• Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • Michael Portillo and Enoch Powell


    by Sunny
    3rd September, 2007 at 4:59 am    

    The columnist and former politician Michael Portillo wrote an an amusing article for the Sunday Times yesterday. I can’t resist taking it apart.

    Many people will applaud the transformation for the diversity and enrichment that it has brought. But if the alteration of Britain can be presented in such positive terms, then it is all the more remarkable that it has occurred without the British people’s consent being sought.

    This such a common complaint made by BNP types that it’s all the more bizarre that a supposedly intelligent commentator is making it. Did the countries that the British empire invaded have any choice in the matter? Anything to say on that? And even then, if one wants to competely ignore any historical context whatsoever for the sake sticking by their narrative, there are other holes with such a claim.

    Like any other piece of legislation or event Britons had the choice - they could have simply voted out the government in power at the time on the basis of the decision to let in immigrants. But they didn’t and when Enoch Powell expressed his naked racism, Britons expressed their revulsion. The Tories cannot simply absorb this fact and neither can Portillo. And what about the times that British industry advertised in Commonwealth countries to fill their vacancies? Forgotten those?

    To add to the public’s sense of frustration, immigration is a subject rarely even mentioned by politicians. It is not just that there is never an opportunity to vote on it, there is rarely a chance even to discuss it. Most politicians loftily ignore the fact that for many voters it is a top, maybe the top, priority.

    Hahaha! Immigration was one of the top issues cited by William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard. All three lost elections because voters clearly did not see that as a top priority. Portillo isn’t just being blind to the facts, he’s being hilariously obtuse to them.

    Of course, Enoch Powell, then in the Tory shadow cabinet, mentioned it in 1968. His choice of language was explosive. His foreboding, which he likened to the ancient Roman seeing the Tiber foaming with blood, was apocalyptic. With a single speech, he made himself a national figure and the hero of the East End dockers. But his outspokenness ended his front-bench career and converted one of politics’ outstanding intellectuals into a populist demagogue.

    Awww… do I sense a bit of nostaliga Mr Portillo?

    But then [David Cameron] must also be familiar with this paradox: that however many of our citizens lament being denied either choice or debate, politicians who raise immigration do not prosper.

    Yes. That could be because most don’t actually see it as a big issue but Portillo wants to pretend that cannot be true. [sarcasm] You see, the reason why David Cameron is trailing in the polls now is because immigration wasn’t mentioned earlier! If only he had been tough on all these non-white people “swamping” our (am I allowed to call it that Mr Portillo?) country earlier he would have gotten the core Tory vote, and then he could have hugged-an-aunty from Southall and we’d all believe we wasn’t nasty after all. [/sarcasm]

    Portillo’s political naivety is astounding. He was good at one time, apparently. Now he’s pining for Enoch Powell. Until Tories realise this country is becoming socially liberal, they’ll never be elected.


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Party politics,Race politics






    55 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. World Religion Resources

      World Religion Resources…

      I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…


    2. Popular Science

      Popular Science…

      I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…


    3. Free Online Tax Returns

      Free Online Tax Returns…

      I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…


    4. Online Travel Guide

      Online Travel Guide…

      I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…




    1. Sunny — on 3rd September, 2007 at 5:02 am  

      And I’ve just published an anti-immigration article too:
      http://www.asiansinmedia.org/news/article.php/current_affairs/1730

      But of course, no one is allowed to mention the i-word… apart from the Tories, Daily Mail, Telegraph, Sun, Express, Spectator…

    2. Gump — on 3rd September, 2007 at 10:17 am  

      you’re last point doesn’t quite make sense.
      if he was tough on all the “non-white people swamping our country earlier” he may well have secured the Tory core vote.
      but there are two problems.

      firstly, that would have to be done in public. and so when he made did “i’m a nice guy” routine, not that many people (if any) would believe him. he wouldn’t have been able to have both.
      you can’t go over the old Tory ground and then pretend you’re different. you won’t gain support that way, he would still be left with the Tory core and that’s it. however, chances are the Tory core would be leaving him too because he’s in the position he is in now, too far behind Brown.

      secondly, he actually had a good deal of the Tory core beforehand. not necessarily bcause what he said. they may have suspected him of having the same beliefs they did, but that’s not quite the point either. they supported him because they thought he could win. they thought by using him as a symbol of change and a different party they could get back into power. they probably, and quite rightly, thought he was cut from the same cloth, and by appearing to have changed, and in some cases making some changes, he could get into power.
      the problem is he was steady when Blair was fading and he’s dropped since Brown has risen. He needs something to revive his credentials but the manner in which he is attempting to do so is completely wrong. immigration is an issue, but to make it the core may seem necessary to appease certain sections, but will not get you to where they want you to be

    3. soru — on 3rd September, 2007 at 10:30 am  

      Did the countries that the British empire invaded have any choice in the matter?

      That’s a pretty bizarre point to be making, unless you are trying for the argument that the empire was such an obviously good thing that immigration is too…

      Perhaps this a problem with responding in detail to loony arguments like Portillo’s - in trying to persuade them, you end up using trapped into using the kind of loony arguments a loony would find persuausive.

      It would be better to contrast on the one hand, those who favour one-size-fits all absolute standards: the old fashioned imperialists and new-fangled jihadists and human rights lawyers, and on the other hand those who actually take democracy seriously, think it is in principle the right way to politically resolve even difficult issues.

    4. Sofia — on 3rd September, 2007 at 10:35 am  

      It might help, just to put this immigration issue to rest, to have some open statistics on how many people come to this country and are still here after 2 years. Whether they be asylum seekers, economic migrants, foreign spouses etc. I think too often there is talk of immigration and it gets tagged on to the end of refugee..which then creates an image in the minds of people. Instead of talking about immigration as something of a taboo..why don’t they just openly come out and prove a point (if any) that they may be trying to make…then let’s see where political points are that need to be made!

    5. Gump — on 3rd September, 2007 at 10:43 am  

      Another point…

      Cameron can’t and won’t do much about immigration if he was in power anyway.
      He, as he has admitted, can’t stop anyone from the EU moving here. He said there would be limits on those from new accession states. apart from the point of when that will happen, those limits are already in place. the govt decided not to use them.
      when it comes to non-EU immigration, the tests mooted by the govt that everyone will have to meet some criteria before being allowed to enter the country are similar if not the same as to what Cameron would do.

    6. funkg — on 3rd September, 2007 at 11:16 am  

      I should be surprised that Portillo would make statements like this, I quite like him especially with his cosy relationship with Diane Abbot, but then he is from the right of the Tory party. I don’t trust this whole consensus of giving the public a full say in deciding the national interest. The daily mail and the sun are 2 of the biggest selling dailies, imagine giving all of their readership a full say into how the country is governed? within a mature parliamentary democracy, we have a right to appeal where injustices occur such as racism, but often we have to trust in the professionalism of our institutions otherwise we have anarchy. If membership of the EU is essential to the UKs national interest then this message should be communicated into plain English so that everyone understands this. If EU membership is not then equally we should know this so that we can vote out the parties that supports this.
      In regards to immigration and as a second generation ‘immigrant’ putting asides rubbish platitudes such as diversity, blah blah the clear economic gains should equally be known.

    7. Ravi Naik — on 3rd September, 2007 at 12:34 pm  

      “In regards to immigration and as a second generation ‘immigrant’ putting asides rubbish platitudes such as diversity, blah blah the clear economic gains should equally be known.”

      Portillo’s father was an immigrant. But when people talk about “immigrants” or “foreigners” they mean non-white people, right? And being a visible minority, it means that we need to keep on proving our economic worth for generations to come, in order to feel a part of this nation. How unfair.

    8. Sofia — on 3rd September, 2007 at 12:36 pm  

      Well if it were a colour issue, why do I hear Asians going on and on about “these East European immigrants” in very derogatory terms…?

    9. soru — on 3rd September, 2007 at 1:09 pm  

      But when people talk about “immigrants” or “foreigners” they mean non-white people, right?

      Only if you choose to rewrite what they say. That seems rather an arrogant thing to do, like some medieval King hearing a demand for lower taxes and labelling it a call to an anarchist revolution.

      I don’t trust this whole consensus of giving the public a full say in deciding the national interest.

      If yuo find some people disagree with your views, what is your preferred method of resolving that dispute? If not voting, then violence, or something else?

    10. Jai — on 3rd September, 2007 at 1:15 pm  

      But when people talk about “immigrants” or “foreigners” they mean non-white people, right?

      Evidently. It’s also interesting — along with disconcerting and depressingly familiar — that whenever the media discusses “immigrants”, these days they always focus on Asians as part of the visual depiction of the news story, usually including a high-profile shot of a woman in a burkha.

    11. Derius — on 3rd September, 2007 at 1:22 pm  

      “I don’t trust this whole consensus of giving the public a full say in deciding the national interest”

      Posted by Funkg, above

      You don’t believe in democracy, then?

      Also, from the evidence I have seen, whether Britain has experienced net economic growth due to the immigration that this country has seen over the last 20 years is debatable, yet you state it as a fact. Can you present some evidence to back up your claim, as it is a topic that I find interesting?

    12. Gump — on 3rd September, 2007 at 1:32 pm  

      who said democracy was solely defined by the public deciding what was in the national interest?

    13. Ravi Naik — on 3rd September, 2007 at 2:05 pm  

      “whether Britain has experienced net economic growth due to the immigration that this country has seen over the last 20 years is debatable”

      Immigration is not just positive if it contributed to economic growth. It would be extremely positive if one can prove that if not for specific groups of immigrants, this country would have registered an economic decline.

      ““I don’t trust this whole consensus of giving the public a full say in deciding the national interest””

      Let’s face it. Economic and social policies are very complicated, and the gain (or tradeoff) is not clear to the average person. So, we would be in real trouble if every policy had to be decided by a referendum.
      Democracy is about electing the people who make the decisions, hence in a way we have an indirect say on the matter.

    14. funkg — on 3rd September, 2007 at 2:19 pm  

      Derius

      …..Whether Britain has experienced net economic growth due to the immigration that this country has seen over the last 20 years is debatable, yet you state it as a fact……Can you present some evidence to back up your claim, as it is a topic that I find interesting?

      I don’t have at hand documentary evidence of the economic gains of immigration, I can only talk for myseIf and my family. My niece has just returned from a (non combatant) tour of duty in Afghanistan, a duty of seemingly NATIONAL importance, I could go on but then why should I have to justify all of my families contributions to the UK going back generation’s i.e. male relatives who fought and lost lives in WW1/WW2/Bosnia/british merchant Navy, and of course slavery.

      Soru

      I believe in parliamentary democracy, if change is affected at the ballot box. Knee jerk bandwagon jumping i.e. lets bring back the death penalty, doesn’t wash with me if people vote for it fine.

    15. funkg — on 3rd September, 2007 at 2:23 pm  

      How do I do italics!

    16. Sunny — on 3rd September, 2007 at 2:31 pm  

      < i > and < /i > - use that but with no spaces between the pointy brackets.

      Gump: you can’t go over the old Tory ground and then pretend you’re different

      That’s precisely my point.

      That’s a pretty bizarre point to be making, unless you are trying for the argument that the empire was such an obviously good thing that immigration is too…

      The point is that immigration from Commonwealth countries cannot be seen out of the context of the British empire.

      Portillo’s father was an immigrant. But when people talk about “immigrants” or “foreigners” they mean non-white people, right?

      Of course he means non-white people. If you read the first para of the article, he recalls talking to a woman complaining about being the only white person left on the street.

    17. funkg — on 3rd September, 2007 at 2:56 pm  

      Immigration is not just positive if it contributed to economic growth. It would be extremely positive if one can prove that if not for specific groups of immigrants, this country would have registered an economic decline.

      I totally agree with you Ravi, in my post I spoke of the physical contributions my so called ‘immigrant’ family, have made to this nation. There are scores of others throughout the centuries.
      My father came her in 1951, he came at a time when London was still devastated from the war. London really did take a pounding and many of the Asian and post Windrush, ‘pioneers’ helped to create the economically strong nation we have now. Lots of people talk of the Asian success stories of the doctor, shop keeper and lawyer, what about the working class Asian tailors, Sikh door to door salesmen and factory workers who kept the country ticking along? The African Caribbean contribution is often left out of the debate because it suits some people to see blacks as criminals. What of the post war boost to the NHS, London transport the motor industry, confectionary I could go on and on. Most Asian and black working classes just like the white, have always quietly got on with their jobs providing for their families, all equally proving towards the national good. How dare some of you lot Derius et al devalue their contribution? How dare you devalue the economic and physical contribution of my (black) squaddie mate who was killed in Northern Ireland, or my other (black) mates father who fought in Aden?

      Many myopic revisionist will hark back to a seemingly halcyon period of low crime before we had mass immigration. Please take a trip to the British newspaper Library in Colindale, look at archive copies of the east London advertiser and other local papers, you will realise that violent crime has always occurred in London from the Bessarabian Tiger gang of the 19th century to the Krays and beyond.

      WHY should I keep banging on about my ‘economic contributions’ to Britain when all I have ever done for 20 odd years is pay tax and NI? I don’t have much to show for all of the taxes I have paid, perhaps if I was given a council house when I’ve asked for one, I could show something I have got back.

    18. Gump — on 3rd September, 2007 at 3:07 pm  

      i mistook your previous sarcasity…apologies…

    19. Ravi Naik — on 3rd September, 2007 at 3:53 pm  

      “Of course he means non-white people. If you read the first para of the article, he recalls talking to a woman complaining about being the only white person left on the street.”

      The interesting part, I find, is when he talks about this “paradox” that he himself created. The anti-immigrant and racist voters have never been disfranchised, over this time there have been several parties that have catered to xenophobes.

      People decide on the issues by electing their leaders. The majority of people didn’t elect the BNP, but rather parties with a non-racist agenda. Portillo is a clown for pretending he doesn’t know that, and decided to go instead for the BNP narrative… you know, the one that starts with the only white woman in the village.

    20. Sunny — on 3rd September, 2007 at 4:28 pm  

      I’ve just edited the post slightly to clarify that Gump…

      Ravi - yup.

    21. ad — on 3rd September, 2007 at 7:27 pm  

      Did the countries that the British empire invaded have any choice in the matter?

      That’s a pretty bizarre point to be making, unless you are trying for the argument that the empire was such an obviously good thing that immigration is too…

      Perhaps this a problem with responding in detail to loony arguments like Portillo’s - in trying to persuade them, you end up using trapped into using the kind of loony arguments a loony would find persuausive.

      Soru - I think mmost of our arguments are designed to make ourselves look good in the eyes of potential allies. It matter little whether the argument makes sense or not.

      Which is why we get arguments along the lines of “The British were really evil! So everyone should have the right to move to Britain!”

      One thing that does occur to me in these debates is Jewish immigration to Palestine. Do we think that this was good for the Palestineians?

      If not, can we explain how immigration to the UK from [insert country here], is good for the UK?

    22. Paolo — on 3rd September, 2007 at 8:48 pm  

      Michael Portillo’s father was an immigrant from Franco’s Spain. Good thing they didn’t keep him out eh Michael, you hypocritical buffoon.

    23. Paolo — on 3rd September, 2007 at 8:55 pm  

      funkg, great post (number 17)

      Should be typed up into an article and given space in a national newspaper so that lots of white people who want to selectively turn Black and Asian people in Britain into a disease afflicting society can read it. Although I think many won’t care either way. I think the mood of the moment is the ‘myopic revisionist’ one.

    24. Spitting Mad — on 3rd September, 2007 at 9:43 pm  

      now if we’d only listened to the Daily Mail back in the 1930s, we wouldn’t have had all those Commie Dago Asylum Seekers coming here and we wouldn’t have to listen to this guff today.

    25. Kulvinder — on 3rd September, 2007 at 10:02 pm  

      Also, from the evidence I have seen, whether Britain has experienced net economic growth due to the immigration that this country has seen over the last 20 years is debatable, yet you state it as a fact. Can you present some evidence to back up your claim, as it is a topic that I find interesting?

      I presume the Ernst & Young ITEM Club is the kind of independant industry oriented group you’re looking to for ‘evidence’? It would be nonsensical to suggest otherwise; unless you want to start arguing about economic growth with those from industry who depend on it.

      Regardless

      New workers put an £18bn smile on the Chancellor’s face
      Peter Spencer, chief economic advisor to the Ernst & Young ITEM Club, says, “Net immigration has touched record levels since Gordon moved into Number 11 nearly a decade ago with unforeseen and wholly positive implications for the UK economy.

      “ITEM estimates that cumulatively since 1998 the increased tax take from immigrants, particularly those from Eastern Europe, could be as high as £18bn having a substantial and unexpected beneficial impact on the public sector finances.”

    26. Adnan — on 3rd September, 2007 at 10:34 pm  

      My theory is that the country goes through phases. I remember being told to “Go back to your country” and how immigrants got housing and free this and that. The Right has tried to find issues to beat Labour on. Initially, it was the Countryside. However, that was not sufficiently popular. The next obvious issues are the old political correctness straw man and immigration. Also, since Euro ’96 there has been a feeling of the English being hard done by (not “allowed” to wave their St George’s flags, the Scots and Welsh getting their own Parliaments).

      I remember when Enoch Powell died, Andrew “I ** am ** a Historian” Roberts saying how wonderful he on Question Time. However, at that time even the Daily Bile (my father-in-law gets it) printed an article by an ex-friend of Powell’s saying that he did not recognise the “terrified old lady” Powell referred to. Nowadays, people like Powell and “visionaries” like Ray Honeyford are praised to high heaven by the likes of Melanie Phillips. A lot of this was boiling below the surface pre-9/11 (e.g. the Oldham riots). Also, The Times has an article today about Health Tourism costs “soaring” to £62 million.

      Nowadays, even supposedly educated people e.g. my Labour-supporting, Cambridge educated boss bemoan the “plight” of the white male in Britain (maybe it’s because his immediate boss maybe of Hispanic origin). Also, they genuinely seem to forget (as they were never on the receiving end) how racist this country actually was (it’s only 15 or so years since the Stephen Lawrence murder).

      As for Cameron he and that Aussie guy were the brains behind Howard’s “Are you thinking what we’re thinking” campaign.

    27. Derius — on 3rd September, 2007 at 10:56 pm  

      Funkg,

      I merely asked you to provide some evidence to back up an economic assertion you had made. Am I not allowed to do so? I was not devaluing any particular individual’s contribution to this country, and it is a shame you have interpreted my question this way, as that was not my intention.

      However, I do now realise that I misinterpreted your first statement about democracy, for which I apologise for. You were obviously making the point that Ravi clarified in post 13. When you said that the pubic shouldn’t have a full say on some matters, I thought you meant that there were some matters that we should not be able to comment on. I am a believer in free speech, you see.

      Ravi

      “Immigration is not just positive if it contributed to economic growth. It would be extremely positive if one can prove that if not for specific groups of immigrants, this country would have registered an economic decline.”

      Excellent point, and duly noted.

      Gump

      “who said democracy was solely defined by the public deciding what was in the national interest?”

      True, that is not the sole definition, but it is a political trait that is inherent in Democracy.

    28. Cisoux — on 3rd September, 2007 at 11:20 pm  

      Nowadays, people like Powell and “visionaries” like Ray Honeyford are praised to high heaven

      Actually, Ray Honeyford was right about many things he said. The difference between Powell and Honeyford is that Honeyford said these kids are British so make sure they become fully integrated with British society, don’t take them out of school for 3 months at a time so that their education suffers and all boys and girls receive the same priority in terms of educational opportunity. He never spoke of repatriation or that they didn’t belong to this society. He said they do belong to this society so don’t hold them back from it. He spoke the truth about some things.

    29. Adnan — on 4th September, 2007 at 9:42 am  

      Ah yes, the sugar-coated Ray Honeyford for the 21st Century. Nowadays even the BNP “care” for Sikhs and Hindus.

      I disagree with Sunny: I think the Tories did not succeed with immigration because New Labour were quick off the mark to wear the clothes the Right on the issue.

      Also, why is it that Louis Farrakhan is not allowed in the UK, when Le Pen is ? Shouldn’t they both be banned or let in ?

    30. Ravi Naik — on 4th September, 2007 at 10:15 am  

      “Also, why is it that Louis Farrakhan is not allowed in the UK, when Le Pen is ? Shouldn’t they both be banned or let in ?”

      Perhaps because Le Pen has been campaigning with these posters. And unlike the BNP, Le Pen’s party does have blacks and muslims representing the party in several constituencies.

    31. Sofia — on 4th September, 2007 at 10:58 am  

      i’ve never quite understood blacks and arabs being part of the front nationale…apart from being thick what else is the reason?

    32. funkg — on 4th September, 2007 at 11:27 am  

      No worries Derius I misread your intent too, its an easy thing to do on these forums.

      Sofia

      Perhaps its a question of divide and rule, the oppressed becoming the oppressor, and the favoured BME classes somehow believing they are a cut above the masses. Look at the history of South Africa where you had the some so called coloureds, some Indians and Zulus complicit in the apartheid regime.

    33. Sofia — on 4th September, 2007 at 11:57 am  

      yeh I suppose, but I still find it hard to comprehend with a party that is so openly racist and xenophobic

    34. Adnan — on 4th September, 2007 at 1:22 pm  

      Well, the BNP did have a couple of Sikhs on promotional material so they are trying for the divide and rule approach (with Islam as the common enemy). Also, I think the BNP ballerina’s partner is from an ethnic minority. So they may be convincing some people that they have changed.

    35. Jagdeep — on 4th September, 2007 at 3:25 pm  

      Don’t worry Adnan, the only people fooled by the Sikh BNP supporter with Alzheimers disease are the likes of you.

    36. El Cid — on 4th September, 2007 at 3:51 pm  

      Hello pickled peeps.
      I was about to congratulate everybody for avoiding the classic fascist-wolf-in-liberal-sheep-clothing trap by steering clear of der-brain anti-Spanish comments. Unfortunately, 23 comments is the most we managed. Still, I’m in a relaxed mood after some quality me-and-familia time in the sizzling Spanish sun. 4 decent books read too. So I will let it lie.
      I can’t see though how your father’s past can make you a hypocrite? Hmmm not sure that works. I mean, is George Bush’s daughter a hypocrite because she is an anti-war lesbian….?

      Words the Spanish have bequeathed the world part 363: liberal

    37. Adnan — on 4th September, 2007 at 3:54 pm  

      Ah, my first flame.

      Calm down Jagdeep, may do yourself some mischief…

    38. Jagdeep — on 4th September, 2007 at 3:55 pm  

      OK Adnan thanks for the advice.

    39. Jagdeep — on 4th September, 2007 at 3:57 pm  

      Well El Cid, I think post 23 wasn’t anti-Spanish, more to do with the fact that Portillo as the son of an immigrant mouthing off about immigrants is pretty rum and ironic.

    40. El Cid — on 4th September, 2007 at 3:59 pm  

      ah-ha, but you see after 23 there was 24, therein lies the problem you eminently reasonable towel head from the Black Country :)

    41. El Cid — on 4th September, 2007 at 4:01 pm  

      ironic, very mildly, yes, but hypocritical, no

    42. Jagdeep — on 4th September, 2007 at 4:02 pm  

      I think she or he was being ironic El Cid, apropos his father being described like that in the light of anti-immigrant rhetoric now. Besides, find out ‘Spiting Mad’s ethnicity and rinse her on it, not me, I didn’t say that.

    43. El Cid — on 4th September, 2007 at 4:04 pm  

      i take it back sir if it failed to amuse. apols

    44. Jagdeep — on 4th September, 2007 at 4:04 pm  

      Blimey El Cid, with your ultra sensitivity, persecution complex and paranoia, you are now officially Black / Asian.

      Welcome to the gobby victimhood club, Spaniard brother!

    45. El Cid — on 4th September, 2007 at 4:08 pm  

      I dunno mate. My mum says I’m not proper Spanish.
      I think she wants me to buy her a car.

    46. BevanKieran — on 4th September, 2007 at 4:10 pm  

      Adnan

      Bracketing Ray Honeyford with Enoch Powell is unfair unless you equate criticism of multiculturalism with virulent racism. Actually, Honeyford’s point about emphasising a common curriculum for British Citizens, privatising specific cultural teachings for after-school classes and Sunday schools, is targetted better than some criticism from liberals such as Schlesinger who targeted ethnic food!

    47. Jagdeep — on 4th September, 2007 at 4:10 pm  

      El Cid

      Fabregas — what a player eh? Awesome to think he’s only 20 years old.

    48. Jagdeep — on 4th September, 2007 at 4:11 pm  

      Whoops dangerously off topic that, reply on weekend open thread if you like El Cid.

      Sorry.

    49. Adnan — on 4th September, 2007 at 9:53 pm  

      I don’t equate criticism of multiculturism with virulent racism. However, Britain in 1984 was not as tolerant as now and I think his article pretty unpleasant. He is not the hero the Right like to make him out to be.

      This is a link to the article:
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/08/27/ftmulti27.xml

    50. Old Pickler — on 10th September, 2007 at 12:54 am  

      Nowadays, people like Powell and “visionaries” like Ray Honeyford

      Ray Honeyford was called racist because he thought that Pakistani children should have the same opportunities as white children. In particular, he thought that Muslim girls should learn to swim - while their backward parents thought otherwise.

      This was a shameful episode in the whole shameful history of that absurd ideology: multiculturalism. Girls’ lives sacrificed because backward, primitive beliefs were tolerated so as not to appear “racist”.

    51. Lee — on 20th September, 2007 at 5:10 am  

      If only people who criticised Enoch Powell actually took the time to find out about him. I’ll bet my bottom dollar you have NO idea what Powell’s opinions on anything were, all you know is your left-wing heroes say he was ‘racist’ so thats enough for you.

      You are yet another example of ‘sheep mentality’ that permeates not just British society, but human as a whole. You only listen and believe what you choose to. You dont let the facts get in the way of you bigotry.

      Powell fought against discrimination of homosexuals and minorities as well as being a top supporter of Tony Benn’s fight to renounce his peerage. Surely thats ‘socially liberal’? Oh yes, but because he said he feared that in the future Britain may suffer race-related violence (Like the Oldham Riots, the Bradford Riots, the 7/7 Bombings etc.) he’s a big fat hairy racist! God forbid someone should point out the obvious!

      Tell you what, pick up a book, have a read, and then get some opinions. Until then youre a pathetic, ignorant fool.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.