I was really thinking of taking the Guardian but then I had never come across Lynskey. His piece reads like that of a provocative and rather silly undergraduate. I know I should respond to his daft and rather naive analysis of Powell but I still find myself reeling that 'Good times.' got passed an editor!
 
Can we get back to sensible journalism soon please?

Immigrants come in waves, and they all want to prosper. It's human nature, after all, it's what most of us want for ourselves. They're usually coming from miserable and pitiful circumstances, just like the Southern Irish came in waves three generations ago.

Now I'm not cynical about this, I really think there are good and bad everywhere, in any nation, any country, any race of people - even our own. I happen to admire enterprise, daring and individuality of thought, if it's in a good way. But what has been allowed to happen by the government is too many in a short period of time and yes, fifty or sixty years is a short time for people to assimilate and become tolerant of one another. The Romans, Vikings, Angles, Saxons and Normans came as conquerors and the indigenous people were crudely taken over and their way of life practically destroyed in the process, but it was a barbarian way of life.

It's not the same today. We're civilised now, right? We extended the hand of welcome because we needed the manpower after the Second World War. After that, it was like the floodgates opened to all needy types, asylum seekers, etc. We're having to adjust to multi-cultural ethnicities, whereas in previous epochs it was only one. While we thought we were helping them, it now feels like an invasion. It's tiresome, but wasn't it the same when we were all English, queueing up after the war for rations? We're all souls together needing food and medicine.

We've come to terms with the cultural differences, and got to grips with our neighbours, after all, we're all in it together now, aren't we - surviving? As the middle bracket earners get more and more squeezed, the majority of us will realise that it's not the curry or pirogie eaters that are our bugbear, but our government.

Thatcher and since, each party in power has betrayed the people by having their own agenda in trying to manipulate us. Squeezing more and more taxes by stealth or blatantly. Changing the laws by stealth, ie, barely announcing it before it has a chance to be aired. Allowing the banks to bleed us dry. What kind of governing is this? It's no better than Roman, Viking or Norman rule, and we thought we were living in a democracy!

Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill and Ghandi were all racist against blacks too, so he is in good company.

Lincoln wanted them sent back to Africa.....Churchill knew they would damage the UK and Ghandi was always realistic about the black race and their characteristics.

Darwin would also be considered a racist.

Powell is the kind of English man in the mould of Lord Halifax and Mosley.
Oppotunist and deeply racist and predudiced at his core.
The move to Northern Ireland in the arms of the right wing of the Unionist Party.
No one should sing his praises or make excuses for his nasty small minded most inhuman man.
He may have had a great brain but if that brain was unable to see anything not white as inferior then it was wasted.
To use an American Phrase Powell was a total jerk

Anyone who has travelled will know that 'racism' exists in different strengths and shapes throughout the world. There is always the tendency for some people to want to feel superior to others and racism the same as 'class' is one way to do it.
The thing about the British is we are a relatively educated society of mixed origins.
We seem to forget that genetically our genes all go back to the homo erectus who walked out of africa!
What the Brits also forget is that although the UK is an island we rely on trade with the rest of the world to survive - 40% of UK tade is with Europe!
So we are not being too clever if we show our true character and adopt a superior racist attitude to the rest of the world! UK racism is not a tradeable commodity! Being an Island race with island minds is self defeating What!

A lot of the criticism at the time was that Powell was exaggerating his demographic predictions; it was charged that he was scaremongering. In fact Powell was surprisingly accurate, and if anything understated the change that was to take place.

Now some think that change a good thing, and have valid reasons to support their view. Others disagree, and have different but also valid reasons (not racist ones either). No-one can dispute that (a) there has been a very substantial demographic change to Britain in the past fifty years; and (b) the British people were never asked, by way of a referendum, whether they supported any such change. Even the most fervent supporters of multiculturalism have to accept that it is a dramatic change to Britain which had no democratic mandate. To be sure, some will respond that it was brought about on the watch of democratically elected governments. That is a sound point, but not quite the end of the argument. None of the mainstream parties allowed it to be a serious election issue. The grip of the two main parties on the electorate (a major weakness of Britain's version of first past the post) means that even the most unpopular single issue (eg the Iraq War) is unlikely to determine an election. Secondly, Labour downright lied about its immigration intentions early in the 2000s. Thirdly, even in 1968 race, culture and immigration were politically sensitive topics (or there would not have been the controversy that ensued).

Ironically Powell's speech contributed to a situation where they became not just sensitive but virtually taboo. For example, Ray Honeyford in 1984 was run out of a job for daring to suggest that Muslim students in his area should not be segregated, should be taught in English, and should not be removed from school under age (a criminal offence at the time, but one the authorities were too scared to prosecute for fear of cultural offence). Yet less than two decades later, with all of his predictions having come to pass, Trevor Phillips (not exactly a candidate for a modern-day Powellesque pariah) was uttering precisely the same sentiments (presumably unwittingly).

To answer the question, was Powell a racist, needs a qualification. By the standards of his day, no he was not. The words now offensive to us were not to anyone in his day (have a read of some children's books published at the time). He had vehemently denied that we should turn a blind eye to atrocities in Africa because we can't expect the same standards from them.

By the standards of our day you would have a stronger case, though he was certainly not of a piece with the likes of Nick Griffin.

It should also be noted that Powell was basing his opinion on the facts known at the time. He had been in America just before the speech, and had seen the civil rights riots there. Earlier he had seen the results of partition in India and Pakistan (and it is no use blaming Radcliffe for the bloodshed, any more than we would blame anyone else if Scottish independence provoked equivalent mindless violence today. It is the people doing the mindless violence who should take the blame). It is a great testimony to British fair play, tolerance and phlegm that equivalent bloodshed did not follow here, and thus Powell was proved wrong, but it could not be said to be a foregone conclusion.

Finally I realise the article was about Powell's speech and its effect on race relations, but as others have observed there was far more to the man than that. His arguments on treating Africa properly, on the disaster that would befall the EU, and the danger of tagging along with American foreign policy have all been affirmed by events.

like Stanley explained I'm dazzled that some people able to profit $8384 in one month on the computer. have you read this link HTTP://LAZYCASH24.COM

It's interesting to see what that brought out of the woodwork.

Shorter OP: "Powell wath a wacitht, OK? 'Coth I thay tho! And if you don't agree, I'll thcweam and thcweam 'til I'm thick!"

There is no argument in here except that the "anti-fascist" left have defined Powell as the epitome of evil because of the Rivers of Blood speech, therefore it's incontrovertible that Powell was racist. Some extracts of the speech are paraded about that aren't nice to modern ears, admittedly. Does the fact that he used extracts from constituents' letters make him racist?

Perhaps it would be salutory to the author of the article to read the man's own words:

"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"

and

"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.' "

Or you could just not let get facts get in the way of the Two Minutes' Hate.

"Anti-Racists" ONLY seem to exist where there are White people,

They DO NOT Target anyone except White people FOR racism,

Nor do they Protect White people FROM racism.

Because "Diversity" really just means fewer White people.

Anti-racist is a code word for Anti-White.

"The blood shed was not that of the White English – clearly what Powell feared in the wake of US ‘race riots’ in the late 1960s – but of the Black newcomers, which is why it went largely unreported.”

Er,yes, I am sure the relatives of PC Blakelock, Pc Pat Dunne. WPC Nina McKay, PC Berezozsky (dunno about the spelling) Philip Lawrence, Kriss Donald, Charlene Downes, Ben Kinsella, Rob Knox (of Harry Potter fame) Tom ap Rhys Price, John Monckton of Chelsea, Geoffrey Bacon of Camberwell, Constance Brown, 72, of Streatham, Elizabeth Pinhorn
, 96, of Herne Hill, Thomas Kidd, 61, of Tulse Hill, Ted Howell, 75, of Lewisham, Leslie Watkinson, 66, of Peckham, and Frank "Paddy" Dempsey, 56, of Clapham, Richard Mannington Bowes of Ealing and the relatives of seval hundred other white folks would wholeheartedly agree with this brilliant analysis of the glories of immigration.

Lynskey's sarcastic review fails miserably and is unworthy to appear in the pages of the New Statesman which used to pride itself on intellectual rigour. I don't know how old Dorian Lynskey was when Enoch Powell gave his speech but his recollection and/or research is at fault. For example, Powell did not use the phrase "rivers of blood".

Similarly Lynskey's review misleads readers about what Powell did say by taking it out of context. “When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies.” He carefully omits the next sentence.
"They cannot speak English, but one word they know. "Racialist," they chant."
The term has changed over the years, it's now "human rights" and "pedophile", but the mentality and the practice is the same. In addition, in 1968 the term piccacinnies, like that of Negro, had not yet been deemed offensive.

Lynskey is dishonest in portraying an historical re-appraisal of Powell as an ongoing attempt by the Right to rehabilitate Powell’s reputation. Powell needs no rehabilitation and Lynskey's suggestion is a regurgitation of the bog standard Institute of Race Relations (IRR) attempt to justify its own reputation. Quite apart from the fact that the IRR article is five years old, hopelessly prejudiced and perpetuating cultural Marxism to the exclusion of critical analysis, it claimed, without providing proof, that there were more attacks on immigrants but these were unreported. Brilliant!!! No chance of asking difficult questions.

Powell made it clear that he regarded racialism (it hadn't been shortened to racism in those days) was the idea that one race was superior to another. He did not subscribe to that idea. Secondly, his main concern was immigration, specifically the number of immigrants who were entering the UK with the intention of bringing additional non-productive relatives later. The issue hasn't gone away, only the source of the immigration has changed.

His complaint was that no-one in government or opposition had consulted with the public, asked their views, or considered the implications of immigration policy. He considered his duty to speak out because no-one else was doing so. The fact that Heath sacked him immediately proved his point. Politicians did not want to listen to anyone but themselves, least of all someone who challenged their assumptions or identified their broken promises. Nothing appears to have changed.

Lynskey's attempt at character assassination by referring to an alleged "mealy mouthed" Telegraph article is a pathetic failure. Let's remind ourselves what Lynskey chose to leave out. Powell's solid anti-racist record, including his condemnation of Hola Camp affair, which he based squarely on his belief that Africans had the right to be treated equally. In addition, Powell's libertarian views placed him in what might loosely be called the "progressive" camp. We can't have that now can we?

Powell's life was considerably more than his 1968 speech, something which Lynskey studiously chooses to ignore, other than to make sarcastic remarks. I once heard Powell speak. He was logical, clear and too analytical for the audience he was addressing. He brought that clarity to British politics on such diverse subjects as economics, Northern Ireland, social issues and the failure of consensus politics.

Powell was right on many things, particularly the nonsense of a European state,
and, in terms of immigration, his prediction that the influx of immigrants would be accompanied by a further influx of unproductive relatives was also accurate. He was right to consider what had happened in the United States and be concerned that it could happen in the UK. He was right to raise the issue, whether he raised it in an appropriate manner is another question altogether.

The NS made a monumental error in allowing Lynskey's comments on Powell to appear. To use his own sarcastic approach, he's a music critic don't you know?!
What he isn't is a fair minded reviewer. In future please ask people who have no axe to grind and are genuinely interested in the subject matter under review instead of spouting the nonsense of the trendy left..

This article appears to have been written through the red mist which accompanies some commentators when the name Enoch Powell is mentioned. Powell's immigration speech was a major blunder, but as contemporary commentators are saying there was more to Powell than the immigration speech. If he were alive Michael Foot, a political foe, but occasional friend, would be able to confirm this. An adult commentary which dealt more completely with this complex man would be welcome.

@Zomba:

"Those writers trying to "rehabilitate" Powell were saying he was wrong to make that speech in the way he did..."

Could you quote where Ed West said anything like that? I can't find it anywhere.

Ta.

he was his own owrse enemy, but in london in Octrober 1985 he was right there was A river of blood

The greatest prime minister we never had, god bless the late great Enoch Powell, right on immigration, right on the common market, the only true prophet .