InsaneApache's thread on the death of Margaret Thatcher has provoked much debate. However, I wanted to ask people's opinion on these highly enigmatic and provocative figures in post-war British politics.
Printable View
InsaneApache's thread on the death of Margaret Thatcher has provoked much debate. However, I wanted to ask people's opinion on these highly enigmatic and provocative figures in post-war British politics.
Not having studied recent British history, largely through a lack of interest, and since they were long before my time, all I can say on the subject of Enoch Powell is that he fundamentally misrepresents the intent of the Vergilian line: bella, horrida bella|et Thybrim multo spumante sanguine cerno. The tragedy of the line is in the fratricidal nature of the civil war between two sections of the elite, which was fresh in the memory of Vergilius' elite audience, rather than conflict between what Powell clearly viewed as two separate communities defined by race.
Since the point of the 'Rivers of Blood' speech was to decry immigration, implying that immigrants are not part of British society, the quotation is completely inappropriate: clearly he was just pandering to his audience with an 'epic' line and showing off his education and wealth...
They were mostly before my time...
Benn I generally have a good impression off, without looking it up I would struggle to tell you much he has actually done though.
Enoch Powell I only really know of him through the rivers of blood speech, a bit controversial though in fairness he wasn't a million miles away with the estimate he made.
My knowledge of Foot is bordering on the invisible so I went into his wiki article. This line caught my attention Throughout his political career he railed against the increasing corporate domination of the press, entertaining a special loathing for Rupert Murdoch. That alone makes the man a genius ahead of his time for me...
Saved the best for last Bevan, created the NHS and resigned because they had to introduce charging for prescriptions. Doesn't seem hugely ideologically opposed to my own views (which is strange for a politician with some success) The only one of the four I know a good bit about without needing to look up stuff (for memory or to learn for the first time)
Never heard of any of them.
Since they're brits, that's probably because they're all booring as hell.
Enoch Powell is the only one I've heard of before.
He put forward an example of a white British women who offered rooms in her house for rent but didn't want any coloured people as customers as a victim of anti-discrimination laws. Actually I think that while "the government" shouldn't discriminate and should respect human rights it's a valid discussion point to what extent the same should apply to private persons.
Frankly, I find it hard to believe that there were no other UK politicians in the decades 60 - 70 who called for a stricter immigration policy. Powell probably only stood out by virtue of his colourful language, and was subsequently the only one to be remembered ages later. I don't know enough about him to give a final opinion, but it seems to me that both the notion that he was a racist and the notion that he was some sort of visionary are somewhat misplaced. But his words have become something of rallying cry for genuine racists and if he was seriously bothered by that, I suspect he could have done more to prevent it.
Indeed, I seem to remember that, though he was forced to resign over the 'Rivers of Blood' speech in which he gave the example above, it was cited as providing a vital boost to the Conservative party in the subsequent election...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Apparently he had popular support (from my read up on wiki) regarding his prediction I mentioned earlier he predicted a certain percentage of immigrants and/or of ethnic descent and wasn't far enough.
I've only ever heard people speak favourably of Enoch Powell. I mean outside the internet, of course.
As has been said, he wasn't too far off with his predictions. If anything, he was a lot closer to the mark than many people realise.
Few people are exposed to the racial realities in Britain. They only see the middle-class world. But if you step down a peg it's a different story.* If anything, Britain puts America to shame. I really wish I had the article to hand, but I do recall hearing that a higher proportion of blacks in Britain are in prison than their American counterparts.
If I told you there was mass incarceration of blacks, racial gangs patrolling the streets, police harassment, hatred of the police, Nation of Islam etc going on, you would presume it's America. But check out this documentary, I seen it recently on Channel 4:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/one-mile-away/4od
How right could Enoch Powell have been?
And don't get me wrong, I don't blame blacks or Asians for this situation. But what is going to be done about it?
* I'm not claiming personal experience here, I've lived in very bad areas but they were 100% white. Being north of Hadrian's Wall, and all...
Powell wasn't right. There hasn't been rivers of blood. There has been tension in specific areas between specific groups but this hasn't been universal. The far right remain a tiny minority compared to most of southern Europe. The vast majority ofpeople in this country are happy to live and let live.
Not to forget that if you want to help people integrate it helps if you don't tell them that you find them so strange that you think either you or they are going to start killing the other sooner or later...
Otherwise you create a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.
I remember them all except Bevan, he died when I was a nipper. I met his wife though. Seemed very nice (and uber rich) but a hypocrite.
Foot. Where to start. Clueless and aloof. Reckoned to be responsible for writing the longest suicide political note in history. Just about wrong on everything. Well meaning though and I believe actually served under Churchill in the wartime coalition. The thing to remember from those times was that a lot of people who hated fascism had nowhere else to go than communism. Although that's not saying much as they competed to butcher their own people by the trainload.
Powell. A controversial figure even today. He wasn't far off the mark with his prediction on numbers of immigrants but not quite right on the outcome. As a classical scholar he was mis-represented on his rivers of blood speech by vested interests. Bit like Thatchers there's no such thing as society. Hey hum that's politics I suppose.
As for Benn, well where to start? Another aristocrat in the Labour party. Like Harman. Says it all I 'spose. The thing that strikes me most about the guy, was that at least he could think. I attended a Rock Against Racism gig in the late '70s and he was the guest speaker. A very, very good orator, he had the crowd eating out of his hand. One thing I do agree with him though was about the EU.
Quote:
[Edward Heath], who sold out Britain's interests to the Common Market and gave our sovereignty away without our consent—with support of Mr Thorpe and the Liberals—is not entitled to wave the Union Jack to get himself out of the mess.
Quote:
Britain's continuing membership of the Community would mean the end of Britain as a completely self-governing nation and the end of our democratically elected Parliament as the supreme law making body in the United Kingdom.
At the time I was very pro EEC. He saw the future much clearer than I did. In that, he has my respect. All the rest of his ideology was of course claptrap.Quote:
"What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?" If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.
P.S. When he gave up his peerage to become an MP, he later changed his mind. That, in part, is why he swung to the left IMO. Spite and pique at the establishment. Funny as fuck though.
I will let Powell answer from the Rivers of Blood speech itself:
"What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history."Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
"Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen.""Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
So here's a man speaking more than 45 years ago, and he's still ahead of the game when it comes to some people today. He's already put down the counter-arguments.
FIFYQuote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
You mean he pulled another wrong opinion out of his nose because he was unwilling to admit that he was wrong. 45 years have passed and despite the really crappy welcoming of immigrants, no civil war has broken out yet. Maybe he should've spent more time on talking about the real problems (preferably to the immigrants) rather than on making bad predictions based on his personal prejudices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
enoch powell on kenya:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...s-are-missing/
Tony Benn is pretty awesome, has to be said.
Indeed. He alone supported 17 years of Tory government. Well done that man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
:laugh4:
Go read Rivers of Blood - it's not that Powell thought immigrants were filthy savages, it's that he thought they wouldn't integrate with the English very well because of the distrust on both sides, and the lack of common solidarity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
As Rhy said - a fact today outside the Middle Classes (the Middle Class is integrated just fine, because school and university iron out the wrinkles).
So he just figured out that we need more and better education. Wasn't obvious from what was previously said about him, don't have time to read the book. Surely integration causes problems but since when do we just run away from challenges?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Please explain.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Blimey! Are you sure?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brennus
OK then. His views were so far to the left that no sane person would vote for him. Yes a great speaker and thinker but what he was saying and thinking turned millions away from the Labour party. It's an uncomfortable truth for the left but Maggie was voted in three times with more votes than Blair ever got. She did this by persuading huge swathes of the working classes (et moi) to vote Conservative.
It's no coincidence that I haven't voted Conservative in over twenty years. Neither have the huge swathes of the working classes that previously did so.
The workers had had enough of the bullying from the trades union movement* and fought back.
*I was a member of NUPE from 1980 to 1990. Our leader, Rodney Bickerstaff was re-elected three times in that period. Not once did I, nor any of my colleagues get a vote, offered a vote or even told that there was an election on.
I am sure you like this paragraph of his about moving to the 'Left' whilst in office:Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
I quite likes the idea of his Commonwealth of Britain BillQuote:
As a minister, I experienced the power of industrialists and bankers to get their way by use of the crudest form of economic pressure, even blackmail, against a Labour Government. Compared to this, the pressure brought to bear in industrial disputes is minuscule. This power was revealed even more clearly in 1976 when the IMF secured cuts in our public expenditure. These lessons led me to the conclusion that the UK is only superficially governed by MPs and the voters who elect them. Parliamentary democracy is, in truth, little more than a means of securing a periodical change in the management team, which is then allowed to preside over a system that remains in essence intact. If the British people were ever to ask themselves what power they truly enjoyed under our political system they would be amazed to discover how little it is, and some new Chartist agitation might be born and might quickly gather momentum.
Nice. Just get rid of the British citizens you find annoying. What a berk.Quote:
British jurisdiction over Northern Ireland would be ended.
As somebody who has lived for six years in Northern Ireland I cannot agree with Benn's proposal to offload the six counties; and thats coming from someone who agrees with the idea of Irish reunification. However the abolition of the monarchy and House of Lords (assuming there was a sufficient degree of reform as well, so we didn't simply go from being a monarchy to an oligarchic republic) do appeal to me.
As to your thoughts on Benn in the late 70s and 80s, InsaneApache, I would agree with them, despite being a great fan of Benn.
I think it more allowing reunification of Ireland then Ireland possibly rejoining in the said commonwealth as equals than getting rid of British Citizens you find annoying.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
So just ignore the majority then? Still a berk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
Sounds like every politician known to man.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
There's nothing like a 51% majority to make things a bit awkward.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Dmocracy does not, however, rest on majority rule. Majority opinion will have to be put aside in a large number of cases if a nation wants to claim democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brennus
Seems like a pointless and dangerous piece of legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
True - the majority of Brits would probably not care if the Irish were offloaded, but the Irish did and do.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Just spotted this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
I beg to differ. The UK immigrants who came in the 60s and 70s integrated very well. So much so that my British born
asian neighbour was moaning to me today about "All these immigrants coming here! When is it going to stop?"
Dint half make me chuckle.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Remember, I'm as thick as a brick, so please type slowly so I can keep up.
You mean the tyranny of the majority?
Good grief. We've had the tyranny of the minorities to the point of exhaustion. Democracy by it's very definition is government, by, for and with the majority.
Still as I'm as thick as a brick, I'm sure you'll educate me.