Enoch Powell: Wikis

  
  

Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles.

Encyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brigadier The Right Honourable 
Enoch Powell
 
MBE


In office
27 July 1960 – 18 October 1963
Prime Minister Harold Macmillan
Preceded by Derek Walker-Smith
Succeeded by Anthony Barber

In office
1957–1958
Prime Minister Harold Macmillan
Preceded by Henry Brooke
Succeeded by Jack Simon

Member of Parliament
for South Down
In office
10 October 1974 – 11 June 1987
Preceded by Lawrence Orr
Succeeded by Eddie McGrady

Member of Parliament
for Wolverhampton South West
In office
23 February 1950 – 28 February 1974
Preceded by New Constituency
Succeeded by Nicholas Budgen

Born 16 June 1912 (1912-06-16)
Birmingham, England
Died 8 February 1998 (1998-02-09) (aged 85)
London, England
Nationality British
Political party Conservative (1950–1974)
Ulster Unionist (1974–1987)
Religion Anglican

John Enoch Powell, MBE (16 June 1912 – 8 February 1998) was a British politician, linguist, writer, academic, soldier and poet.

He was a Conservative Party Member of Parliament (MP) between 1950 and February 1974, and an Ulster Unionist MP between October 1974 and 1987. He was controversial through most of his career, and his tenure in senior office was brief. He had strong and distinctive views on matters such as immigration, national identity, monetary policy, and the United Kingdom's entry into the European Economic Community, which later became the European Union. He was dismissed from the Shadow Cabinet for his controversial and widely remembered 1968 "Rivers of Blood" speech in opposition to mass Commonwealth immigration to Britain.

Contents

Life

Early life and work

Early years and education

Enoch Powell was born in Stechford, Birmingham, England. He lived there for the first six years of his life before moving, in 1918, to Kings Norton, where he lived until 1930. He was the only child of Albert Enoch Powell (1872–1956), primary school headmaster, and his wife, Ellen Mary (1886–1953). Ellen was the daughter of Henry Breese, a Liverpool policeman and his wife Eliza, who had given up her own teaching career after marrying. The Powells were of Welsh descent, having moved to the developing Black Country during the early 19th century. His great-grandfather was a coal miner, and his grandfather had been employed in the iron trade.[1]

Powell was a pupil at Kings Norton Boys' School before moving to King Edward's School, Birmingham, where he studied classics (which would later influence his 'Rivers of Blood' speech), and was one of the few pupils in the school's history to attain 100% in an end-of-year English examination. He studied at Trinity College, Cambridge, from 1930 to 1933, during which time he fell under the influence both of the poet A. E. Housman, then Professor of Latin at the university, and of the writings of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. He took no part in politics at university.

It was while at Cambridge that Powell is recorded as having enjoyed one of his first close relationships.[2] Indeed, according to John Evans, Chaplain of Trinity and Extra Preacher to the Queen,[3] instructions were left with him to reveal after Powell's death that at least one of the romantic affairs of his life had been homosexual. Powell had particularly drawn the Chaplain's attention to lines in his First Poems (published 1937). Biographers such as Simon Heffer dispute this however, and have argued that this did not mean that he was homosexual; merely that he had not yet met any girls.[4]

Whilst at University, in one Greek prose examination lasting three hours, he was asked to translate a passage into Greek. Powell walked out after one and a half hours, having produced translations in the styles of Plato and Thucydides. For his efforts, he was awarded a double starred first in Latin and Greek, this grade being the best possible and extremely rare. As well as his education at Cambridge, Powell took a course in Urdu at the School of Oriental Studies, now the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, because he felt that his long-cherished ambition of becoming Viceroy of India would be unattainable without knowledge of an Indian language.[4]

Pre-war career

After graduating from Cambridge, Powell stayed on at Trinity College as a Fellow, spending much of his time studying ancient manuscripts in Rome and producing academic works in Greek and Welsh.[5][6] In 1937 he was appointed Professor of Greek at Sydney University aged 25 (failing in his aim of beating Nietzsche's record of becoming a professor at 24). Amongst his pupils was the future Prime Minister of Australia Gough Whitlam. He revised Stuart-Jones's edition of Thucydides' Historiae for the Oxford University Press in 1938, and his most lasting contribution to classical scholarship was his Lexicon to Herodotus, published the same year.

Soon after arrival in Sydney, Australia he was appointed Curator of the Nicholson Museum at Sydney University. He stunned the vice-chancellor by informing him that war would soon begin in Europe, and that when it did he would be heading home to enlist in the army.[7] By the time Powell left King Edward's School in 1930 he had confirmed his instinctive belief that the Armistice was merely temporary and that Britain would be at war with Germany again.[8] During his time in Australia as a professor, he grew increasingly angry at the appeasement of Nazi Germany and what he saw as a betrayal of British national interests. After Neville Chamberlain's first visit to Adolf Hitler at Berchtesgaden Powell wrote in a letter to his parents of 18 September 1938:

I do here in the most solemn and bitter manner curse the Prime Minister of England [sic] for having cumulated all his other betrayals of the national interest and honour, by his last terrible exhibition of dishonour, weakness and gullibility. The depths of infamy to which our accurst "love of peace" can lower us are unfathomable.[9]

In another letter to his parents in June 1939, before the beginning of war, Powell wrote: "It is the English, not their Government; for if they were not blind cowards, they would lynch Chamberlain and Halifax and all the other smarmy traitors".[10] At the outbreak of war, Powell immediately returned to Britain, although not before buying a Russian dictionary, since he thought "Russia would hold the key to our survival and victory, as it had in 1812 and 1916".[11]

War years

During October 1939, almost a month after returning home, Powell enlisted in the Royal Warwickshire Regiment as an Australian. During later years he recorded his appointment from private to lance-corporal in his Who's Who entry, on other occasions describing it as a greater promotion than entering the Cabinet. He was trained for a commission after, whilst working in a kitchen, answering the question of an inspecting officer with a Greek proverb. He was commissioned on the General List in 1940, but almost immediately transferred to the Intelligence Corps. During October 1941, as a Lieutenant, Powell was posted to Cairo and transferred back to the Royal Warwickshire Regiment. He was soon promoted to the rank of Major. He helped plan the attack on Rommel's supply lines, as well as the Battle of El Alamein, and was promoted to Lieutenant-Colonel in August 1942. The following year, he was honoured as a member of the Order of the British Empire for his military service.

In August 1943, Powell was posted to Delhi. Though he had served in Africa with the Desert Rats, Powell himself never actually experienced combat, serving for most of his military career as a staff officer. It was in Algiers that the beginning of Powell's dislike of the United States was planted. After talking with some senior American officials, he became convinced that one of America's main war aims was to destroy the British Empire. Writing home on February 16, 1943, Powell stated: "I see growing on the horizon the greater peril than Germany or Japan ever were... our terrible enemy, America...."[12] Powell's conviction of the anti-British attitude of the Americans continued during the war. Powell cut out and retained all his life an article from the New Statesman newspaper of 13 November 1943, in which the American Clare Boothe Luce said in a speech that Indian independence would mean that the "USA will really have won the greatest war in the world for democracy".[13]

Powell desperately wanted to go to the Far East to help the fight against Japan because "the war in Europe is won now, and I want to see the Union Flag back in Singapore" before, Powell thought, the Americans beat Britain to it.[14] He attempted to join the Chindits, and jumped into a taxicab to bring the matter up with Orde Wingate,[15] but his duties and rank precluded the assignment.

Having begun the war as the youngest professor in the Commonwealth, Powell ended it as the youngest Brigadier in the British army, one of the very few men of the entire war to rise from Private to Brigadier (another being Fitzroy Maclean). Powell felt guilty for having survived when many of those he had met during his journey through the ranks had not. When once asked how he would like to be remembered, he at first answered "Others will remember me as they will remember me", but when pressed he replied "I should like to have been killed in the war."[16]

Political career

Joining the Conservative Party

Though he voted for the Labour Party in their 1945 landslide victory, because he wanted to punish the Conservative Party for the Munich agreement, after the war he joined the Conservatives and worked for the Conservative Research Department under R. A. Butler, where his colleagues included Iain Macleod and Reginald Maudling.[17]

Powell's ambition to be Governor-General of India crumbled in February 1947, when Prime Minister Clement Attlee announced that Indian independence was imminent. Powell was so shocked by the change of policy that he spent the whole night after it was announced walking the streets of London.[18] He came to terms with it by becoming fiercely anti-imperialist, believing that once India had gone the whole empire should follow it. This logical absolutism explained his later indifference to the Suez crisis, his contempt for the Commonwealth, and his urging that Britain should end any remaining pretence that it was a world power.

Election to Parliament

After unsuccessfully contesting the Labour Party's ultra-safe seat of Normanton at a by-election in 1947 (when the Labour majority was 62%),[19] he was elected as Member of Parliament (MP) for Wolverhampton South West in the 1950 general election.

First years as a Backbench MP

On 16 March 1950 Powell made his maiden speech.

On 3 March 1953 Powell spoke against the Royal Titles Bill in the House of Commons. He said he found three major changes to the style of the United Kingdom, "all of which seem to me to be evil". The first one was "that in this title, for the first time, will be recognised a principle hitherto never admitted in this country, namely, the divisibility of the crown". Powell said that the unity of the realm had evolved over centuries and included the British Empire: "It was a unit because it had one Sovereign. There was one Sovereign: one realm". He feared that by "recognising the division of the realm into separate realms, are we not opening the way for that other remaining unity – the last unity of all – that of the person, to go the way of the rest?"[20]

The second change he objected to was "the suppression of the word 'British', both from before the words 'Realms and Territories' where it is replaced by the words 'her other' and from before the word 'Commonwealth', which, in the Statute of Westminster, is described as the 'British Commonwealth of Nations'":

To say that he is Monarch of a certain territory and his other realms and territories is as good as to say that he is king of his kingdom. We have perpetrated a solecism in the title we are proposing to attach to our Sovereign and we have done so out of what might almost be called an abject desire to eliminate the expression 'British'. The same desire has been felt... to eliminate this word before the term 'Commonwealth'.... Why is it, then, that we are so anxious, in the description of our own Monarch, in a title for use in this country, to eliminate any reference to the seat, the focus and the origin of this vast aggregate of territories? Why is it that this 'teeming womb of royal Kings', as Shakespeare called it, wishes now to be anonymous?[21]

Powell claimed that the answer was that because the British Nationality Act 1948 had removed allegiance to the crown as the basis of citizenship and replaced that with nine separate citizenships combined together by statute. Therefore if any of these nine countries became republics the law would not change, as happened with India when it became a republic. Furthermore, Powell went on, the essence of unity was "that all the parts recognise they would sacrifice themselves to the interests of the whole". He denied that there was in India that "recognition of belonging to a greater whole which involves the ultimate consequence in certain circumstances of self-sacrifice in the interests of the whole". Therefore the title 'Head of the Commonwealth', the third major change, was "essentially a sham. They are essentially something which we have invented to blind ourselves to the reality of the position".[22]

These changes were "greatly repugnant" to Powell but:

... if they are changes which were demanded by those who in many wars had fought with this country, by nations who maintained an allegiance to the Crown, and who signified a desire to be in the future as were in the past; if it were our friends who had come to us and said: 'We want this,' I would say: 'Let it go. Let us admit the divisibility of the Crown. Let us sink into anonymity and cancel the word 'British' from our titles. If they like the conundrum 'Head of the Commonwealth' in the Royal style, let it be there'. However, the underlying evil of this is that we are doing it for the sake not of our friends but of those who are not our friends. We are doing this for the sake of those to whom the very names 'Britain' and 'British' are repugnant.... We are doing this for the sake of those who have deliberately cast off their allegiance to our common Monarchy.[23]

For the rest of his life Powell regarded this speech as the finest he ever delivered.[24][25]

Powell was a member of the Suez Group of MPs who were against the removal of British troops from the Suez Canal because such a move would demonstrate, Powell argued, that Britain could no longer maintain a position there and that any claim to the Suez Canal would therefore be illogical. However, after the troops had left in 1954 and the Egyptians nationalised the Canal in 1956, Powell opposed the British attempts to retake the Canal in the Suez War because he thought the British no longer had the resources to be a world power.[26]

Periods as a Minister

During December 1955 he was made a junior Housing Minister and later became Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but in January 1958 he resigned, along with the Chancellor of the Exchequer Peter Thorneycroft and his Treasury colleague Nigel Birch, in protest at government plans for increased expenditure; he was a staunch advocate of disinflation, or in modern terms a monetarist, and a believer in market forces.[27] (Powell was also a member of the Mont Pelerin Society.) The by-product of this expenditure was the printing of extra money to pay for it all, which Powell believed to be the cause of inflation, and in effect a form of taxation, as the holders of money find their money is worth less. Inflation rose to 2.5% - a high figure for the era, especially in peacetime.

During the late 1950s Powell promoted control of the money supply to prevent inflation and during the 1960s was an advocate of free market policies which at the time were seen as extreme and unworkable, as well as unpopular. Powell advocated the privatisation of the Post Office and the telephone network as early as 1964, over 20 years before the latter actually took place;[28] and he both scorned the idea of "consensus politics" and wanted the Conservative Party to become a modern businesslike party, freed from its old aristocratic and "old boy network" associations.[29] Perhaps most notably of all, in his 1958 resignation over public spending and what he saw as an inflationary economic policy, he anticipated almost exactly the views that during the 1980s came to be described as "monetarism".[30]

On 27 July 1959 Powell gave his speech on Hola Camp of Kenya, where eleven Mau Mau were killed after refusing work in the camp. Powell noted that some MPs had described the eleven as "sub-human" but Powell responded by saying: "In general, I would say that it is a fearful doctrine, which must recoil upon the heads of those who pronounce it, to stand in judgment on a fellow human being and to say, 'Because he was such-and-such, therefore the consequences which would otherwise flow from his death shall not flow'."[31] Powell also disagreed with the notion that because it was in Africa then different methods were acceptable:

Nor can we ourselves pick and choose where and in what parts of the world we shall use this or that kind of standard. We cannot say, 'We will have African standards in Africa, Asian standards in Asia and perhaps British standards here at home'. We have not that choice to make. We must be consistent with ourselves everywhere. All Government, all influence of man upon man, rests upon opinion. What we can do in Africa, where we still govern and where we no longer govern, depends upon the opinion which is entertained of the way in which this country acts and the way in which Englishmen act. We cannot, we dare not, in Africa of all places, fall below our own highest standards in the acceptance of responsibility.[32]

Denis Healey, MP from 1952 to 1992, later said this speech was "the greatest parliamentary speech I ever heard... it had all the moral passion and rhetorical force of Demosthenes".[33] The Daily Telegraph report of the speech said that "as Mr Powell sat down, he put his hand across his eyes. His emotion was justified, for he had made a great and sincere speech".[34]

Powell returned to the government in July 1960, when he was appointed Health Minister,[35] albeit outside the Cabinet, but this changed in 1962.[36] During a meeting with parents of babies that had been born with deformities caused by the drug thalidomide, he was unsympathetic to the victims, refusing to meet any babies deformed by the drug and saying that "anyone who took so much as an aspirin put himself at risk." Powell also refused to launch a public inquiry, resisted calls to issue a warning against any left-over thalidomide pills that might remain in people's medicine cabinets (as President Kennedy had done), and said "I hope you're not going to sue the Government ... No one can sue the Government."[37]

In this job he was responsible for promoting an ambitious ten-year programme of general hospital building and for beginning the neglect of the huge psychiatric institutions. In his famous 1961 "Water Tower" speech, he said:

There they stand, isolated, majestic, imperious, brooded over by the gigantic water-tower and chimney combined, rising unmistakable and daunting out of the countryside - the asylums which our forefathers built with such immense solidity to express the notions of their day. Do not for a moment underestimate their powers of resistance to our assault.

Let me describe some of the defences which we have to storm.[38]

The speech catalysed a debate that was one of several strands leading to the Care in the Community initiative of the 1980s. In 1993 however Powell claimed that his policy could have worked but had not. He claimed the criminally insane should have never been released and that the problem was one of funding. He said the new way of caring for the mentally ill would cost more, not less, than the old way because community care was decentralised and intimate as well as being "more human". His successors had not, Powell claimed, provided the money for local authorities to spend on mental health care and therefore institutional care had been neglected whilst at the same time there was not any investment in community care.[39]

Later, he oversaw the employment of a large number of Commonwealth immigrants by the understaffed National Health Service.[40] Prior to this, many non-white immigrants who held full rights of citizenship in Britain were obliged to take the jobs that no one else wanted (e.g. street cleaning, night-shift assembly production lines), often paid considerably less than their white counterparts.

Along with Iain Macleod, Powell refused to serve in the Cabinet following the appointment of Alec Douglas-Home as Prime Minister. This refusal was not based on antipathy to Home personally but was in protest against what Macleod and Powell saw as Macmillan's underhand manipulation of colleagues during the process of choosing a new leader.[41] Following the Conservatives' defeat in the 1964 general election, he agreed to return to the front bench as Transport spokesman.[42] In 1965 he stood in the first-ever party leadership election, but came a distant third to Edward Heath, who appointed him Shadow Secretary of State for Defence.[43]

Shadow Defence Secretary

In his first speech to the Conservative Party conference as Shadow Secretary of State for Defence on 14 October 1965, Powell outlined a fresh defence policy, jettisoning what he saw as outdated global military commitments left-over from Britain's imperial past and stressing that Britain was a European power and therefore an alliance with Western European states from possible attack from the East was central to Britain's safety. He defended Britain's nuclear weapons (he did not yet advocate unilateral nuclear disarmament) and argued that it was "the merest casuistry to argue that if the weapon and the means of using it are purchased in part, or even altogether, from another nation, therefore the independent right to use it has no reality. With a weapon so catastrophic, it is possession and the right to use which count".[44] Also, Powell called into question Western military commitments East of Suez:

However much we may do to safeguard and reassure the new independent countries in Asia and Africa, the eventual limits of Russian and Chinese advance in those directions will be fixed by a balance of forces which will itself be Asiatic and African. The two Communist empires are already in a state of mutual antagonism; but every advance or threat of advance by one or the other calls into existence countervailing forces, sometimes nationalist in character, sometimes expansionist, which will ultimately check it. We have to reckon with the harsh fact that the attainment of this eventual equilibrium of forces may at some point be delayed rather than hastened by Western military presence.[45]

The Daily Telegraph journalist David Howell remarked to Andrew Alexander that Powell had "just withdrawn us from East of Suez, and received an enormous ovation because no-one understood what he was talking about".[45] However the Americans were worried by Powell's speech as they wanted British military commitments in South-East Asia as they were still fighting in Vietnam. A transcript of the speech was sent to Washington and the American embassy requested to talk to Heath about the "Powell doctrine". The New York Times said Powell's speech was "a potential declaration of independence from American policy".[46] During the election campaign of 1966 Powell claimed that the British government had contingency plans to send at least a token British force to Vietnam and that, under Labour, Britain "has behaved perfectly clearly and perfectly recognisably as an American satellite". President Johnson had indeed asked Wilson for some British forces for Vietnam, and when it was later suggested to Powell that the view in Washington—that the public reaction to Powell's allegations had made Wilson realise he would not have favourable public opinion and so could not go through with it—Powell responded: "The greatest service I have performed for my country, if that is so".[47] Labour was returned with a large majority, and Powell was retained by Heath as Shadow Defence Secretary as he believed Powell "was too dangerous to leave out".[48]

In a controversial speech on 26 May 1967, Powell criticised Britain's post-war world role:

In our imagination the vanishing last vestiges... of Britain's once vast Indian Empire have transformed themselves into a peacekeeping role on which the sun never sets. Under God's good providence and in partnership with the United States, we keep the peace of the world and rush hither and thither containing Communism, putting out brush fires and coping with subversion. It is difficult to describe, without using terms derived from psychiatry, a notion having so few points of contact with reality.[49]

In 1967, Powell spoke of his opposition to the influx Kenyan Asians to the United Kingdom after the African country's leader Jomo Kenyatta's discriminatory policies led to the flight of Asians from that country.[50]

"Rivers of Blood" speech

Powell was noted for his oratorical skills, and for being a maverick. On Saturday 20 April 1968 he made a controversial speech in Birmingham, in which he warned his audience of what he believed would be the consequences of continued unchecked immigration from the Commonwealth to Britain. It was an allusion to Virgil towards the end of the speech which has been remembered and gave the speech its common title:

As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood'. That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now.

The main political issue addressed by the speech was not immigration as such, however. It was the introduction by the Labour Government of the Race Relations Act 1968, which Powell found offensive and immoral. The Act would prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race in certain areas of British life, particularly housing, where many local authorities had been refusing to provide houses for immigrant families until they had lived in the country for a certain number of years.

One feature of his speech was the extensive quotation of a letter he claimed to have received detailing the experiences of one of his constituents in Wolverhampton. The writer described the fate of an elderly woman who was supposedly the last white person living in her street. She had repeatedly refused applications from non-whites requiring rooms-to-let, which resulted in her being called a racist outside her home and receiving excrement through her letterbox.

Heath sacked Powell from his Shadow Cabinet the day after the speech, and he never held another senior political post. Powell received almost 120,000 (predominantly positive) letters and a Gallup poll at the end of April showed that 74% of those asked agreed with his speech. After The Sunday Times branded his speeches "racialist", Powell sued it for libel, but withdrew when he was required to provide the letters he had quoted from.

Powell had issued an advance copy of his speech to media personnel and their appearance at the speech may have been due to the fact that they realised the content was explosive.[51]

During July 1965 he had come third in the Conservative Party leadership contest, obtaining only 15 votes, just below the result Hugh Fraser gained. After the 'Rivers of Blood' speech, however, Powell was transformed into a national public figure and won huge support across Britain. Three days after the speech, on 23 April, as the Race Relations Bill was being debated in the House of Commons, 1,000 dockers marched on Westminster protesting against Powell's "victimisation", and the next day 400 meat porters from Smithfield market handed in a 92-page petition in support of Powell.

"Morecambe Budget"

Powell made a speech in Morecambe on 11 October 1968 on the economy, setting out alternative, radical free-market policies which would later be called the 'Morecambe Budget'. Powell used the financial year of 1968-9 to show how income tax could be halved from 8s 3d to 4s 3d in the pound (basic rate cut from 41% to 21%)[52][53] and how capital gains tax and selective employment tax could be abolished without reducing expenditure on defence or the social services. These tax reductions required a saving of £2,855 million, and this would be funded by eradicating losses in the nationalised industries and denationalising the profit-making state concerns; ending all housing subsidies except for those who could not afford their own housing; ending all foreign aid; ending all grants and subsidies in agriculture; ending all assistance to development areas; ending all investment grants;[54] abolishing the National Economic Development Council and abolishing the Prices and Incomes Board.[55] The cuts in taxation would also allow the state to borrow from the public to spend on capital projects such as hospitals and roads and spend on the firm and humane treatment of criminals.[56]

House of Lords reform

During the summer of 1968 The House of Lords in the Middle Ages was published after 20 years' work. At the press conference for its publication, Powell said if the government introduced a Bill to reform the Lords he would be its "resolute enemy".[57] Later in 1968, when the government published its Bills for the new session, Powell was angry at Heath's acceptance of the plan drawn up by the Conservative MP Iain Macleod and Labour's Richard Crossman to reform the Lords, titled the Parliament (No. 2) Bill.[58] Crossman, opening the debate on 19 November, said the government would reform the Lords in five ways: removing the voting rights of hereditary peers; making sure no party had a permanent majority; in normal circumstances the government of the day would have a working majority; to weaken the Lords' powers to delay laws; and to abolish their power to refuse to consent to subordinate legislation if it had been voted for by the Commons.[59]

Powell spoke in the debate, opposing these plans. He said the reforms were "unnecessary and undesirable" and that there was no weight in the claim that the Lords could "check or frustrate the firm intentions" of the Commons. He claimed that only election or nomination could replace the hereditary nature of the Lords. If they were elected it would pose the dilemma of which House was truly representative of the electorate. He also had another objection: "How can the same electorate be represented in two ways so that the two sets of representatives can conflict and disagree with one another?" Those nominated would be bound to the Chief Whip of their party through a sort of oath and Powell asked "what sort of men and women are they to be who would submit to be nominated to another chamber upon condition that they will be mere dummies, automatic parts of a voting machine?" The inclusion of 30 cross-benchers was "a grand absurdity" because they would have been chosen "upon the very basis that they have no strong views of principle on the way in which the country ought to be governed".[60] Powell claimed the Lords derived their authority not from a strict hereditary system but from its prescriptive nature: "It has long been so, and it works". He then added that there was not any widespread desire for reform: he indicated a recent survey of working-class voters which showed only a third of them wanted to reform or abolish the Lords, with another third believing the Lords were an "intrinsic part of the national traditions of Britain". Powell deduced from this that "As so often the ordinary rank and file of the electorate have seen a truth, an important fact, which has escaped so many more clever people – the underlying value of that which is traditional, that which is prescriptive".[61]

After more speeches against the Bill during early 1969, and with left-wing Labour MPs against Lords reform as well (they wanted abolition), Harold Wilson announced on 17 April that the Bill was being rescinded. Wilson's statement was brief, with Powell intervening: "Don't eat them too quickly", which provoked much laughter in the House.[62] Later that day Powell said in a speech to the Primrose League:

There was an instinct, inarticulate but deep and sound, that the traditional, prescriptive House of Lords posed no threat and injured no interests, but might yet, for all its illogicalities and anomalies, make itself felt on occasion to useful purpose. The same sound instinct was repelled by the idea of a new-fashioned second chamber, artificially constructed by power, party and patronage, to function in a particular way. Not for the first time, the common people of this country proved the surest defenders of their traditional institutions.[62]

Powell's biographer Simon Heffer has described the defeat of Lords reform as "perhaps the greatest triumph of Powell's political career".[62]

During 1969, when it was first suggested that the United Kingdom would join the European Economic Community, Powell spoke openly of his opposition to the country joining this common market.[63]

Later life in politics

Departure from the Conservative Party

Powell's popularity appeared to contribute to the Conservatives' surprise victory in the 1970 General Election, which showed a late surge in Conservative support in the West Midlands, near Powell's constituency. In "exhaustive research" on the election, the American pollster Douglas Schoen and University of Oxford academic R.W. Johnson believed it "beyond dispute" that Enoch Powell had attracted 2.5 million votes to the Conservatives. Johnson later wrote that "It became clear that Powell had won the 1970 election for the Tories... of all those who had switched their vote from one party to another in the election, 50 per cent were working class Powellites. Not only had 18 per cent of Labour Powellites switched to the Tories but so had 24 per cent of Liberal Powellites". Johnson further believed that the votes Powell brought to the Conservatives were "quite possibly four or five million".[64] A Daily Express poll in 1972 showed Powell being the most popular politician in the country.[65]

In a defence debate in March 1970 he claimed that "the whole theory of the tactical nuclear weapon, or the tactical use of nuclear weapons, is an unmitigated absurdity" and that it was "remotely improbable" that any group of nations engaged in war would "decide upon general and mutual suicide", and advocated enlargement of Britain's continental army. However when fellow Conservative Julian Amery later in the debate criticised Powell for his anti-nuclear pronouncements, Powell responded: "I have always regarded the possession of the nuclear capability as a protection against nuclear blackmail. It is a protection against being threatened with nuclear weapons. What it is not a protection against is war".[66] However, Powell would later criticise this theory of nuclear deterrence.

Powell had voted against the Schuman plan during 1950 and had supported entry only because he believed that the Common Market was simply a means to secure free trade. During March 1969 he opposed Britain's joining the European Economic Community. Opposition to entry had hitherto been confined largely to the Labour Party but now, he said, it was clear to him that the sovereignty of Parliament was in question, as was Britain's very survival as a nation. This nationalist analysis attracted millions of middle-class Conservatives and others, and as much as anything else made Powell the implacable enemy of Heath, a fervent pro-European, but there was already enmity between the two.

The Conservatives had promised at the 1970 election[67] that in relation to the Common Market "Our sole commitment is to negotiate; no more, no less". When Heath signed an accession treaty before Parliament had even debated the issue, when the second reading of the Bill to put the Treaty into law passed by just eight votes on second reading, and when it became clear that the British people would have no further say in the matter, he declared hostility to his party's line. He voted against the government on every one of the 104 divisions in the course of the European Communities Bill. When finally he lost this struggle, he decided he could no longer sit in a parliament that he believed was no longer sovereign. During the summer of 1972 he prepared to resign, and changed his mind only because of fears of a renewed wave of immigration from Uganda after the accession of Idi Amin, who had expelled Uganda's Asian residents.

During 1972, the same year that he spoke publicly of his opposition to the immigration of Ugandan Asians, Powell was also defeated in his struggle against the European Communities Bill, which helped prepare the United Kingdom to join the common market, which he had spent three years campaigning to prevent from happening.[63]

However, during February 1974 Powell left the Conservative Party, mainly because it had taken the UK into the EEC and because it abandoned its manifesto commitments and he therefore could not advocate it at the election. The monetarist economist Milton Friedman sent Powell a letter praising him as principled.[68] Powell had his friend Andrew Alexander talk with Labour Party leader Harold Wilson's press secretary, Joe Haines, on Powell's timing of his speeches against Heath. Powell had been talking with Wilson irregularly since June 1973 during chance meetings in the gentlemen's toilets of the aye lobby in the House of Commons.[69] Wilson and Haines had ensured that Powell would dominate the newspapers of the Sunday and Monday before election day by having no Labour front bencher give a major speech on 23 February, the day of Powell's speech.[70] Powell gave this speech at the Mecca Dance Hall in the Bull Ring, Birmingham to an audience of 1,500, with some press reports estimating that 7,000 had to be turned away. Powell said the issue of British membership of the EEC was one where "if there be a conflict between the call of country and that of party, the call of country must come first":

Curiously, it so happens that the question 'Who governs Britain?' which at the moment is being frivolously posed, might be taken, in real earnest, as the title of what I have to say. This is the first and last election at which the British people will be given the opportunity to decide whether their country is to remain a democratic nation, governed by the will of its own electorate expressed in its own Parliament, or whether it will become one province in a new European superstate under institutions which know nothing of the political rights and liberties that we have so long taken for granted.[71]

Powell went on to criticise the Conservative Party for obtaining British membership despite promising at the general election that they would "negotiate: no more, no less" and that Britain needed "the full-hearted consent of Parliament and people" if Britain were to join. He also denounced Heath for accusing his political opponents of lacking respect for Parliament whilst being "the first Prime Minister in three hundred years who entertained, let alone executed, the intention of depriving Parliament of its sole right to make the laws and impose the taxes of this country".[72] He then advocated a vote for the Labour Party:

The question is: can they now be prevented from taking back into their own hands the decision about their identity and their form of government which truly was theirs all along? I do not believe they can be prevented: for they are now, at a general election, provided with a clear, definite and practicable alternative, namely, a fundamental renegotiation directed to regain free access to world food markets and recover or retain the powers of Parliament, a renegotiation to be followed in any event by a specific submission of the outcome to the electorate, a renegotiation protected by an immediate moratorium or stop on all further integration of the UK into the Community. This alternative is offered, as such an alternative must be in our parliamentary democracy, by a political party capable of securing a majority in the House of Commons and sustaining a Government.[73]

This call to vote Labour surprised some of Powell's supporters who were more concerned with beating socialism than the loss of national independence.[74] On 25 February he made another speech at Shipley urging a vote for Labour and saying he did not believe the claim that Wilson would renege his commitment to renegotiation, which to Powell was ironic considering Heath's premiership: "In acrobatics Harold Wilson, for all his nimbleness and skill, is simply no match for the breathtaking, thoroughgoing efficiency of the present Prime Minister". At this moment a heckler shouted "Judas!" Powell responded: "Judas was paid! Judas was paid! I am making a sacrifice!"[75] Later in the speech Powell said: "I was born a Tory, am a Tory and shall die a Tory. It is part of me... it is something I cannot alter".[76] During 1987 Powell said there was no contradiction between urging people to vote Labour whilst proclaiming to be a Tory: "Many Labour members are quite good Tories".[77]

Powell, in an interview on 26 February, said he would be voting for Helene Middleweek, the Labour candidate, rather than the Conservative Nicholas Budgen.[78] When on 1 March Powell saw The Times headline "Mr Heath's general election gamble fails" he reacted by singing Te Deum.[79] The election result was a "hung parliament" with Labour five seats ahead of the Conservatives. The national swing to Labour was 1 per cent; 4 per cent in Powell's heartland, the West Midlands conurbation; and 16 per cent in his old constituency (although Budgen won the seat).[80] Both Powell and Heath believed that Powell was responsible for the Conservatives losing the election.[80]

Ulster Unionist Party

In a sudden general election in October 1974, Powell returned to Parliament as Ulster Unionist MP for South Down, having rejected an offer to stand as a candidate for the National Front . He repeated his call to vote Labour due to their policy on the EEC.[81]

Since 1968 Powell had been an increasingly frequent visitor to Northern Ireland, and in keeping with his general British nationalist viewpoint he sided strongly with the Ulster Unionists in their desire to remain a constituent part of the United Kingdom. From early 1971 he opposed, with increasing vehemence, Heath's approach to Northern Ireland, the greatest breach with his party coming over the imposition of direct rule in 1972. He was a strong believer in the United Kingdom, and he believed that it would survive only if the Unionists strove to integrate completely with the United Kingdom by abandoning the devolved rule that Northern Ireland had enjoyed until recently. He refused to join the Orange Institution – the first Ulster Unionist MP at Westminster never to be a member (and to date only one of three, the others being Ken Maginnis and Lady Hermon), and he was an outspoken opponent of the more extremist Unionism espoused by the Reverend Ian Paisley and his supporters.

In the aftermath of the 21 November 1974 Birmingham pub bombings by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA), the government passed the Prevention of Terrorism Act. During its second reading Powell warned of passing legislation "in haste and under the immediate pressure of indignation on matters which touch the fundamental liberties of the subject; for both haste and anger are ill counsellors, especially when one is legislating for the rights of the subject". He said terrorism was a form of warfare which could not be prevented by laws and punishments but by the aggressor's certainty that the war was impossible to win.[82]

When Heath called a leadership election at the end of 1974, Powell claimed they would have to find someone who was not a member of the Cabinet "which, without a single resignation or public dissent, not merely swallowed but advocated every single reversal of election pledge or party principle".[83]

During the 1975 referendum on British membership of the EEC, Powell campaigned unsuccessfully for a 'No' vote. On 23 March 1977, in a vote of confidence against the minority Labour government, Powell, along with a few other Ulster Unionists, abstained. The government won by 322 votes to 298, and remained in power for another two years.

During 1983 his local agent was Jeffrey Donaldson, later an Ulster Unionist MP before defecting to the DUP.

Powell claimed that the only way to stop the PIRA was for Northern Ireland to be an integral part of the United Kingdom, treated no differently from any other of its constituent parts. He claimed the ambiguous nature of the province's status, with its own parliament and prime minister, gave hope to the PIRA that it could be detached from the rest of the UK:

Every word or act which holds out the prospect that their unity with the rest of the United Kingdom might be negotiable is itself, consciously or unconsciously, a contributory cause to the continuation of violence in Northern Ireland.[84]

Nonetheless in the 1987 general election which he lost, Powell campaigned in Bangor for James Kilfedder, the devolutionist North Down Popular Unionist Party MP, and against Robert McCartney who was standing as a Real Unionist on a policy of integration and equal citizenship for Northern Ireland.[85]

In Powell's later career as an Ulster Unionist MP he continued to criticise the United States, and claimed that the Americans were trying to persuade the British to surrender Northern Ireland into an all-Irish state because the condition for Irish membership of NATO, Powell claimed, was Northern Ireland. The Americans wanted to close the 'yawning gap' in NATO defence that was the southern Irish coast to northern Spain. Powell had a copy of a State Department Policy Statement[86] from 15 August 1950 in which the American government said that the 'agitation' caused by partition in Ireland "lessens the usefulness of Ireland in international organisations and complicates strategic planning for Europe". "It is desirable", the document continued, "that Ireland should be integrated into the defense planning of the North Atlantic area, for its strategic position and present lack of defensive capacity are matters of significance.[87]

Relations with Thatcher

During February 1975, after winning the leadership election, Margaret Thatcher refused to offer Powell a Shadow Cabinet place because "he turned his back on his own people" by leaving the Conservative Party exactly 12 months earlier and telling the electorate to vote Labour.

Powell replied she was correct to exclude him because, "In the first place I am not a member of the Conservative Party and secondly, until the Conservative Party has worked its passage a very long way it will not be rejoining me".[88] Powell also attributed Thatcher's success to luck, saying that she was faced with "supremely unattractive opponents at the time".[89]

Though he voted with the Conservatives in a vote of confidence that brought down the Labour government on 28 March, Powell did not welcome the victory of Margaret Thatcher in the May 1979 election. "Grim" was Powell's response when he was asked what he thought of Thatcher's victory, because he believed she would renege like Heath did in 1972. During the election campaign, Thatcher, when questioned, again repeated her vow that there would be no position for Powell in her cabinet if the Conservatives won the forthcoming General Election. Powell wrote to Callaghan after the general election, expressing his sincere sorrow.[citation needed]

Powell later came to appreciate and praise Thatcher's patience and tenacity in getting her own way. He backed Thatcher for declaring war on Argentina in April 1982 following their invasion of the Falkland Islands - a conflict which the United Kingdom won just over two months later.[63] Although he was on supposedly good terms with Thatcher (she claimed her own monetarist policies stemmed from Powell's), to which he remarked drily, "A pity she did not understand them!", he remained at odds with Thatcher over her pro-American foreign policy and her support for nuclear weapons.

Powell later came into conflict with Thatcher during November 1985 because of her support for the Anglo-Irish Agreement, resigning his seat in protest and then regaining it at the ensuing by-election. However, after Thatcher's Bruges speech[90] during September 1988 and her increasing hostility to the abolition of the pound sterling in the last years of her premiership, Powell made many speeches publicly supporting her attitude to Europe. During early September 1989 a collection of Powell's speeches on Europe was published titled Enoch Powell on 1992 (1992 being the year set for the European Single Market). In a speech at Chatham House for the launch of the book on 6 September, he advised Thatcher to fight the next general election on a nationalist theme as many Eastern European nations previously under Russian rule were gaining their freedom.[91] At the Conservative Party conference in October he told a fringe meeting: "I find myself today less on the fringe of that party than I have done for 20 years".[91]

On 5 January 1990, addressing Conservatives in Liverpool, Powell claimed that if the Conservatives played the "British card" at the next general election they could win; that the new mood in Britain for "self-determination" had given the newly independent nations of Eastern Europe a "beacon", adding that Britain should stand alone, if necessary, for European freedom.[92] Five days after this speech, in an interview for The Daily Telegraph, Thatcher praised Powell: "I have always read Enoch Powell's speeches and articles very carefully... I always think it was a tragedy that he left. He is a very, very able politician. I say that even though he has sometimes said vitriolic things against me".[92]

When Thatcher was challenged by Michael Heseltine for the leadership of the Conservative Party during November 1990, Powell said he would rejoin the party – which he had left in February 1974 over the issue of Europe – if Thatcher won, and would urge the public to support both her and, in Powell's view, national independence.[93] When asked if it was true that he would join the Conservative Party he replied "it is more to do with whether the Conservative Party has joined me"[94] As it turned out she resigned, and Powell never rejoined the Conservative party. Powell also had a detached and philosophical view about Thatcher's downfall.

Parliamentary career during the 1980s

In 1980 Powell described the boycott of the Moscow Olympics - following the Russian invasion of Afghanistan - as 'pathetic to the point of farce'.[95]. In the 1980s Powell began espousing the policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament. In a debate on the nuclear deterrent on 3 March 1981 Powell claimed that the debate was now more political than military; that Britain did not possess an independent deterrent and that through NATO Britain was tied to the nuclear deterrence theory of the United States.[96] In the debate on the address shortly after the general election of 1983, Powell picked up on Thatcher's willingness, when asked, to use nuclear weapons in the "last resort". Powell gave a scenario of what he though the last resort would be, namely that the Soviet Union would be ready to invade Britain and had used a nuclear weapon on somewhere such as Rockall to demonstrate their willingness to use it:

What would the United Kingdom do? Would it discharge Polaris, Trident or whatever against the main centres of population of the Continent of Europe or in European Russia? If so, what would be the consequence? The consequence would not be that we should survive, that we should repel our antagonist – nor would it be that we should escape defeat. The consequence would be that we would make certain, as far as is humanly possible, the virtual destruction and elimination of the hope of the future in these islands.... I would much sooner that the power to use it was not in the hands of any individual in this country at all.[97]

Powell went on to say that if the Soviet invasion had already begun and Britain deployed a retaliatory strike the results would be the same: "We should be condemning, not merely to death, but as near as may be the non-existence of our population". To Powell an invasion would take place with or without Britain's nuclear weapons and therefore there was no point in retaining it. He said that after years of consideration he had come to the conclusion that there was no "rational grounds on which the deformation of our defence preparations in the United Kingdom by our determination to maintain a current independent nuclear deterrent can be justified".[98]

In 1984, Powell also claimed that the Central Intelligence Agency had murdered Earl Mountbatten of Burma and that the deaths of the MPs Airey Neave and Robert Bradford were carried out by the USA in order to stop Neave's policy of integration for Northern Ireland.[99] Then in 1986 he again argued that Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) had not killed Airey Neave but that "MI6 and their friends" were responsible instead, claiming to have been told so by RUC officers.[100] Margaret Thatcher however, both rejected and dismissed these claims.

Enoch Powell lost his seat in the 1987 general election to the Social Democratic Labour Party's Eddie McGrady, mainly due to demographic and boundary changes which resulted in there being many more Catholics in the constituency than before. Ironically, the boundary changes had arisen due to his own campaign for the number of MPs representing Northern Ireland to be increased to the equivalent proportion for the rest of the United Kingdom, as part of the steps towards greater integration. He was offered a life peerage, which was regarded as his right as a former cabinet minister, but declined it. He argued that, as he had opposed the Life Peerages Act 1958, it would be hypocritical for him to take one.

Post-parliamentary life

Appearing on television discussion programme After Dark in 1987

He was critical of the Special Air Service (SAS) shootings of three unarmed IRA members in Gibraltar in March 1988.[101]

Powell claimed in an article for The Guardian on 7 December 1988 that the new Western-friendly foreign policy of Russia under Mikhail Gorbachev heralded "the death and burial of the American empire".[102] In spring 1989 he made a programme for the BBC (broadcast in July) on his visit to Russia and his impressions on that country. This included going to the graves of 600,000 people who died during the siege of Leningrad and saying that he could not believe a people who had suffered so much would willingly start another war. He also went to a veterans' parade (wearing his own medals) and talked with Russian soldiers with the aid of an interpreter. However the programme was criticised by those who believed that Powell had dismissed the Soviet Union's threat to the West since 1945, so impressed had he been with Russia's sense of national identity.[103]

When German reunification was on the agenda in 1990, Powell claimed that Britain urgently needed to create an alliance with the Soviet Union in view of Germany's effect on the balance of power in Europe.[103]

After Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 August 1990, Powell claimed that, because Britain was not an ally of Kuwait in the "formal sense" and because the balance of power in the Middle East had ceased to be a British concern after the end of the British Empire, Britain should not go to war. Powell claimed that "Saddam Hussein has a long way to go yet before his troops come storming up the beaches of Kent or Sussex"; after Britain claimed to be defending small nations from attack, Powell said "I sometimes wonder if, when we shed our power, we omitted to shed our arrogance".[104]

Last years

In the autumn of 1992, at the age of 80, Powell was diagnosed as suffering from Parkinson's disease. 1994 was marked by the publication of The Evolution of the Gospel, A New Translation of the First Gospel with Commentary and Introductory Essay. During the final years of his life he managed occasional pieces of journalism and co-operated in a BBC documentary about his life in 1995. When Labour won the 1997 General Election, Powell told his wife that the electorate had voted to break up the United Kingdom. By this time Powell had been hospitalised several times as a result of a succession of falls.

When William Hague was elected Conservative party leader in June 1997, Powell refused to rejoin.[citation needed]

Powell began, but did not complete, work on a study of the Gospel of John. It was unfinished at the time of his death, aged 85, at 4:30 a.m. on 8 February 1998 at the King Edward VII Hospital for Officers in the City of Westminster, London. Powell's final words were a few hours after being admitted to hospital, he asked where his lunch was. On being told that he was being fed intravenously he remarked "I don't call that much of a lunch".

Dressed in his brigadier's uniform, Enoch Powell was buried in his regiment's plot in Warwick Cemetery, Warwickshire, ten days later, after a family funeral service at Westminster Abbey and a public service at St. Margaret's, Westminster. He was survived by his wife and two daughters.

Personal life

On 2 January 1952 the 39-year-old Powell married 26-year-old Margaret Pamela Wilson, a former colleague from Conservative Central Office, who provided him with the settled and happy family life that was essential to his political career. They had two daughters, born in January 1954 and October 1956.

Despite his earlier atheism Powell became a devout Anglican, having thought in 1949 "that he heard the bells of St Peter's Wolverhampton calling him" while walking to his flat in his (then future) constituency.[105] Subsequently, he became a churchwarden of St Margaret's, Westminster. He spent much of his later life trying to prove, with close textual reading, that Christ had not been crucified but stoned to death.

Powell was reading Ancient Greek by the age of five, learning it from his mother. At the age of 70 he began learning his 12th and final language, Hebrew.

In August 2002 Powell appeared in the List of 100 Greatest Britons of all time (voted for by the public in a BBC nationwide poll).

Powell had remarked that "all political lives end in failure" and did not hesitate to agree that this maxim applied to his own. Like Tony Benn (a personal friend from a different political background, whom Powell had helped to renounce his peerage and so remain an elected Member of Parliament), he was seen by supporters as putting conscience and duty to his constituents before loyalty to his party or the sake of his career.

Powell's rhetorical gifts were also employed, with success, beyond politics. He was a poet of some accomplishment, with four published collections to his name: First Poems; Casting Off; Dancer's End; and The Wedding Gift. His Collected Poems appeared in 1990. He translated Herodotus' Histories and published many other works of classical scholarship. He published a biography of Joseph Chamberlain, which treated the split with Gladstone over Irish Home Rule in 1886 as the pivotal point of his career, rather than the adoption of Tariff Reform, and which contained the famous line that "all political careers, unless they are cut off at some happy juncture, end in failure". Powell published many books on political matters too, which were often annotated collections of his speeches. His political publications were often as critical of his own party as they were of Labour, often making fun of what he saw as logical fallacies in reasoning or action. His book Freedom & Reality contained many quotes from Labour party manifestos or by Harold Wilson which he regarded as nonsensical.

One Young Conservative got up in a private meeting at the House of Commons to express his support for Mr Powell, "Mr Powell, I am a great supporter of your views......" he was interrupted by Powell. "I do not get letters of support from you, I do not get financial rewards for your support, what is the nature of your support?" he said in his monotone voice. The youth blushed and sat down.[citation needed]

Political beliefs

Powell said "I have and always will set my face like flint against making any difference between one citizen of this country and another on grounds of his origins."[106] In The Trial of Enoch Powell, a Channel 4 television broadcast in April 1998, on the thirtieth anniversary of his Birmingham speech (and two months after his death), 64% of the studio audience voted that Powell was not a racist. However, some in the Church took a different view: upon his death the Bishop of Croydon stated "Enoch Powell gave a certificate of respectability to white racist views which otherwise decent people were ashamed to acknowledge."[107]

The conservative commentator Bruce Anderson has noted that the "Rivers of Blood" speech would have come as a complete surprise to anyone who had studied his record: he had been a West Midlands MP for 18 years but had said hardly anything about immigration. On this view, the speech was merely part of a badly miscalculated strategy to become party leader if Ted Heath should fall. Anderson adds that the speech had no effect on immigration, except to make it more difficult for the subject to be discussed rationally in polite society.[108]

Powell's detractors often assert that he was 'far-right', 'proto-fascist' or 'racist'. The first two charges clash with his voting record on most social issues, such as homosexual law reform—he was actually co-sponsor of a Bill on this issue during May 1965—and the abolition of the death penalty, both liberal reforms which had limited support in the Conservative Party at the time, although he did little to call public attention to his stance on these non-party "issues of conscience".[28]

Powell voted against the reinstitution of the death penalty, in 1969, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1979, 1983 and 1987. Although substantial sections of the public supported Powell on the issues for which he was better known, most of the "liberal intelligentsia" tended to denounce him as a racist. For some, this charge seems unconvincing in the context of Powell's pre-political actions,[109] and it was not until the late 1960s that he made speeches on immigration and nationality. On this view, he is perhaps better classified as a romantic British nationalist than any sort of fascist: like Michael Foot from the other end of the political spectrum (with whom he joined forces on constitutional issues such as defeating House of Lords reform[110] and opposing Britain's entry to the European Community), he was an ardent constitutionalist, worshipping Parliament as the protector of democracy, whereas most actual fascists want to abolish the democratic institutions.

Powell's speeches and TV interviews throughout his political life displayed a suspicion towards "the Establishment" in general, and by the 1980s there was a regular expectation that he would make some sort of speech or act in a way designed to upset the government and ensure he would not be offered a life peerage (and thus be transferred to the House of Lords), which he had not any intention of accepting so long as Edward Heath sat in the Commons. (Heath remained in the Commons until after Powell's death.) He had opposed the 1958 Life Peerages Act and felt it would be hypocritical to accept a life peerage himself, while no Prime Minister was ever willing to offer him a hereditary peerage.

Portraits

Enoch Powell sat for sculptor Alan Thornhill for a portrait[111] in clay. The correspondence file relating to the Powell portrait bust is held as part of the Thornhill Papers (2006:56) in the archive[112] of the Henry Moore Foundation's Henry Moore Institute in Leeds and the terracotta remains in the collection of the artist.

There are 24 images of Powell in the National Portrait Gallery Collection including work by Bassano and Anne-Katrin Purkiss[113]

The NPG collection includes a 1971 cartoon by Gerald Scarfe.[114]

Selected bibliography

  • The Rendel Harris Papyri (1936)
  • First Poems (1937)
  • A Lexicon to Herodotus (1938)
  • The History of Herodotus (1939)
  • Casting-off, and other poems (1939)
  • Herodotus, Book VIII (1939)
  • Llyfr Blegywryd (1942)
  • Thucydidis Historia (1942)
  • Herodotus (1949) (translation)
  • One Nation (1950) (jointly)
  • Dancer's End and The Wedding Gift (1951) (poems)
  • The Social Services, Needs and Means (1952)
  • Change is our Ally (1954)
  • Biography of a Nation (1955, second edition 1970) (with Angus Maude), London, ISBN 0212983733
  • Great Parliamentary Occasions (1960)
  • Saving in a Free Society (1960)
  • A Nation not Afraid (1965)
  • Medicine and Politics (1966, revised edition 1976)
  • The House of Lords in the Middle Ages (1968) (with Keith Wallis)
  • Freedom and Reality (1969 [1999]), Kingswood, ISBN 0-7160-0541-7 (this volume includes the text of the Rivers of Blood speech.)
  • Common Market: The Case Against (1971)
  • Still to Decide (1972), Kingswood, ISBN 0716005662
  • Common Market: Renegotiate or Come Out (1973)
  • No Easy Answers (1973), London, ISBN 0859690016
  • Wrestling With the Angel (1977), London, ISBN 0-85969-127-6
  • Joseph Chamberlain (1977) , London, ISBN 0-500-01185-0
  • A Nation or No Nation (1978) (editor Richard Ritchie), London, ISBN 0713415428
  • On 1992 (1989) (editor Richard Ritchie), London, ISBN 1-85470-008-1
  • Reflections of a Statesman (1991) (editor Rex Collings) , London, ISBN 0947792880
  • Collected Poems (1990)
  • The Evolution of the Gospel (1994)

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Roth.
  2. ^ R. D. Pearce, Enoch Powell, London, 2008
  3. ^ The Times, 10 February 1998, Lead article (p. 1) and Letters(p. 19)
  4. ^ a b Heffer.
  5. ^ Roth, pp. 18–20.
  6. ^ On his career as a classicist see the entry on him in vol. 3 of The Dictionary of British Classicists (2004) where various other articles on his classical scholarship are listed.
  7. ^ Roth, p. 29.
  8. ^ Heffer, p. 10.
  9. ^ Heffer, p. 47.
  10. ^ Heffer, p. 53.
  11. ^ Heffer, p. 55.
  12. ^ Heffer, p. 75.
  13. ^ Heffer, pp. 86–87.
  14. ^ Heffer, p. 76.
  15. ^ p.49 Shepherd, Robert Enoch Powell: A Biography 1996 Hutchinson
  16. ^ Desert Island Discs, BBC Radio, 19 February 1989.
  17. ^ Roth, pp. 51–53.
  18. ^ Roth, p. 51.
  19. ^ Craig, F. W. S. (1983) [1969]. British parliamentary election results 1918–1949 (3rd edition ed.). Chichester: Parliamentary Research Services. ISBN 0-900178-06-X. 
  20. ^ Rex Collings (ed.), Reflections of a Statesman: The Writings and Speeches of Enoch Powell (London: Bellew, 1991), pp. 195–202.
  21. ^ Collings, pp. 196–7, pp. 198–9.
  22. ^ Collings, pp. 199–201.
  23. ^ Collings, p. 201.
  24. ^ Heffer, p. 184.
  25. ^ Collings, p. 230.
  26. ^ Roth, pp. 99–100.
  27. ^ Roth, pp. 180–189.
  28. ^ a b Roth, p. 318.
  29. ^ Roth, p. 319.
  30. ^ "'One per cent not a triviality': Mr. Powell tells of dilemma", The Times, London, 10 January 1958, p.8.
  31. ^ Collings, pp. 206–7.
  32. ^ Collings, p. 207.
  33. ^ Heffer, p. 252.
  34. ^ Heffer, p. 254.
  35. ^ Roth, pp. 229 ff.
  36. ^ Roth, p. 270.
  37. ^ Stephens, Trent D.; Rock Brynner (2001). Dark Remedy: The Impact of Thalidomide and Its Revival As a Vital Medicine. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books. pp. 80-81. ISBN 0738205907. http://books.google.com/books?id=9IGyL1Cwy08C. 
  38. ^ "Enoch Powell's Water Tower Speech 1961". http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/study/xPowell.htm. Retrieved 2007-11-22. 
  39. ^ Heffer, p. 941.
  40. ^ Roth, p. 255.
  41. ^ Roth, pp. 302–303 and p. 315.
  42. ^ Roth, p. 316.
  43. ^ Roth, pp. 327 ff.
  44. ^ Enoch Powell, Freedom and Reality (Eliot Right Way Books, 1969), p. 224.
  45. ^ a b Heffer, p. 391.
  46. ^ Heffer, pp. 391–2.
  47. ^ Heffer, p. 406.
  48. ^ Heffer, p. 410.
  49. ^ Heffer, p. 431.
  50. ^ "When Labour played the racist card". New Statesman. http://www.newstatesman.com/199901220021. Retrieved 2009-08-12. 
  51. ^ Simon Heffer's biography, Like The Roman, discusses the pre-publicity on page 449. Powell is quoted as remarking to Clem Jones, editor of the local newspaper, that his speech was "going to go up 'fizz' like a rocket". The cameras were from ATV, whose news editor had received an early copy.
  52. ^ Roy Lewis, Enoch Powell: Principle in Politics (Cassell, 1979), p. 69.
  53. ^ Heffer, p. 484.
  54. ^ Robert Shepherd, Enoch Powell. A Biography (London: Pimlico, 1997), pp. 375–6.
  55. ^ Heffer, p. 485.
  56. ^ Heffer, pp. 485–6.
  57. ^ Heffer, p. 474.
  58. ^ Heffer, p. 489.
  59. ^ Heffer, p. 495.
  60. ^ Heffer, p. 496.
  61. ^ Heffer, p. 497.
  62. ^ a b c Heffer, p. 521.
  63. ^ a b c [1]
  64. ^ Heffer, p. 568.
  65. ^ "OnTarget Vol.8 - No.47". ALOR. http://www.alor.org/Volume8/Vol8No47.htm. Retrieved 2009-08-10. 
  66. ^ Heffer, p. 549.
  67. ^ psrwebs (2008-03-11). "Not updated: British Conservative Party election manifesto, 1970". Psr.keele.ac.uk. http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/con70.htm. Retrieved 2009-08-10. 
  68. ^ Heffer, p. 703.
  69. ^ Heffer, pp. 701–2.
  70. ^ Heffer, pp. 704–5.
  71. ^ Collings, p. 454.
  72. ^ Collings, pp. 456–7.
  73. ^ Collings, p. 458.
  74. ^ Heffer, p. 707.
  75. ^ Heffer, pp. 708–9.
  76. ^ Heffer, p. 709.
  77. ^ Shepherd, p. 404.
  78. ^ Heffer, p. 709-10.
  79. ^ Heffer, p. 710.
  80. ^ a b Heffer, p. 712.
  81. ^ Heffer, pp. 732–3.
  82. ^ Heffer, p. 742.
  83. ^ Heffer, p. 745.
  84. ^ Heffer, p. 543.
  85. ^ See also advertisement in Co Down Spectator of 4 June 1987 from South Down Unionists (with photograph of Powell) calling for return of Kilfedder.
  86. ^ "United States Department of State. Gleason, S. Everett; Aandahl, Fredrick, Editor, Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. Western Europe, Volume III, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1950". Digicoll.library.wisc.edu. http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/FRUS.FRUS1950v03. Retrieved 2009-08-10. 
  87. ^ Heffer, p. 635.
  88. ^ Heffer, p. 747.
  89. ^ The Times, London, 13 February 1975.
  90. ^ "Margaret Thatcher.org". Margaret Thatcher.org. http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=107332. Retrieved 2009-08-10. 
  91. ^ a b Heffer, p. 927.
  92. ^ a b Heffer, p. 928.
  93. ^ Heffer, p. 934.
  94. ^ Kensington Conservative Dinner
  95. ^ Simon Heffer -The Daily Mail - November 18, 1998
  96. ^ Heffer, p. 843.
  97. ^ Heffer, pp. 876–7.
  98. ^ Heffer, p. 877.
  99. ^ Heffer, p. 881.
  100. ^ Heffer, p. 906.
  101. ^ Heffer, p. 918.
  102. ^ Heffer, p. 922.
  103. ^ a b Heffer, p. 925.
  104. ^ Heffer, p. 933.
  105. ^ Heffer p. 130
  106. ^ Letter from Enoch Powell in the Wolverhampton Express and Star, October 1964, quoted in Humphry Berkeley, "Mr Powell: still Yesterday's Man", The Times, London, 5 September 1972, p.12.
  107. ^ "Bishops criticise Abbey over Powell honour", Irish Times, Dublin, 16 February 1998, p.14.
  108. ^ Bruce Anderson, "Enoch Powell made the Rivers of Blood speech out of ambition, not conviction", The Independent, London, 5 November 2007.
  109. ^ [2]
  110. ^ Roth, p. 369.
  111. ^ portrait head of Enoch Powell image of sculpture
  112. ^ "HMI Archive". Henry-moore-fdn.co.uk. http://www.henry-moore-fdn.co.uk/matrix_engine/content.php?page_id=584. Retrieved 2009-08-10. 
  113. ^ "National Portrait Gallery - Portrait NPG x29287; (John) Enoch Powell". Npg.org.uk. http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait.php?firstRun=true&sText=purkiss&search=sa&LinkID=mp10637&page=1&rNo=7&role=art. Retrieved 2009-08-10. 
  114. ^ "National Portrait Gallery - Portrait NPG 6475; (John) Enoch Powell". Npg.org.uk. http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait.php?LinkID=mp05680&page=1&rNo=1&role=sit. Retrieved 2009-08-10. 

References

  • "Obituary of Enoch Powell". The Daily Telegraph (London). February 9, 1998. 
  • Foot, Paul (1969). The Rise of Enoch Powell. London. 
  • Heffer, Simon (November 23, 1998). Like the Roman: The Life of Enoch Powell. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 978-0-2978-4286-6. 
  • Roth, Andrew (September 24, 1970). Enoch Powell: Tory Tribune. London: TBS The Book Service Ltd. ISBN 978-0-3560-3150-7. 
  • Shepherd, Robert (1998). Enoch Powell. London. ISBN 0-09-179208-8. 
  • Stacey, Tom (1970). Immigration and Enoch Powell. London. OCLC 151226. 

External links

Offices held

Parliament of the United Kingdom
New constituency Member of Parliament for Wolverhampton South West
1950Feb 1974
Succeeded by
Nicholas Budgen
Preceded by
Lawrence Orr
Member of Parliament for South Down
Oct 19741987
Succeeded by
Eddie McGrady
Political offices
Preceded by
Henry Brooke
Financial Secretary to the Treasury
1957–1958
Succeeded by
Jocelyn Simon
Preceded by
Derek Walker-Smith
Minister of State for Health
1960–1963
Succeeded by
Anthony Barber

Quotes

Up to date as of January 14, 2010

From Wikiquote

John Enoch Powell (1912-06-16 - 1998-02-08) was a British politician and Conservative Party MP between 1950 and February 1974, and an Ulster Unionist MP between October 1974 and 1987.

Contents

Sourced

Values exist in a transcendental realm, beyond space and time. They can neither be fought for, nor destroyed.
Some of us personally witnessed what was done on the continent under that sign and it is a symbol we shall never forget
  • The thought struck me for the first time today that our duty to our country may not terminate with the peace – apart, I mean, from the duty of begetting children to bear arms for the King in the next generation. To be more explicit, I see growing on the horizon the greater peril than Germany or Japan ever were; and if the present hostilities do not actually merge into a war with our terrible enemy, America, it will remain for those of us who have the necessary knowledge and insight to do what we can where we can to help Britain be victorious again in her next crisis.
    • Letter to his parents (16 February, 1943), from Simon Heffer, Like the Roman. The Life of Enoch Powell (Phoenix, 1999), p. 75.
  • I believe a second factor which has weighed heavily in this matter is the attitude, or supposed attitude, of the United States. I confess that I am not greatly moved by this. Whatever may be the attitude of the American Government and public to the United Kingdom as such, my view of American policy over the last decade has been that it has been steadily and relentlessly directed towards the weakening and the destruction of the links which bind the British Empire together. [Cyril Osborne: "No!"] We can watch the events as they unfold and place our own interpretation on them. My interpretation is that the United States has for this country, considered separately, a very considerable economic and strategic use but that she sees little or no strategic use or economic value in the British Empire or the British Commonwealth as it has existed and as it still exists. Against the background I ask the House to consider the evidence of advancing American imperialism in this area from which they are helping to eliminate us.
    • Speech on the British evacuation of the Suez Canal, 1953 (Hansard, 520:347-8.), from Simon Heffer, Like the Roman: The Life of Enoch Powell (Phoenix, 1999), p. 188.
  • It is no accident that the Labour Party of 1964 should share this craving for autarchy, for economic self-sufficiency, with the pre-war Fascist régimes and the present-day Communist states. They are all at heart totalitarian.
    • Speech to the Dulwich Conservative Association (29 February, 1964), from A Nation Not Afraid. The Thinking of Enoch Powell (B. T. Batsford Ltd, 1965), p. 75.
  • In the end, the Labour party could cease to represent labour. Stranger historic ironies have happened than that.
    • Article for The Sunday Telegraph, citing the swing to the Conservatives in his constituency and others with large working-class electorates (18 October, 1964), from Simon Heffer, Like the Roman. The Life of Enoch Powell (Phoenix, 1999), p. 364.
  • It is advertising that enthrones the customer as king. This infuriates the socialist...[it is] the crossing of the boundary between West Berlin and East Berlin. It is Checkpoint Charlie, or rather Checkpoint Douglas, the transition from the world of choice and freedom to the world of drab, standard uniformity.
    • Attacking the Labour President of the Board of Trade, Douglas Jay, who wanted to standardise packaging for detergents. (The Daily Telegraph 29 April, 1967); from Simon Heffer, Like the Roman. The Life of Enoch Powell (Phoenix, 1999), p. 430.
  • All government rests upon consent, and consent is not be be had without taking counsel with the most eminent or influential or representative of the governed, and seeking their advice: the act of taking counsel cannot be separated from the act of exercising authority. All government rests also upon upon habit, upon being exercised in the same way or a similar way to that in which the governed remember or believe that it was exercised before. Brute force can break with habit; but as soon as brute force begins to turn into government, it does so by starting to observe habitual modes of behaviour. Habitual forms or institutions for counsel and consent are thus of the essence of government.
    • Introduction to his book The House of Lords in the Middle Ages (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1968), p. xi.
  • Yes, I am a virus. I am the virus that kills socialists.
    • Replying to Harold Wilson's conference speech where he attacked "the virus of Powellism" (1 October, 1968).
  • As so often, the ordinary rank and file of the electorate have seen a truth, an important fact, which has escaped so many more clever people — the underlying value of that which is traditional, that which is prescriptive.
    • Speech to the House of Commons regarding proposals for reforming the House of Lords on 19 November, 1968 (Hansard, 773:1168), from Simon Heffer, Like the Roman. The Life of Enoch Powell (Phoenix, 1999), p. 497.
  • It depends on how you define the word "racialist." If you mean being conscious of the differences between men and nations, and from that, races, then we are all racialists. However, if you mean a man who despises a human being because he belongs to another race, or a man who believes that one race is inherently superior to another, then the answer is emphatically "No."
    • When asked by David Frost if he was a racialist (3 January, 1969), from Simon Heffer, Like the Roman. The Life of Enoch Powell (Phoenix, 1999), p. 504.
  • Compassion is something individual and voluntary. You cannot compel somebody to be compassionate; nor can you be vicariously compassionate by compelling somebody else. The Good Samaritan would have lost all merit if a Roman soldier were standing by the road with a drawn sword, telling him to get on with it and look after the injured stranger. Because there can be no such thing as compulsory compassion or vicarious compassion, therefore it is a humbugging abuse of language, intended to deceive, to talk about a 'compassionate Government' or a 'compassionate party' — or even a 'compassionate society', unless one simply means by that a society which happens to contain a lot of compassionate individuals. Nor let anyone protest: 'Oh, but when I vote for a party which will "make provision on an unprecedented scale for those in need of help", it means I too shall have to pay my whack and so I am being compassionate after all'. Nonsense! The purpose of your vote is not to make yourself subscribe — that you can freely do at any time — but to compel others.
    • Speech to the Harborough Division Conservative Association Gala, Leicester (27 September, 1969), from Still to Decide (Elliot Right Way Books, 1972), pp. 22-3.
  • It is of the nature of all internecine violence that it lives on hope. Violence feeds upon the hope of success... violence will not continue indefinitely where the objects which it proposes to itself appear to be unattainable, or at any rate unattainable within a predictable future. The Government in Northern Ireland and the Government in this country actually assist violence and strengthen it in so far as they appear to act and appear to reform under the pressure of violence...[The Government should ensure that] neither by word nor deed do we treat the membership of the Six Counties in the United Kingdom as negotiable. Every word or act which holds out the prospect that their unity with the rest of the United Kingdom might be negotiable is itself, consciously or unconsciously, a contributory cause to the continuation of violence in Northern Ireland.
    • Speech in the Commons, 7 April, 1970 (Hansard, 799:290-1), from Simon Heffer, Like the Roman. The Life of Enoch Powell (Phoenix, 1999), p. 551.
  • All that I will say is that in 1939 I voluntarily returned from Australia to this country to serve as a private soldier in the war against Germany and Nazism. I am the same man today... It does not follow that because a person resident in this country is not English that he does not enjoy equal treatment before the law and public authorities. I set my face like flint against discrimination.
    • Reacting to Tony Benn's speech that "the flag hoisted at Wolverhampton [Powell's constituency] is beginning to look like the one that fluttered over Dachau and Belsen" (3 June, 1970.), from Simon Heffer, Like the Roman. The Life of Enoch Powell (Phoenix, 1999), p. 556.
  • Some of us personally witnessed what was done on the continent under that sign and it is a symbol we shall never forget.
    • Reacting to a youth who had given the Hitler salute; from a speech in Wolverhampton (6 June, 1970), quoted in Simon Heffer, Like the Roman. The Life of Enoch Powell (Phoenix, 1999), p. 558.
  • Have you ever wondered, perhaps, why opinions which the majority of people quite naturally hold are, if anyone dares express them publicly, denounced as 'controversial, 'extremist', 'explosive', 'disgraceful', and overwhelmed with a violence and venom quite unknown to debate on mere political issues? It is because the whole power of the aggressor depends upon preventing people from seeing what is happening and from saying what they see.
    The most perfect, and the most dangerous, example of this process is the subject miscalled, and deliberately miscalled, 'race'. The people of this country are told that they must feel neither alarm nor objection to a West Indian, African and Asian population which will rise to several millions being introduced into this country. If they do, they are 'prejudiced', 'racialist'... A current situation, and a future prospect, which only a few years ago would have appeared to everyone not merely intolerable but frankly incredible, has to be represented as if welcomed by all rational and right-thinking people. The public are literally made to say that black is white. Newspapers like the Sunday Times denounce it as 'spouting the fantasies of racial purity' to say that a child born of English parents in Peking is not Chinese but English, or that a child born of Indian parents in Birmingham is not English but Indian. It is even heresy to assert the plain fact that the English are a white nation. Whether those who take part know it or not, this process of brainwashing by repetition of manifest absurdities is a sinister and deadly weapon. In the end, it renders the majority, who are marked down to be the victims of violence or revolution or tyranny, incapable of self-defence by depriving them of their wits and convincing them that what they thought was right is wrong. The process has already gone perilously far, when political parties at a general election dare not discuss a subject which results from and depends on political action and which for millions of electors transcends all others in importance; or when party leaders can be mesmerised into accepting from the enemy the slogans of 'racialist' and 'unChristian' and applying them to lifelong political colleagues...
    In the universities, we are told that education and the discipline ought to be determined by the students, and that the representatives of the students ought effectively to manage the institutions. This is nonsense — manifest, arrant nonsense; but it is nonsense which it is already obligatory for academics and journalists, politicians and parties, to accept and mouth upon pain of verbal denunciation and physical duress.
    We are told that the economic achievement of the Western countries has been at the expense of the rest of the world and has impoverished them, so that what are called the 'developed' countries owe a duty to hand over tax-produced 'aid' to the governments of the undeveloped countries. It is nonsense — manifest, arrant nonsense; but it is nonsense with which the people of the Western countries, clergy and laity, but clergy especially — have been so deluged and saturated that in the end they feel ashamed of what the brains and energy of Western mankind have done, and sink on their knees to apologise for being civilised and ask to be insulted and humiliated.
    Then there is the 'civil rights' nonsense. In Ulster we are told that the deliberate destruction by fire and riot of areas of ordinary property is due to the dissatisfaction over allocation of council houses and opportunities for employment. It is nonsense — manifest, arrant nonsense; but that has not prevented the Parliament and government of the United Kingdom from undermining the morale of civil government in Northern Ireland by imputing to it the blame for anarchy and violence.
    Most cynically of all, we are told, and told by bishops forsooth, that communist countries are the upholders of human rights and guardians of individual liberty, but that large numbers of people in this country would be outraged by the spectacle of cricket matches being played here against South Africans. It is nonsense—manifest, arrant nonsense; but that did not prevent a British Prime Minister and a British Home Secretary from adopting it as acknowledged fact.
    • The "enemy within" speech during the 1970 general election campaign; speech to the Turves Green Girls School, Northfield, Birmingham (13 June, 1970), from Still to Decide (Eliot Right Way Books, 1972), pp. 36-37.
  • A single currency means a single government, and that single government would be the government whose policies determined every aspect of economic life.
    • Speech in Tamworth (15 June, 1970), from Simon Heffer, Like the Roman. The Life of Enoch Powell (Phoenix, 1999), p. 563.
  • One of the most dangerous words is 'extremist'. A person who commits acts of violence is not an 'extremist'; he is a criminal. If he commits those acts of violence with the object of detaching part of the territory of the United Kingdom and attaching it to a foreign country, he is an enemy under arms. There is the world of difference between a citizen who commits a crime, in the belief, however mistaken, that he is thereby helping to preserve the integrity of his country and his right to remain a subject of his sovereign, and a person, be he citizen or alien, who commits a crime with the intention of destroying that integrity and rendering impossible that allegiance. The former breaches the peace; the latter is executing an act of war. The use of the word 'extremist' of either or both conveys a dangerous untruth: it implies that both hold acceptable opinions and seek permissible ends, only that they carry them to 'extremes'. Not so: the one is a lawbreaker; the other is an enemy.
    • Speech to the South Buckinghamshire Conservative Women's Annual Luncheon (Beaconsfield, 19 March 1971).
  • The same purpose, that of rendering friend and foe indistinguishable, is achieved by references to the 'impartiality' of the British troops and to their function as 'keeping the peace'. The British forces are in Northern Ireland because an avowed enemy is using force of arms to break down lawful authority in the province and thereby seize control. The army cannot be 'impartial' towards an enemy, nor between the aggressor and the aggressed: they are not glorified policemen, restraining two sets of citizens who might otherwise do one another harm, and duty bound to show no 'partiality' towards one lawbreaker rather than another. They are engaged in defeating an armed attack upon the state. Once again, the terminology is designed to obliterate the vital difference between friend and enemy, loyal and disloyal.
    • Speech to the South Buckinghamshire Conservative Women's Annual Luncheon (Beaconsfield, 19 March 1971).
  • Then there are the 'no-go' areas which have existed for the past eighteen months. It would be incredible, if it had not actually happened, that for a year and a half there should be areas in the United Kingdom where the Queen's writ does not run and where the citizen is protected, if protected at all, by persons and powers unknown to the law. If these areas were described as what they are — namely, pockets of territory occupied by the enemy, as surely as if they had been captured and held by parachute troops — then perhaps it would be realised how preposterous is the situation. In fact the policy of refraining from the re-establishment of civil government in these areas is as wise as it would be to leave enemy posts undisturbed behind one's lines.
    • Speech to the South Buckinghamshire Conservative Women's Annual Luncheon (Beaconsfield, 19 March 1971).
  • The prospect of a Russian conquest of Western Europe is one for which history affords no material. The theory that the Russians have not advanced from the Elbe to the Atlantic because of the nuclear deterrent is not more convincing than the theory that they have not done so because they do not want to do so and have never envisaged, unless perhaps in terms of world revolution, a Russian hegemony in Western Europe... Of all the nations of Europe, Britain and Russia are the only ones, though for opposite reasons, which have this thing in common: that they can be defeated in the decisive land battle and still survive. This characteristic, which Russia owes to her immensity, Britain owes to her moat.
    • Speech to The Hague (17 May, 1971), from The Common Market: Renegotiate or Come Out (Elliot Right Way Books, 1973), p. 97, p. 100.
  • Virtually the entire inflow was therefore Asiatic, and all but three or four thousand of that inflow originated from the Indian subcontinent... It is by 'black Power' that the headlines are caught, and under the shape of the negro that the consequences for Britain of immigration and what is miscalled 'race' are popularly depicted. Yet it is more truly when he looks into the eyes of Asia that the Englishman comes face to face with those who will dispute with him the possession of his native land.
    • Speech to the Southall Chamber of Commerce, Centre Airport Hotel, Middlesex (4 November, 1971), from Still to Decide (Eliot Right Way Books, 1972), p. 209.
  • The relevant fact about the history of the British Isles and above all of England is its separateness in a political sense from the history of continental Europe. The English have never belonged to it and have always known that they did not belong. The assertion contains no element of paradox. The Angevin Empire contradicts it as little as the English claim to the throne of France; neither the possession of Gascony nor the inheritance of Hanover made Edward I or George III anything but English sovereigns. When Henry VIII declared that 'this realm of England is an empire (imperium) of itself', he was making not a new claim but a very old one; but he was making it at a very significant point of time. He meant — as Edward I had meant, when he said the same over two hundred years before — that there is an imperium on the continent, but that England is another imperium outside its orbit and is endowed with the plenitude of its own sovereignty. The moment at which Henry VIII repeated this assertion was that of what is misleadingly called 'the reformation' — misleadingly, because it was, and is, essentially a political and not a religious event. The whole subsequent history of Britain and the political character of the British people have taken their colour and trace their unique quality from that moment and that assertion. It was the final decision that no authority, no law, no court outside the realm would be recognized within the realm. When Cardinal Wolsey fell, the last attempt had failed to bring or keep the English nation within the ambit of any external jurisdiction or political power: since then no law has been for England outside England, and no taxation has been levied in England by or for an authority outside England — or not at least until the proposition that Britain should accede to the Common Market.
    • Speech to The Lions' Club, Brussels (24 January, 1972), from The Common Market: Renegotiate or Come Out (Elliot Right Way Books, 1973), pp. 49-50.
  • The Bill... does manifest some of the major consequences. It shows first that it is an inherent consequence of accession to the Treaty of Rome that this House and Parliament will lose their legislative supremacy. It will no longer be true that law in this country is made only by or with the authority of Parliament... The second consequence... is that this House loses its exclusive control — upon which its power and authority has been built over the centuries — over taxation and expenditure. In future, if we become part of the Community, moneys received in taxation from the citizens of this country will be spent otherwise than upon a vote of this House and without the opportunity...to debate grievance and to call for an account of the way in which those moneys are to be spent. For the first time for centuries it will be true to say that the people of this country are not taxed only upon the authority of the House of Commons. The third consequence which is manifest on the face of the Bill, in Clause 3 among other places, is that the judicial independence of this country has to be given up. In future, if we join the Community, the citizens of this country will not only be subject to laws made elsewhere but the applicability of those laws to them will be adjudicated upon elsewhere; and the law made elsewhere and the adjudication elsewhere will override the law which is made here and the decisions of the courts of this realm.
    • Speech on Second Reading on the European Communities Bill in the House of Commons, 17th February 1972.
  • The House of Commons is at this moment being asked to agree to the renunciation of its own independence and supreme authority — but not the House of Commons by itself. The House of Commons is the personification of the people of Britain: its independence is synonymous with their independence; its supremacy is synonymous with their self-government and freedom. Through the centuries Britain has created the House of Commons and the House of Commons has moulded Britain, until the history of the one and the life of the one cannot be separated from the history and life of the other. In no other nation in the world is there any comparable relationship. Let no one therefore allow himself to suppose that the life-and-death decision of the House of Commons is some private affair of some privileged institution which at intervals swims into his ken and out of it again. It is the life-and-death decision of Britain itself, as a free, independent and self-governing nation. For weeks, for months the battle on the floor of the House of Commons will swing backwards and forwards, through interminable hours of debates and procedures and votes in the division lobbies; and sure enough the enemies and despisers of the House of Commons will represent it all as some esoteric game or charade which means nothing for the outside world. Do not be deceived. With other weapons and in other ways the contention is as surely about the future of Britain's nationhood as were the combats which raged in the skies over southern England in the autumn of 1940. The gladiators are few; their weapons are but words; and yet the fight is everyman's.
    • Speech at Newton, Montgomeryshire (4 March, 1972), from The Common Market: Renegotiate or Come Out (Elliot Right Way Books, 1973), pp. 57-8.
  • Independence, the freedom of a self-governing nation, is in my estimation the highest political good, for which any disadvantage, if need be, and any sacrifice are a cheap price.
    • Speech at Stockport (8 June, 1973), from Simon Heffer, Like the Roman. The Life of Enoch Powell (Phoenix, 1999), p. 661.
  • Judas was paid! Judas was paid! I am making a sacrifice!
    • Powell reacting to a heckler's cry of "Judas!" in a speech in Shipley where he told the audience to vote Labour (25 February, 1974).
  • I do not know if the doctrine that the nation-state arose in the 19th century was still being taught... but it is erroneous. The nation-state reaches back far into the origins of Europe itself and perhaps beyond. If Europe was not always a Europe of nations, it was always a Europe in which nations existed, and were taken for granted, as a basic form of the State.
    • The Daily Telegraph (9 June, 1975), from Enoch Powell on 1992 (Anaya, 1989), p. 144.
  • I do not believe that the loyalty of those many who over those 270 years, and particularly in this century, worked together and died together as part of the union under the Crown, was to the Crown quite simply, even though they wore the Crown on their uniforms and many of them wore it on their hearts. They were not the mercenaries of a Habsburg empire bound together by personal union and dynastic marriages; they were not the servants of a Hohenzollern empire imposed by military force. It was the Crown of the United Kingdom in parliament which was the centre of loyalty, as it is the essential unifying element of this realm, in the name of which and under the inspiration of which men and women these 270 years have worked and lived and died together.
    • Speech in the House of Commons against devolution to Scotland, January 1976. (Hansard, 903:1006.), from Simon Heffer, Like the Roman. The Life of Enoch Powell (Phoenix, 1999), p. 768.
  • Yet even though that picture is dark and darkening, there is one factor which has not yet been injected. I do not know whether it will be tomorrow, or next year, or in five years; but it will come. That factor is firearms and explosives. With communities which are so divided nothing can prevent the injection of explosives which we know perfectly well from experience in other parts of the United Kingdom and the world. At first there will be horrified astonishment, and inquiry as to what we have done wrong that such things should be happening. Then there will be feverish endeavour to find methods to allay the supposed grievances which lie behind the violence. Then follows exploitation by those who use violence of the ascendancy they have thus gained over the majority and over authority. The thing goes forward, acting and reacting, until a position is reached in which — I shall dare say it — compared with those areas, Belfast today will seem an enviable place.
    • Speech in the House of Commons on the consequences of immigration (24 May, 1976), from A Nation or No Nation? Six Years in British Politics (Elliot Right Way Books, 1977), p. 161.
  • There is a peculiar atmosphere in the Committee this afternoon that I do not think that I am the only one to have sensed. It is not an agreeable atmosphere; it is an atmosphere of a certain embarrassment, or even suppressed tension. For a time I was striving to locate the parallel atmosphere of which I was being reminded. Then, suddenly, it occurred to me what it was. It is an atmosphere that will be familiar to nearly all hon. Members who have suffered a near and severe bereavement. We are in the circumstances of a household, between a decease and a funeral when the body is still in the house.
    • Hansard HC 5ser vol 926 cols 1690-1, speech in the House of Commons on the Scotland and Wales Bill (24 February 1977). Two days previously a guillotine motion for the Bill had been defeated and it was generally accepted that there was no chance of the Bill being passed that session.
  • All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs.
    • Enoch Powell, Joseph Chamberlain (Thames and Hudson, 1977), p. 151.
  • It is one of history's most mocking ironies that the German customs union, which set out to dominate Europe and conquer Britain in the form of Bismarckian or Hitlerian military force, has at last vanquished the victor by drawing Britain into a Zollverein which comprises Western Europe and aspires to comprise the Mediterranean as well. If the ghosts of the Hohenzollerns come back to haunt this planet, they must find a lot to laugh at.
    • Speech in Grimsby (20 May, 1977), from Enoch Powell on 1992 (Anaya, 1989), p. 93.
  • Of course I am very proud of being a Tory. Yes, in my head and in my heart I regard myself as a Tory. As I have said, I was born that way; I believe it is congenital. I am unable to change it. That is how I see the world... [The EEC] is the most un-Tory thing that can be conceived.
    • Interview by Brian Walden (29 January, 1978), from Simon Heffer, Like the Roman. The Life of Enoch Powell (Phoenix, 1999), p. 800.
  • Might I indicate the difficulty which some of us feel over collective compassion? The good Samaritan had compassion. If two good Samaritans had compassion, that would still be individual compassion, not collective compassion. If the good Samaritan had been obliged by decree of the Roman Emperor to assist the traveller, that would not be compassion at all, because it would be done under obligation.
    • Speech in the House of Commons, 1979 (Hansard, 967:963), from Simon Heffer, Like the Roman. The Life of Enoch Powell (Phoenix, 1999), p. 824.
  • [I part company with Labour only] because of my blind, high Tory ultimate faith in the people. If they are the people I thought and still want to think that they are, those who represent them will assuredly be pulled back in time from the betrayal of their birthright of parliamentary freedom either to a European state or to a Marxist bureaucracy.
    • The Daily Telegraph (14 September, 1980), from Simon Heffer, Like the Roman. The Life of Enoch Powell (Phoenix, 1999), p. 840.
  • The nation state is the product of that logic. In England... it was worked out to its final conclusion at the Henrician reformation, the event by which the English nation state was fully realized. All exertion of authority, whether the making or the enforcement of law, the taking of collective decisions of an executive (i.e. not legislable) character, the imposition and collection of taxes, the judgment of causes — in short, all duress brought to bear by the society upon the individual — proceeds from one source, and that source an internal and native one. The England of Henry VIII found it impossible that its laws should be made, that its causes should be judged, or that a revenue should be procured from it by an external authority. In other words, there was no such thing as external authority: the expression was a contradiction in terms... There is a name for appealing over the head of the Crown to an authority outside the realm, and that name is treason. The word may be disused, but the thing is not; and the penalties of praemunire, which those guilty of it formerly incurred, were not disproportionate to its seriousness.
    • Speech in Lancaster (8 November, 1980), from Enoch Powell on 1992 (Anaya, 1989), p. 59, p. 61.
  • If you want to know what the SDP is about, look at its morning star, Roy Jenkins, the greatest Euro-bureaucrat of them all, a man who would never put up with anything British if he could find something foreign to embrace instead. The SDP is the extreme pro-European party, whose one common characteristic and undisputed stance is devotion to the destruction of Britain's parliamentary independence. Anyone who thinks that a bit rough should be aware that one of the SDP's proposals is to take away even the scrutiny, let alone control, of European legislation from the House of Commons and give it to the Assembly at Strasbourg.
    • Speech in Gloucester (30 September, 1981), from Enoch Powell on 1992 (Anaya, 1989), p. 91.
  • If, on the other hand, the Conservative party invites the electorate to link national independence in its mind with Bennery and all things 'left' and to discern in membership of the Community a bulwark against the dangers of socialism, the implications are still more disreputable; for this is nothing other than saying that one would rather live under the tutelage of foreigners than incur the risk of one's fellow countrymen being free to make up their own minds. That would be to stamp the Conservative party as a class party with a vengeance, a slur the more damaging because there were in fact, at the time of the original debates, Conservatives inside and outside Parliament who did advocate membership on precisely that ground — blood brothers, no doubt, of those who in an earlier generation viewed the rise of Hitler with equanimity or approval as a safeguard against Communism.
    • Speech to the Conservative Party conference at Blackpool (14 October, 1981), from Enoch Powell on 1992 (Anaya, 1989), p. 127.
  • We were dragged into folly by the Americans over Iran. We were dragged into folly by the Americans over Afghanistan. Neither national interest nor moral obligation requires us to be dragged by them into folly over Poland.
    • The Times (8 January, 1982), from Simon Heffer, Like the Roman. The Life of Enoch Powell (Phoenix, 1999), pp. 852-3.
  • Yet we slink about like whipped curs... our self-abasement principally takes the form of subservience to the United States... we are under no necessity to participate in the American nightmare of a Soviet monster barely held at bay in all quarters of the globe by an inconceivable nuclear armament and by political intervention everywhere from Poland to Cambodia. It is the Americans who need us in order to act out their crazy scenario... We simply do not need to go chasing up and down after the vagaries of the next ignoramus to become President of the United States.
    • The Sunday Express (4 February, 1982), from Simon Heffer, Like the Roman. The Life of Enoch Powell (Phoenix, 1999), p. 853.
  • I would sooner receive injustice in the Queen's courts than justice in a foreign court. I hold that man or woman to be a scoundrel who goes abroad to a foreign court to have the judgments of the Queen's courts overturned, the actions of her Government countermanded or the legislation of Parliament struck down.
    • Speech in Ilford (13 March, 1982), from Simon Heffer, Like the Roman. The Life of Enoch Powell (Phoenix, 1999), p. 853.
  • I refer to the misunderstanding of Soviet Russia as an aggressive power, militaristically and ideologically bent upon world domination — seeing', to quote a recent speech of the British Prime Minister, 'the rest of the world as its rightful fiefdom.' How any rational person, viewing objectively the history of the last thirty-five years, could entertain this 'international misunderstanding' challenges, if it does not defeat, comprehension. The notion has no basis in fact... If Russia is bent on world conquest, she has been remarkably slothful and remarkably unsuccessful.
    • Speech at Torquay (7 October, 1983), from George R. Urban, Diplomacy and Disillusion at the Court of Margaret Thatcher. An Insider's View (I.B. Tauris, 1996), p. 60.
  • I don't think that would be entirely unfair. There are some things which get on one's nerves and some things that don't. And I'm, to use a rather journalistic word, allergic to the things that are typically American. I think that's fairly natural to someone who has just been described as a Tory and is always ready to describe himself as a High Tory.
    • When asked if he was 'anti-American' (Face the Press, Channel 4 TV, 9 October, 1983).
  • At the invitation of Her Majesty's Government, the United States is about to station on the soil of the United Kingdom nuclear weapons which, we are told, will be used only after consultation and by joint decision with Her Majesty's Government. Anyone who, after the experience of the last few days and of recent years, imagines that the United States will defer to the views of the Government of this country is living in a dangerous fool's paradise. Anyone in office who entertains that illusion is in no position to serve the security of this country.
    • Speech to the House of Commons during the debate on the American invasion of Grenada (26 October, 1983, Hansard, 47:308), from Simon Heffer, Like the Roman. The Life of Enoch Powell (Phoenix, 1999), pp. 879-80.
  • I should like to have been killed in the war.
    • Answer to the question "How would you like to be remembered?" by Anne Brown in a radio interview on 13 April 1986; from Simon Heffer, Like the Roman. The Life of Enoch Powell (Phoenix, 1999), p. 901.
  • England is the country of the English... England is the stage on which the drama of English history was played and the setting within which the English became conscious of themselves as a people... when politicians and preachers attempt to frighten and cajole the English into pretending away the distinction between themselves and people of other nations and other origins, they are engaged in undermining the foundation upon which democratic government by consent and peaceable civilised society in this country are supported...those who at the end of the twentieth century wish to keep alive that consciousness of being English, which seemed so effortless and uncontroversial to our forefathers, will discover that they are called upon, if they take their purpose seriously, to confront the most arrogant and imposing prejudices of their time.
  • The safety of this island nation reposes upon two pillars. The first is the impregnability of its homeland to invasion by air or sea. The second is its ability and its will to create over time the military forces by which the last conclusive battle will be decided. Without our own industrial base of military armament production neither of those pillars will stand. No doubt, with the oceans kept open, we can look to buy or borrow from the other continents; but to depend on the continent of Europe for our arms is suicide.
    • Speech to the Birmingham branch of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers Association (18 February, 1989), from Enoch Powell on 1992 (Anaya, 1989), pp. 49-50.
  • Q: Who caused the inflation?
    A: The Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Q: How did he cause it?
    A: By putting a flood of new money into circulation.
    Q: Why did he do that?
    A: To prevent the exchange rate of the pound rising last year.
    Q: Why did he want to stop it rising?
    A: To keep level with the Deutschmark.
    Q: What for?
    A: To make it easier to join the EMS.
    • On the resurgence of inflation in the late 1980s (The Guardian, 24 July, 1989).
  • We are taunted — by the French, by the Italians, by the Spaniards — for refusing to worship at the shrine of a common government superimposed upon them all... where were the European unity merchants in 1940? I will tell you. They were either writhing under a hideous oppression or they were aiding and abetting that oppression. Lucky for Europe that Britain was alone in 1940.
    • Speech to the Merseyside Conservative Ladies' Luncheon Club (5 January, 1990), from Simon Heffer, Like the Roman. The Life of Enoch Powell (Phoenix, 1999), p. 928.
  • The world is full of evil men engaged in doing evil things. That does not make us policemen to round them up nor judges to find them guilty and to sentence them. What is so special about the ruler of Iraq that we suddenly discover that we are to be his jailers and his judges? ... we as a nation have no interest in the existence or non-existence of Kuwait or, for that matter, Saudi Arabia as an independent state...I sometimes wonder if, when we shed our power, we omitted to shed our arrogance.
    • The Sunday Correspondent (21 October, 1990).
  • To me a Tory is a person who believes that authority is vested in institutions — that's a carefully honed definition. We have made the law, not for extraneous reasons, not because it conforms with a priori specifications; it has been made by a particular institution in a particular way and can be changed by that institution in a particular way. A Tory therefore reposes the ultimate authority in institutions — he is an example of collective man.
    • Interviewed in Winter 1992 (Naim Attallah, Asking Questions (Quartet Books, 1996), pp. 354-5).
  • He says to the Sovereign: "I no longer am leader of the majority party in the House of Commons; but I am carrying on as your Prime Minister." Now I don't think anyone can say that — at least without inflicting damage on the constitution... [it is] tantamount to treating the monarch herself with disrespect and denying the very principle on which our parliamentary democracy is founded.
  • A pity she did not understand them!
    • "Odd man out", BBC TV profile by Michael Cockerell transmitted on 11 November 1995, on Margaret Thatcher's adoption of monetarist economic policies.

The 'Rivers of Blood' speech

On 20 April, 1968, Powell gave a speech to the West Midlands Area Conservative Political Centre which concentrated on the effects of immigration.

  • "In this country in fifteen or twenty years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man." I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?
    • Note: the first sentence was Powell's own quotation from one of his constituents.
  • 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 excreta pushed through her letterbox. 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."
    • A quotation from a letter Powell said had been sent to him from Northumberland, referring to one of his constituents. (According to a BBC radio programme broadcast in January 2007, the person in question was Druscilla Cotterill. However, this is open to question as some of the personal characteristics of Mrs Cotterill were not identical to the description given by Powell - in contrast to the woman referred to by Powell, Mrs Cotterill was childless and did not have a telephone. Source: Document, Radio 4, 22 January 2007)
  • As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."
    • Alluding to Virgil's report of the Sybil's prophesy, from the Aeneid, book 6, l. 86: "Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno."

Unsourced

  • Enoch Powell: No, we do not fight for values. I would fight for this country even if it had a communist government.
    Margaret Thatcher: Nonsense, Enoch. If I send British troops abroad, it will be to defend our values.
    Powell: No, Prime Minister, values exist in a transcendental realm, beyond space and time. They can neither be fought for, nor destroyed.
  • I have never seen such a disgraceful display of pharisaical handwashing in my whole life. [on Thatcher's government's statements in the Commons about violence in Ulster in April 1986]
  • Most people are. The only change is that is has become a term of abuse... I just don't like America or Americans. It is like saying you like sugar in your tea. De gustibus non est disputandum.1986
    • When asked whether he was anti-American
  • Britain's fondness for America has turned this country into something horribly resembling a satellite of the United States.
    • 1983
  • A party is not the private property of its leader.
    • 1973
  • Often when I am kneeling down in church, I think to myself how much we should thank God, the Holy Ghost, for the gift of capitalism.
    • 1968
  • Toryism is about enjoyment.
    • 1966
  • Hospital building is not like pyramid building, the erection of memorials to endure to a remote posterity.
    • 1961
  • A politician complaining about the media is like a fisherman complaining about the sea.
  • I will not surrender responsibility for my life and my actions
  • If I cannot understand my friend's silence, I will never get to understand his words.
  • If my ship sails from sight, it doesn't mean my journey ends, it simply means the river bends.
  • No battle is worth fighting except the last one.
  • Remove advertising, disable a person or firm from preconising its wares and their merits, and the whole of society and of the economy is transformed. The enemies of advertising are enemies of freedom.
  • When I repress my emotion my stomach keeps score.
  • You must have access to sources of information, divination and prophecy which are absolutely closed and unknown to me.
  • The beneficiaries thus regard themselves as having received no more than their due, to which they were entitled anyhow, while those whose benefits are discontinued regard themselves as cheated of what they had a right to and had been encouraged to expect.
    • On changes to the State benefits system
  • Reading one's diary is like returning to one's own vomit
  • I [also] know that, on my deathbed, I shall still be believing with one part of my brain that somewhere on every ocean of the world there is a grey, grey ship with three funnels and sixteen-inch guns which can blow out of the water any other navy which is likely to face it. I know it is not so. Indeed, I realised at a relatively early age that it is not so. But that factor – that emotional factor... will not die until I, the carrier of it, am dead.

About Enoch Powell

  • Ah, Enoch, dear Enoch! He once said something to me I never understood. He said, "You know, I've told you all I know about housing, and you can make your speech accordingly. Can I talk to you about something that you know all about and I know nothing? I want to tell you that in the Middle East our great enemies are the Americans." You know, I had no idea what he meant. I do now.
    • Sir Anthony Eden to Andrew Freeth after the Suez Crisis, from Simon Heffer, Like the Roman: The Life of Enoch Powell, pp. 122-3.
  • Poor Enoch, driven mad by the remorselessness of his own logic.
  • Mr. Powell is an economic Whig but a political Tory.
    • J. Critchley, The Times (15 February, 1969), p. 8.
  • What a theme, and what a speech, and what a speaker, and how Oliver Cromwell himself would have been thrilled to hear the parliamentary cause elevated to its rightful pre-eminence... Writing as an impenitent Leveller who still begs to differ with you (and Oliver Cromwell) in so many matters, I still cannot withhold my wonder and excitement at what I heard there today.
    • Michael Foot in a letter to Powell on Powell's speech against Scottish devolution (19 January, 1976)
  • The Tory Kingdom would sooner or later have been his to command, for he had all the shining qualities which the others lacked. Heath would never have outmanoeuvred him; Thatcher would never have stepped into the vacant shoes. It was a tragedy for Enoch, and a tragedy for the rest of us too.
    • Michael Foot, Loyalists and Loners (Collins, 1986), p. 192.

External links

Wikipedia
Wikipedia has an article about:

Simple English

John Enoch Powell, MBE (June 16, 1912February 8, 1998) was a British politician in the Conservative Party.

He was elected to the House of Commons in 1950, and was a government minister in 1957/58 and again between 1960 and 1963.

He made a speech in 1968 in which he said that if the United Kingdom let too many black people to come and live there, there would be fighting.

In 1974 he left the Conservative Party, before the February election, and became an MP in Northern Ireland for the Ulster Unionist Party in October 1974.

Before becoming a politician, Powell was a professor of Ancient Greek at Sydney University, Australia. When World War II started he joined the British Army in 1939 as a private, but by 1945 he had been promoted to Brigadier.

Other websites








Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address
Message