interview was given over a month ago, before his NHS speech.
PHSLTL + PATADH = PC
People Have Stopped Listening To Labour + People Are Talking About Daniel Hannan = Political Change
LDLC + PR = LP
Labour Don't Like Change + Poll Ratings = Labour Panic
LA / (F+GB) = HC
Labour Are / (Fear + Gordon Brown) = Headless Chickens
LHEPFN + LRTDEASJOS = LPIR
Labour Have Extrapolated Hannan's Plans For NHS + Labour Realise They Deliver Equality And Social Justice On Steriods = Labour Party Is Redundant
LAHON + ARS = MS
Labour Attack Hannan On NHS + Attempt Racist Smear = More Smeargate
PSNLTL - POV = LD
Public Still Not Listening To Labour - Policies Or Vision = Labour Defeat
Work it out for yourselves: http://order-order.com/2009/08/26/hannan-labour-try-again/
Presumably most Labour Party supporters would agree that this was a good idea?
If so, I think it goes to show that there were aspects of Powell's character beyond one speech in 1968, the contents of which offended many.
Powell and his mates advocated markets and monetorism and were not dismissed intellectually, but because of the fear of the stress upon the country of the transition was thought to be too great to make the policies possible.
20 or 30 years later Thatcher did implement those policies. And some of us remember the stress of the transition. Is this because the Winter of Discontent gave her the mandate or because of North Sea Oil giving her the resources? Or was it mixture of the both?
However, I would also say the creation of a plan in the form of "stepping stones" was crucial. The document was drawn up by the institute of economic affairs that identified which levers had to be pulled and the political and economic consequences of doing so.
Without stepping stones I think it would have been much harder for the politicians to hold their nerve. Remember, Heath won an election on a manifesto more Thatcherite than Mrs T's. But when unemployment "soared" to 600,000 he bottled it and printed money.
Heath is a great what if leader. He was instrumental in removing the price controls mechanism is the 1960's and wanted to enact monaterist policies. However, in the end he suceeded only in privitising Thomas Cook the travel agents.
But, really, in the end it came down to personality. Thatcher had an iron will compared to the weak Establishment 'One Nation Tory' types who had preceded her and her beliefs were very different from them.
Its the same with Blair and Brown. Why did Labour squander all their chances? In 1997 Labour had the best opportunity any government has ever had of transforming the public services, welfare and so on. A great economy, huge parlimentary majority and enormous public goodwill.
It was theirs for the taking. But the fact that such a chance was missed is mostly due to the personal weaknesses of those two men who always put their own careers before principle and never had the courage of their convictions.
He cites other influences of Ron Paul, Hayek and Friedman.
Alex, it is incredibly disingenuous to associate Hannan with 'Rivers of Blood'.
You have also misquoted an informal quote.
The full quote is given on Liberal Conspiracy : CCHQ is not going to comment formally, but sources say that Dan’s remarks clearly refer (as I pointed out above) to Powell’s views on non-immigration issues. If he had explicitly praised Powell on race or immigration, David Cameron would have had a different response, I’m told.
Powell was a visionary on many things and certainly ahead of his time. I certainly concur with Ricardo's Ghost view; he was a champion of many good causes despite one very controversial speech.
Is there nothing else to talk about?
Know thine enemy.
I look in on Hannan's blog quite frequently as it is eloquently written and he is an excellent advocate of political prose. Today, I read his eulogy of Ted Kennedy. I admit after reading Seymour Hersh's book on 'Camelot'; I am less than amoured regarding the clan Kennedy.
Hannan's writing is the best eulogy I have seen so far, too many were gushing and mawkish and also were keen to gloss over substantial flaws. Yet it was a very complimentary piece from across the political divide and permitted myself to create a better appreciation for a politician I really didn't like.
Watch the interview above; Hannan's choice of words makes him very engaging and accessible. When Labour struggle to get their voice heard such eloquence is a very potent thing indeed.
As a result, it's also borderline moronic to try and misquote him.
You know that there was a hell of a lot more to him than the awful "Rivers of Blood" speech?
He was the youngest University Professor in the Commonwealth at 25 (Greek at Sydney),
youngest Brigadier in the Army in 1945 (having joined as a Private 5 years earlier),
was a fierce anti-Imperialist,
was anti-American,
was a monetarist in the 1950s,
began mental health reforms when a Health Minister (the first to do so),
was an advocate of privatisation and free markets in the 1960s,
co-sponsored a bill of legalise homosexuality in 1965,
was an outspoken opponent of Ian Paisley when an Ulster Unionist in the 1970s,
defender of civil liberties against the Prevention of Terrorism Act,
favoured nuclear disarmament in the 1980s,
spoke 12 languages including Hebrew and Urdu,
and worked on translating the Bible once he retired from politics.
Alas, all that is forgotten, and people prefer to role out choice extracts of the 'Rivers of Blood' speech as if it is all he stood for.
PS: I thought Hannan was pretty clear on what it was about Powell he admired - namely his advocacy of small government and free markets.
It's funny how someone so brilliant can be overshadowed by one mistake, although I do think it was a big and very stupid mistake. I think because "rivers of blood" is such a pithy and dramtaic way of remembering his speech. He didn't say that; he quoted Julius Cesear refering to the River Tiber, whatever the actual quote was.
However, I think you need to acknowledge just how potentially volotile his call was. If people had responded, would it have resulted in violent ethnic cleansing etc. What amazes me about Powell is that he didn't seem to care to much. "Every career ends in failure" reminds me of the Iraqis following regime change when they used to say "It is written", as if they reconciled to their own death.
Very sad waste of a brilliant man.
Guido seems to think that Hannon is more liberal on immigration than the government. I suppose the problem is Powell is only ever remembered for the Rivers of Blood speech, so whenever another politician speaks positively about him, they they are branded as anti-immigration.
I disagree with Dan, below. I think that Hannon has plenty of ambition and is building a long term image for himself. Sort of like a high-brow Vince Cable. If Hannon is not in the cabinet in 5 years time, I will be astonished.
But he didn't mention Enoch Powell AFTER the 'storm' following his NHS comments.
Both were made months ago. The NHS Fox interview was made in March I believe, and this interview was made a month ago before the (already old) NHS interview was...publicised shall we say?
By all means challenge the man on his views, but at the same time recognise when you are being carefully fed your media lunch, during the summer recess, by clever media manipulators.
Or do you think that some journalist was spending time researching an obscure MEP's past comments and found these on his own?
Wasn't this the man who served in WWII and rose from the rank of Private to Brigadier (the youngest in the Empire)?
Wasn't this the same man who stood up in the House of Commons to defend the rights of a group of black men murdered by the British Army? Dennis Healey called it the greatest speech he ever heard in the House of Commons IIRC.
Wasn't this also the same man who as Health Secretary began the policy of bringing in overseas migrants to work in the NHS? Didn't he also tell the National Front to kindly f*** off when they offered him a job?
And in some ways, bits of that horrid speech have come true. There are places which the Police have said are no go zones for white people. I know as well as you do the majority of immigrants are decent people just trying to make their way in life but by letting so many people in, the small minority who do cause problems have tarred them all with the same brush. A BNP bigot isn't going to make a distinction between a A grade student who's Asian and a Black man who was involved in a mugging. To him both are immigrants.
If we'd kept some sort of control on immigration then Enoch might have been proven truly wrong. Now we live in a country where the BNP (Ok so they might get delisted due to dodgy accounts) are taking hold and all Muslims and such are listed as "evil".
And there are a lot of people who like Enoch Powell. Sadly some of them like him soley because of "that" speech and not his other achivements. This isn't going to backfire like you want it. And if people bother to watch the speech and then do some research, they'll find Enoch really was a defender of our parliamentary democracy as Hannan said he was.
Rather than slagging Hannan off, why don't you help us reclaim Enoch from the closet National Socialists of the BNP? Hell the man was good friends with Benn & Foot!
I doubt that if you were to praise Gladstone that the BBC and Conservatives would jump on this and take it as evidence of Labour being against the abolition of slavery.
But once again from Labour we get hysterics.
The Labour Party currently behaves like the American Repulicans, avoiding debate and reason and constantly seeking to shout down opponents. A major reason why the Labour Party is currently unelectable.
He said that country was being swept away and he was quite correct that it was being swept away, and it has been swept away.
Look around you - this is not Enochs Britain, this is (for better or worse) a different Britain.
Arguing for/against Powell is like arguing for/against King Harold/William the Conqueror - William didn't invade 'us' he invaded Harolds' England, we are the progeny of the events and only vanity/ignorance would make one think they were on one 'side' or another.
Ignorant, pavlovian, reflex reactions to words like 'fox hunting', 'nhs', 'enoch powell', 'maggie' have been core the labour 'faith' - isn't it time labour (and all politicians) grew up and addressed issues openly and honestly rather than taking pride in their tribes bull headed denial of reality.
Blair on Faith -- surely every one want to distance themselves from that idiots rantings?
I agree that most British people at the time would have thoroughly agreed with him, but I don't think you can dismiss his speech as just a speech. It was extremely dangerous.
But they still weren't asked and it still changed, so his message didn't have the impact he wanted.
However, having seen that the character of the country was changed (for better or worse) without the people being asked, his basic message is just as relevant now as it was then.
At that time it was immigration, now it is governance from EU.
Soon continental europeans will have the whip-hand over the british...
Go on, tell me know how the EU is like the USSR, or like Hitler (as one of your fellow right wingers put it) intent on another Holocaust.
Bat-s**t crazy stuff like that makes my day. Such prophecies belong in the Rivers of Blood category of epic fail.
Nearly every Tory here has, through the NHS debate, revealed that whatever metric you use, any evidence you deploy to refute their assertions, they claim the NHS is broken, is not world class, and therefore display their hatred for it. Why? Because it represents universality, and the fairness they ultimately despise.
As for economics, we don't need to know where Hannan is headed. All the way to the deregulated success of another Island (no, not Singapore).
They understand that there is a connection between living in an independent state and living independently from the state. They have no more desire to submit to international than to national regulation. That attitude has made them the happiest, freest and wealthiest people on earth. Long may they remain so.
Which Island is this? Iceland.
Just like Enoch Powell, Hannan has a way with prophecy. And now we have Hannan's prescriptions on race. No wonder he called the Icelanders "Blue Eyed Sheiks". Beneath that veneer of economic libertarianism is a thin-lipped nasty kind of authoritarian nationalism, like many (though by no means all) EU haters.
Hannan's the enemy to be sure, and the Cameron mask has been ripped from the real unacceptable face of Modern Conservatism.
This isn't Tory bashing. It's a wake up call to the mainstream, including many One Nation Tories.
You appear to lack even the most basic comprehension skills.
The NHS is not world class... pick any indicator on WHOSIS and the UK is not listed in the Top 5.
And this today from the Patients Association, 1 million patients over the last 6 years have received 'cruel and neglectful' care.
It is just not good enough and the voters now understand that; voters trust the Tories more than Labour to run the NHS.
I want a Swedish healthcare model spending 0.2% GDP more on healthcare than presently and a system every bit as good because right now we have an NHS where the largest employee sector is the administrative function and the outcomes are not as good as our international peers. I also believe in the equality of treatment of all.
My frustration is for those that can see no evil, no complacency and are happy with a mediocre service to atone for the failures of policy. Fine. I don't want pregnant mum giving birth in hospital corridor or soiled pensioners lying in their soiled bed unable to get help for hours at a time. I don't want tens of thousands of people dying from infections caught in hospital.
Still, if it gives you a warm feeling inside that the NHS is a world-class institution when it is patently not; go ahead.
How many messengers are you going to shoot?
As for Hannan's views, he puts forward a cogent and reasonable argument on his set of political beliefs. I disagree with some like healthcare but I agree with him on others. The old adage is true, Tories seek to form partnerships and recruit; Labour seek to find someone to blame.
Blame it is, isn't it? I am not misrepresenting his views on race Peter for the sake of winning an argument. Hannan said in 2007 that Powell was wrong on immigration and if you bothered to check, Hannan is a immigrant to Britain and I agree; Enoch was wrong.
Every available study of the effectiveness of the NHS, from 2000-2007, puts it in the top 5 to 10% of healthcare systems in the world. That's right between 10th and 20th out 194 countries; and of the large industrialised countries in the top five.
Now I don't know what your definition of world class is, but to be in the top 5 to 10 per cent easily fits mine. Why? In virtually any other description, football qualification, graduate degrees, industrial performance, world class or premier league or first class would include the top 20% of any given statistic.
You may argue with that, and make your definition of 'world class' the top 5%, but all you're doing is denigrating the NHS for political reasons: you want it privatised in an insurance model, like Hannan's, following Singapore. If you're arguing we should be more like Germany or France, in which the state pays more per capita than in the UK, then I might agree with you: though given the spend and performance, the NHS actually gets very good bang for its bucks. It could be better, but this constant attempt to do it down is unseemly, uncharitable, and - I would argue - inaccurate.
As for praising Powell, as I said above, I more than happy if Hannan distances himself from the Powell view of race. If he celebrates our Island's long history of migration, it's ethnic diversity (which goes back two millennia) and its cosmopolitan ethic which makes it open to world, and looking outward economically and culturally... great.
That's my hope. But given my experience of the kinds of spin you use, I'm not going to take your word for it, and I await more information from Hannan himself.
Really; list one... a global study so we can see if the NHS is World Class.
Just one, a global one. WHOSIS is an annual global study from the World Health Organisation . You know THE United Nations and world's most eminent authority on health matters and healthcare. This is not my mate Bert with a Rolladex and a few inky smudged A4 ring binders.
So please list another one.
Incidentally, with so many countries, World Class means Top 5 not Top 5%.
Not that it matters because the NHS is not in either category at present.
Hannan distanced himself from Powell's ideal of race and immigration in 2007 and he doesn't have to repudiate himself at the whim to a baying pack of lefty smear-meisters.
Anyway, I'm glad you give me an opportunity to repeat this information in a new thread, because it counters your rhetoric and paucity of data.
For starters, I dispute your world class definition as the top 2.5% of healthcare systems. It's an arbitrary measure you've made your own. As for the data, the WHO no longer provide rankings. In 2000 when last they did (covering the Tory years) I have two sources that say they placed the UK 10th. You have one which says a revision placed us 18th.
No WHO rankings since 2000 so. Some more recent information.
An independent American healthcare foundation called the Commonwealth Fund did its own survey of the healthcare systems in six major industrialised countries (not small Islands, Asian entrepots or Arab Sheikdoms). It ranked these six countries according to various indicators: quality, access, efficiency, equity, healthy lives, and per capita health expenditure.
To build the tension, I will give you the results in reverse order
In 2007, the league table is...
6th: The US
5th: Canada
3rd: Australia and New Zealand tied
2nd: Germany
and wait for it...
1st: The United Kingdom.
So Null points I'm afraid Michael. You have an opinion, but you data mining hasn't given us any proper comparison across a range of indicators, and is 10 years out of date by your own admission.
I'm off to celebrate my daughter's GCSE results. But no doubt we will continue slugging this out for a while to come. I'm happy. The more publicity the attitude that you and Hannan have towards the NHS is known, the less likely it is that you will get a chance to dismantle of one of our great institutions.
Have a great evening. And perhaps stay off the hard stuff tonight.
On cancer, commutable disease, non-commutable disease, infant mortality, adult mortality (ages 15 to 60), cardiac diseases... according to WHO; the NHS doesn't make the Top 15.
But please carry on with this flailing defense of Hannan, because it suits my purposes more than you realise.
How utterly depressing that you view anyone who disagrees with you on the NHS in those terms. I have no particular feeling for the NHS, perhaps because I have never had any sort of contact with it. But, it is as plain as a pike staff that the NHS is broken, over regulated, inefficient and clearly not world class. No matter how great it has been in a particular case, it kills 30,000 per annum. That is neither world class nor acceptable.
Why is the NHS some sacred cow that must not be criticized. Have we forgotten the various scandals already?
Do you really believe this? Do you really believe that not thinking the NHS in its current form is 'word class' is the same as hating it?
Really?
I mean...really?
You can, rightly or wrongly, be a libertarian while not being a racist. I didn't hear Hannan saying that he was inspired by Powell's "rivers of blood" speech, but by his views on sovereignty and small government.
But thanks to further illumination, where Hannan has distanced himself from Powell's views on race, I'm happy to hear that you're right.
Thanks for acknowledging that.
I fear that Alex Smith has a tendency to shoot from the hip. Easy enough for visitors to this site, but do wonder whether those who write the main pieces should be a bit more careful.
cameron is going to be slaughtered at his conference.
slaughter being code for "slice 'n dice". do you think Brown will call the election for Oct - given that all is rosy and .
What drives you pj?
For the party, I think the debate about the future is already happening, and the current status quo is just delaying a change of leadership, personnel, and policies
Personally (and I've talked to GB on several occasions in the past) I think he deserves another life after 20 years of hard remorseless politics.
Of course, none of what I say will make a jot of difference. But that's what drives me.
oct election with no brown to lead. isn't life wonderful.
Has he been on Bill O'Rielley yet?
If he gets a job after leaving #10 it will be solely based on the contacts and information he benefited from as a minister -- so all income generated should belong to the UK, not to Brown personally. It will be time for him to repay what he has scrounged off the state, so his supporters can take their turn in scrounging as he did. How does he know how to scrounge off the state? He wrote the book!
actually he is a crisis manager. without that he is nowt. but he is on the verge of reaching his sell by date.....in this mode.
I expect him to go global (world bank/whatever) and deal with global poverty - his true passion.
after that expect him to become rich......given that he has a fundamental fear of the very rich. in my view.
Party conference time should be fun though, what with the Irish referndum coinciding with the Tory gathering in Manchester.
Speaking of which, I wonder if any of the Moss Side residents will be going along to have a 'word' with Chris '21st century clip round the ear' Grayling.
If we're not all re-upping our corners by then.
The way I see it, the public are giving Cameron a chance and so he gets the benefit of the doubt on things like Hannan. An informed guess says he has less than a year after winning an election before that goodwill goes away.
---cameron is not one. He will not sell his granny. The question of th naff side of devolution (bring the country into disrepute abroad - see Lockerbie)...our naff economic model (see the french and german ones) ...and us being dumped by Obama in favour of the chinese cannot be ignored.
add to the mix how pro europe scotland is. how keen the French and German are to have us....
are we about to see the end of devolution.
are we about to see the end of the isolationist Brits.
The elephant in the room is indeed Europe.
Things are going to move very quickly when China and the US choose to sideline Europe unless the Brits get their act together - and speak with their European brethrens with one voice.
Think of us (the Brits, the whole world) as being at the tail end of musical chairs. The music will stop by the start of November and we will all be stting in new chairs..........feeling awfully refreshed and as if we (i.e scoiety) has been reborn.
The last time everyone (i.e every single country in the world) moved into a different chair I suppose was when the period of idealism started with the start of world war one.
Being brutally honest, it's seems to me that it's getting close to impossible for Labour politicians to score any significant hits on the opposition regardless of what they do. As Alastair Campbell would say, the narrative is all in one direction right now.
the only exception being the hole in how society's moral centre is going to be fixed. I see this as a parabolic curve. Society is going uphill at present. Hannan at the Tory party conference and more importantly ken clark and chris patten will be of significance. the issue has not gone away....a fuse has been lit.
Strange when you think he was the man who masterminded the '92 campaign which every man and his dog said the Tories were going to lose.
Off thread, but I have some sad news about Osborne. It's only from a couple of sources (journalistic) but they say Osborne is actually quite a nice guy, while Cameron is much more likely to blow a gasket, and give his staff the Ferguson 'hair dryer'.
Sorry to be the bearer of annoying news.
PJ - can you just remind me of how long tory most MEPs have been in post? I am interested to know which wet tory MEPs have been replaced by dry ones...
You wouldn't let facts get in the way of your faith would you?
I've also come across a few pieces that say Cameron isn't as cool as popular opinion would have it. One in The Times recently which was also notable for him not being able to remember how many houses he owned or when he had ever met any of the working classes as a child.
Osborne is a bit of a puzzle to me. I can't connect the chippy, stuck up, born to rule twat I see on TV with the accounts from people who know him of him being a decent bloke. Maybe it's a Brown thing where he just can't do tv too well. Wonder if he'll take one for the team and become Cameron's chief of staff / election co-ordinator and let Hammond be Chancellor? It's a popular idea in some Tory circles.
As I said on the other thread, any man who has seen Lily Allen's breasts can't be all bad (thought she was on our side though).
You'll have to narrow it down a bit Louis, that could be anyone from the tories or Labour.