Tag Archive: Enoch Powell

All Party Parliamentary Groups

An interesting article appeared in the Mail two days ago, one authored by Quentin Letts and no doubt in response to the ‘affair Mark Pritchard’. In respect of Pritchard – and no doubt Letts has checked his facts – one can only ask if he has time to belong to so many APPGs, just where the hell does he find the time to attend to what one may term his normal parliamentary duties as an MP – but I digress.

From Wikipedia we learn that an APPG is all-party parliamentary group grouping in the UK parliament that is composed of politicians from all political parties; and that a relevant charity or other organisation will provide a secretariat for the APPG helping to arrange meetings and keeping track of its members.

On the subject of ‘Secretariats’ Douglas Carswell made an interesting observation that the APPG Armed Forces Secretariat is none other than a ‘front’ for the defence industry, during a hearing of the HoC Standards Committee on APPGs (starts approx 10:00 minutes in). As an aside, the Secretariat for the APPG Smoking & Health is none other than ASH – surprised am I not!

It is well known that I have, on more than one occasion, ‘crossed swords’ with the MP for Clacton; however credit where credit is due. During his questioning by the HoC Standards Committee, Carswell raised an interesting question, namely when does a think-tank become a ‘pressure group’ – and vice-versa – and have not the ‘lines become blurred’? (Think Open Europe, Business for Europe, etc – Ed).

What became apparent from the hearing linked to above is that minutes are not kept and rarely are accounts published. It can rightly be said that no public money is involved in the formation of APPGs and that it is a good idea that politicians can gain knowledge on various subjects by becoming a member of such groups. Conversely it could also be said that MPs are using public money to gain knowledge on subjects that they could have attained by dint of personal research – and also enjoying ‘jollies’, now and again, during time paid for by public money. Consider: do they not present themselves as the font of all knowledge, thus ‘deciding matters’ without recourse to we, the people – and if they haven’t already got it, then let them get it by their own endeavours!

This raises another question: namely should not an MP’s time be spent on bettering the lot of those he/she is supposed to represent? Should not an MP’s time be better spent on improving the form of democracy of which they all would have us believe they are so proud?

As with all hearings what we witness is an ‘in-house’ operation designed to ‘better the image’ of those within the ‘Westminster Bubble’. The witness who appeared with Douglas Carswell, Alexandra (surname indistinct) who admitted to being a lobbyist, was concerned about ‘transparency’ in respect of lobbying – to which one can only respond that from the evidence in the video, there is no transparency.

As an aside, readers may be interested in this website which lists all there is to know about APPGs/Membership thereof by MPs, etc etc.

At which point in this post I hear readers saying to themselves: Oh God, WfW is going on another of his ‘democracy rants’ – but consider: should not we, the taxpayer, demand on what our employees time is spent? Does not any employer in the private field dictate the subject matter on which their employees time is spent? And MPs are any different? Are they not employees of the people? (Well some of us believe they are!).

In respect of the preceding paragraph, therein lies the beauty of the 6 Demands. We can not only limit their remuneration but, as with any employer, we can limit their areas of responsibility and the time spent on each. That is but one element of true democracy, namely the people are sovereign – ie they, the people, are the masters, they ‘call the shots’.

As I posted, back in November 2011, do not the politicians of Switzerland practice their political duties as ‘overtime’ with ‘expenses’? Is not their primary income that achieved from their ‘day job’? Why should the United Kingdom be any different? And what is not to like from such a system? Does such not demand less call on the public purse? Does not the call for Direct Democracy not, ultimately, demand less call on the public purse?

Reverting back to the point raised above, namely those within the Westminster  Bubble’ talking among themselves, we find the European Scrutiny Committee recommending that each of the 35 Justice and Home Affairs, to which the Coalition wishes to opt-back-into, should be the subject of a parliamentary debate. This is not democracy, this is yet another example of democratised dictatorship. Where is the voice of those who would have to live under such decisions? If any subject begged a referendum, then surely is this not one? Is this not a transfer of power? As with all aspects of representative democracy, is this not another example of we, the people, having to play by the rules, rules in which we have had no voice? And that is democracy in action? Sheesh!

And still we continue to allow this charade of representative democracy to continue? Paraphrasing the words of Enoch Powell, we must be truly mad!

Just saying……..






Ye-eau (2)

PoliticsHome reports that Tim Yeo has stood down “temporarily” while he waits for his name to be cleared.

Temporarily? It should be permanent, if only for this “scam”! (For “permanent” perhaps one could read “shot”?)

 This is a man, one among many, that has no doubt through choice and forethought, realised that he can enhance his personal wealth by means of his chosen career as an “Honourable” politician.

Why do we allow – not that, at the moment, we have any choice – people such as Yeo to occupy positions of trust; positions for which they obviously are unsuited? Come to that, why do we not demand the right to ensure that people such as Yeo can never again fulfill such a position?

I can but ask, yet again, why do we allow ourselves to be taken for the “proverbial ride” – and continue to fund said ride for which we have not a similar ticket?

To quote Enoch Powell; We must be mad, truly mad!

Just saying………





Desert Island Discs

At this time of intense discussion about immigration, per se; and the effect of Islam upon our society, it is perhaps pertinent to bring reader’s minds back to a broadcast of Desert Island Discs in 1989, when the castaway was Enoch Powell. At that time the programme’s host was Sue Lawley and it is amusing to note how, more than once, she was “gently corrected” in the most gentlemanly manner. I should forewarn readers that Powell’s choice of music is entirely classical and the first half is from Wagner’s Ring Cycle – it is not until about @23minutes that we hear some Beethoven (6th Symphony).

The intellect of this man was both awesome and frightening to a mere mortal and to say his intellect was razor-sharp would be an understatement – one has only to listen to the conversation with Sue Lawley to realize this. The exchange, when she attempts to pin him down on the subject of his infamous Rivers of Blood speech is fascinating, as is the exchange about his opposition to this country’s membership of what was then the European Economic Community and his advice in 1974 for those opposed to said membership to vote Labour.

Enoch Powell has always remained a bit of an enigma to me, in that a man who believed so passionately in the independence of his country should also believe so passionately in representative and parliamentary democracy. This “contradiction”, if one may term it thus, is best illustrated by a remark Powell makes when talking about his advice for whom to vote in 1974 – his advice being based on the fact that presented with a manifesto, which if implemented – would have seen this country withdraw from the European Economic Community meant that those who wished for the latter had only one choice to make. Unfortunately Sue Lawley did not question him further on the worth of political manifestos and it would have been intriguing to hear Powell’s response to such questioning.

It has often been my thought that Powell was born “before his time”, in that if only he were around and in the political scene today.

H/T: Purplerevolutio on Twitter for bringing this programme to my attention.

A blast from the past

On 15th July 1973 a debate took place between Michael Foot, Roy Jenkins, Reginald Maudling and Enoch Powell which centred on the Conservative Party, Edward Heath’s leadership, how far had the Party retreated from Conservative Principles, what should Conservatism stand for and what sort of policies would enable it to win the next election.

Reginald Maudling believed that his party should stand for “One Nation” – so not an original thought then, was it Ed? Having heard Maudling, Powell commented that his fear was the Conservative Party was being led to destruction.

Fast forward to 2012 and one can only state: Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

An alternative ‘Sunday Refection’

What follows is a recording of a debate, as part of a BBC series, between Michael Foot and Enoch Powell in 1973. It is 45 minutes of fascinating debate, the like of which we do not have the privilege of enjoying today with our present crop of politicians. What we do have here are two gentlemen and true advocates for their respective ideological views.

I happen to disagree with that for which Foot stood but can nevertheless respect his earnest advocacy for the policies he deeply believed in. Meanwhile Powell was the last, what I would term, scholar politician and wise man of British politics. It is unfortunate that Foot is mostly known as the loser of 1983 while Powell is slandered as a racialist by those ignorant of his enormous contributions.

When considering the subjects discussed, among which is the subject of MPs and their standards, this debate could well have taken place recently.

Some things never change

There is much in the media, of late, about this country’s membership of the European Union and, in particular, to the decisions that Cameron will need to take in the immediate and not too distant future.

In a speech given at Bournemouth on 30th August 1980, at a public meeting in the Wessex Hotel, Enoch Powell stated:

“The Conservative Government puts on from time to time the verbal trimmings of a patriotic vocabulary; but it spares no opportunity to commit itself, if possible more deeply than ever, to that view of the European Community………”

Some things never change.

It is also often said that history repeats itself. With regard to similarities of the General Election of 2010, the Conservative Party and what is now the EU, in that same speech Powell said:

“The general election of 1970, which created what historians may well dub the Suicidal Parliament, did not return a majority for joining the European Community. The utmost care was taken to exclude that question from the election by both the major political parties, but particularly by the party which returned with a majority of seats.”

Some things never change.

Ending this speech he said:

“I allowed myself earlier to castigate the politicians and the political parties who have lent themselves to be the instruments of destroying their own country’s political independence and constitutional inheritance; but they have this to say, and validly in their defence, that they were allowed to do so and that those of them who put party or self before the nation suffered no noticeable retribution at the people’s hands. In the last analysis it is not the parties and the politicians who have been on trial, but the nation; and the nation, if such it still is, has so far failed that trial. The British are accustomed to hearing hard things said about them. In fact, they apparently enjoy saying hard things about themselves. But their worst fault is the one least spoken of: they do not care. What cruel irony that of all the nations of the world it should be the British who do not care if they are one or not.”

Some things never change.

When making his infamous “Rivers of Blood” speech, Powell quoted what a constituent of his said; namely, that in 15 to 20 years time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man. While it has to be remembered that at the time of this speech Powell was talking about the influx of Commonwealth immigrants, future political actions which Powell did not foresee have added to the belief of his constituent. No-one could have foretold that a political party would allow unlimited immigration for electoral gain; no-one could have foretold the effects of what we now know to be equality and human rights would have on the status of any immigrant.

In the ending to the speech referred to above Powell blames the electorate for permitting that which had unfolded; something he did in his “Rivers of Blood” speech in which he said that those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad and therefore we must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of immigrants; continuing that it is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.

Returning to the penultimate extract from his Bournemouth speech, Powell continued:

“The then Prime Minister, who had stipulated “full-hearted consent of Parliament and people” as indispensable, carried the Second Reading of the European Communities Bill, by which Parliament solemnly and comprehensively renounced its  sovereign independence, by eight votes. Even that he achieved only by the ultimate resort of threatening dissolution in the event of defeat. There was no majority for the Bill in that
House of Commons. It got its Second Reading because more than half the Conservative Members who had voted against the principle of membership the previous October put party and personal interest before the independence of their country. Even then a Bill, of which every clause was an abdication of the fundamental rights and historic powers of the House of Commons, would not have become law without the use of a guillotine passel by a majority of no more than eleven votes………But the Foreign Secretary, a certain James Callaghan, after presenting the Community with those terms (of which he had, incidentally, himself been a trenchant advocate), was within a month turned right round through 180 degrees by his officials, and-announced that Britain sought nothing which would involve any alteration of the accession treaty or the 1972 Act. After a sham re-nenegotiation, Harold Wilson came down in favour of the status quo and of a Yes vote in the subsequent Referendum.”

“It got its Second Reading because more than half the Conservative Members who had voted against the principle of membership the previous October put party and personal interest before the independence of their country.”

Some things never change.

What the foregoing shows is that where ‘matters Europe’ are concerned, every Prime Minister since Heath (some may say Macmillan) are guilty of lying, misleading and using procedural ploys to retain their hold on power. (in the case of Blair – not that I am a ‘conspiracy theorist – some may believe that his decision to give up some of our rebate may have been due to ‘a nod and a wink’, from the EU elite at that time, that the position van Rompuy now occupies would be his for the asking; and then promptly ‘knifed him in the back. Which just goes to prove that, even with the simplest of tasks, the EU is unable to get the job done properly – but I digress.)

It is not just ‘matters Europe’ where politicians have lied and misled the people of this country – think war, think immigration, think expenses, think manifestos. Enoch Powell was perhaps a tad unfair to blame the people of this country for being uncaring because do not politicians have a history of distracting the attention of the public by the placement of what might be termed ‘red-herring’ matters – think salmonella, think second-hand smoke, think BSE, think domestic waste collection.

It is to negate the practise of moulding public opinion, of which politicians have become expert practitioners for their own ends, but also to promote the ability of the public, who can and should, think for themselves, that the Harrogate Agenda was conceived – thus addressing the democratic deficit that presently exists.

 It is often lamented, when considering the intellectual ability of those currently in the HoC, that we no longer have politicians of Powell’s intellect. While his views on parliamentary democracy are at variance with not only mine but others – oh what debate could there have been had!

Afterthought: When considering any of our present political class, especially those members of the last – and present – administration, come the 2015 election why the hell  hand the keys back to the guys who drove the car into the ditch?



And therein lies the problem with our political class

Tim Montgomerie has an article in The Times (£) and being one who dislikes spending his money in order that I may be privileged to read the outpourings of those of an incoherent mind I am unable to bring you details of what lies behind the paywall, suffice it to say that the headline to Montgomerie’s article only underlines why politicians cannot be trusted and why they lack the greatest of all qualifications to be a politician – that of principle of political belief.

The headline reads: Will the real David Cameron please stand up” which begs the question who or what is the real David Cameron – or any other member of our political class? With no exception the members of our political class, both national and local, are individually many different people – depending on the audience to whom their remarks are being addressed. This, in turn, begs the further question of how we can ever come to know the real politician. 

That Cameron has managed to climb the greasy pole of politics (one wonders how many victims encountered during his ascent bear the scars, both physical and metaphorical, of knife wounds in their backs) and attained the summit of leadership of his party, it is understandable if, in his desire to retain his position of unfettered power, that in the process he presents whatever ‘face’ is required. The same accusation of ‘wearing different faces’ can be levied at all politicians, including backbenchers. Yet should not the only reason one enters the world of politics be that of having a wish to do what is right for one’s country (national) or one’s community (local)?

It is only necessary to read the voting records on Hansard, or the website TheyVoteForYou, to witness the act of MPs trooping through the lobbies in support of their party even though they may disagree with, or have no opinion on, the subject of the debate in question. Did not the Member of Parliament for Shipley – he who commendably stated that he considered he was elected to represent his constituents in Westminster rather than represent Westminster in his constituency – not admit to voting with his party at every opportunity and that he felt it would be dishonest disowning his party having used them to get into Parliament?

That we no longer have Members of Parliament in possession of the principle of country before party is demonstrated by the fact that none appear to hold the principle :

“…..I could not reconcile my duty to my country with seeking re-election as a Conservative candidate….”*

Where, I have to ask, is the point in a system of democracy that allows those we elect to represent us to put loyalty to party before that of loyalty to country and to put their personal career before that of loyalty to country? Is it any wonder that the electorate consider our political class to be two-faced?


* During a second visit, having previously relinquished the privilege of representing Wolverhampton South West, the speaker was Enoch Powell at the Connaught Hotel, 8 p.m., Friday, 22nd November 1991.



Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose

Translated, this means the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Having, in the preceding post, quoted Enoch Powell I feel it pertinent to do so again with particular reference to the National Census, surveys in general and the matter of political contol. Digressing, as is my wont, I have always considered Enoch Powell as probably the best Prime Minister our country never had – which is odd considering that a February 1969 Gallup poll showed Powell the ‘most admired person’ in British public opinion and a Daily Express poll in 1972 showed Powell being the most popular politician in the country. Although he did stand for leadership of the Conservative Party in 1965, coming a distant third to Edward Heath, it is my opinion that his failure to achieve the ‘top job’ was due to the fact that the ‘political establishment’ felt Powell was ‘too clever by half’. He tended, again a personal opinion, to appear very ‘intense’ in his beliefs to the point he seemed a tad ‘dry’; yet the man could be extremely humorous if the occasion so warranted. As examples I give two speeches; the first, venue unknown, given on 17th February 1968 at Bowness, Windemere; and the second, again venue unknown, on 19th April at Wolverhampton.


“The Ministry of Labour has a Manpower Research Unit. Put like that, the thing sounds harmless, sensible, even meritorious. What, one might ask, is wrong with research into manpower? Very proper, surely, very necessary. According to the official account, the Unit was ‘set up to study future manpower requirements and the future distribution of manpower between industries’. Already one begins to feel a certain unease. On what assumptions are the ‘future requirements of manpower’ to be based? What is to be done if there turns out to be too much or too little on the assumptions made about a future year? Moreover, how can one know the future distribution of manpower between industries, when new developments and unforeseen demands are coming into existence all the time? Or is it intended to fit future developments and demands to the distribution of manpower forecast by the Ministry of Labour? Some of these questions may be answered if we look at how the Research Unit goes about its work; for it has just decided to survey, for the purpose of future manpower planning, the whole of the hotel and catering industry, and I happen to have come into possession of a copy of one of the questionnaires which it is proposed to use.

The object of the questionnaire, stated at the outset, is, I should mention, ‘to compare the numbers employed in the various occupations in 1967/68 with a realistic estimate of the numbers likely to be required in 1972/73’. I turn at once to question No. 13, which starts with the words ‘Do any of your staff …?’ and lists 42 occupations or activities. I will not trouble you with all 42, but here is a selection: ‘Prepare powdered soups? Prepare tinned vegetables? Prepare frozen or dehydrated vegetables? Fillet fish?’ Here I should perhaps notice that there is also a separate question lower down: ‘Do any of your staff fillet Dover sole in front of customer?’ However, I continue: ‘Prepare basic stocks? Make Bechamel? Prepare mayonnaise? Prepare Sole Bonne Femme? Prepare Pommes Anna? Eye potatoes by hand? Put tablecloths on tables? Make puff pastry? Prepare dishes with the lamp?’ I must skip the rest, but cannot miss a final gem of civil servantese: ‘Engage in control to eliminate dishonesty?’

Personally, I like the one about the Bechamel sauce the best. There seem to be two possibilities. One is that a coefficient exists known to the Ministry of Labour, which enables one to deduce the manpower required in 1973 to make all kinds of sauces, once one has the key figure, which is the Bechamel manpower in 1968. Alternatively it may be that in the brave new world of 1973 the only sauce we shall be allowed is Bechamel sauce, which, though nice, will become monotonous.

However, I move on to the heavier parts of the questionnaire. After having ‘indicated the present duties of occupational groups employed in his hotel’, such as ‘doorman’, ‘baggage porter’ and ‘pageboy’, the examinee finds himself asked if he is ‘likely to introduce by 1973’ convection ovens, micro-wave ovens, dishwashers, pan-handlers and what are called ‘portion-controlled foods’, and ‘prefillings’. This little exercise in clairvoyance is intended to limber him up and get his prophetic powers working properly for the climax which comes, I feel, at question No. 29: ‘Do you expect your future low season (February 1973) employment figures to bear the same relationship to the high season (August 1972) figures as February 1968 did to August 1967?’ The question continues ‘If the answer is yes’ – actually they have made a mistake here, they mean no – ‘please indicate the occupations likely to be affected and the direction of the change.’

I want you to try to imagine the number of people engaged in this hair-raising piece of paperwork alone: the graduate staff at the Ministry devising these ludicrous questions, the junior staff typing, duplicating and posting them, then the staff co-ordinating the replies, sending reminders, making visits to clarify some point of doubt about the Bechamel or the filleted Dover sole, and finally putting it all through computers, on the good old principle ‘garbage in, garbage out’. Then I want you to realize that this, though the first excursion of the Manpower Research Unit into a service industry, has been going on in a whole range of industries already and will spread to others in due course; how can one forecast future manpower requirements without covering all the employments? Each is being or will be bombarded with silly questions, to which only silly answers can be given.

I want you further to bear in mind that the Manpower Research Unit of the Ministry of Labour is itself only a tiny, obscure corner, in the great planning, enquiring, researching, questionnaire-pushing activities which are going on from one end of the government machine to the other. You must multiply the activities of the Manpower Research Unit very many fold to get any idea of the total quantity of futile effort being expended by public servants. But that is only half the picture.

You also have to remember all the labour and effort by management and their staffs which is being devoted to coping with this sort of nonsense, instead of doing their proper work. You might suppose that industrialists would long ere now have risen in their wrath and told the Ministry where to put its questionnaires. No doubt individually they would like to do so; but nowadays they are nearly all in one or more of their appropriate trade associations, whose alleged function is to look after their interests; and the bureaucracy of the trade associations, loyally co-operating and interacting with the bureaucracy of the state, will have committed them to fill up the forms before they know anything about it.

And so the merry game goes on, of choking and drowning Britain in a mass of paper planning. One is hard put to it to know whether to laugh or cry. It is not accident; it is the automatic and inevitable result of a policy which supposes that it is the function of government to plan the size and distribution between industries of the labour force in 1973. All the myriad, diverse, unforeseeable activities of the whole economy have to be surveyed and predicted, until the simple act of putting a tablecloth on a table or making a portion of Bechamel sauce becomes a government statistic, and no one can move or act or breathe without the agency of government. It is lunacy, yes: but it is a lunacy towards which we are heading by general connivance and with the speed of an express train.”


“The mania of the questionnaire bids fair to be one of the curses of our age. The amount of time which people who have something better to do spend in completing perfectly futile forms and answering utterly fatuous questions would, if put to better use, represent a considerable addition to our national income.

There are signs of this mania spreading to the General Register Office, which conducts the national census. I don’t know whether any of you was fortunate enough to be selected as a recipient of a recent communication from the Registrar General, enclosing a questionnaire which I hold in my hand. If you were, and have not yet completed it, you will have received a further request, dated January this year, telling you that ‘the response has been excellent’, and that ‘most of the people approached have sent in their completed forms’. Assuming that this information makes you thoroughly ashamed of your failure so far to co-operate, you will I hope address yourself to filling in the questionnaire.

It starts off swimmingly: ‘Have you ever had an operation for gallstones?’ to which most people should have little difficulty in returning a straight affirmative or negative. Things soon began to thicken however. You have to write down ‘how many cups of tea, coffee and other hot beverages (cocoa, chocolate, ‘Ovaltine’ – is that advertising? – etc.) you consume before breakfast, at breakfast, morning break, midday meal, tea-time, evening meal, bedtime and other’. I like ‘other’: presumably that is for the people who brew up at two in the morning. But that’s just for a start. On the next page we get down to business. ‘How many teaspoons of sugar do you take’ in each beverage, and ‘are the spoons level or heaped?’ (One can’t be too careful what one does in a modern state!) Then comes a bit of personal history: ‘have you always taken the same amount of sugar in these beverages?’

We then turn to solids. On an ‘average day’ how many slices of bread do you eat? And don’t just imagine you can slap down any old figure. You have to pick your way through ‘average slice’, ‘extra thick’ and ‘extra thin’ cut off ‘large loaves’ and ‘small loaves’; so it’s lucky for you if you only eat ‘rolls’.

The candidate is now in a position to approach the more advanced part of the paper. For instance: ‘how many fizzy drinks, non-alcoholic’ by the glass do you drink per week, or, if you take sugar on your breakfast cereals, are the spoons you use tea spoons or dessert spoons and are the spoonfuls level or heaped? Don’t fill that in if you are like me, and prefer porridge; for there is a separate entry on its own for those who take porridge.

Now I am sure you will be glad to know that the cost of this lark is being met out of the research funds of Queen Elizabeth College, and that you have been participating in a diet and health survey for the benefit of Professor John Yudkin, of that College.

But you may not be so pleased if you get another form, dated March of this year, also from the census office, which asks (hold it!) for details of your earnings in the financial year April 1966–March 1967. All quite confidential, of course; guaranteed no leaks even to ‘other government departments’ (guess which!); and you really ought to feel flattered, because this is a survey for the Department of Education and Science ‘on the earnings of people with particular academic, professional, or vocational qualifications’. The questions include, for instance, whether one had ‘subsidized or free housing or car for own use provided by the employer’, and ‘what was the total net profit before tax but after deducting expenses, from self-employment in the financial year 1966/67’.

Now, I have it on the authority of the Registrar General that ‘surveys of this type are a relatively new development of our census work’. ‘Each one’, he says, ‘has so far been judged on its merits.’ This is just as well; for if these are a good example of the ‘merit’, then this promising new growth of volunteer bureaucracy had better be stamped on here and now. A glimpse of what will otherwise be in store for us is afforded by the complaisant self-satisfaction of the authors. ‘We feel’, says the Registrar General, ‘that to use the census as a sample frame for this kind of enquiry is a valuable development and a step forward in making the fullest use of the material we have. The approach to the public has to be made by us because we cannot give anyone outside the census organization a list of names and addresses.’

Sometimes it is a minor detail which casts a flood of light upon the malaise of a whole society. This incipient perversion of the census machinery derives from the very same general assumption which is pervading and strangling our life and our economy, namely, the conviction that the citizen is perfectly incapable of conducting his own affairs unless he is managed and controlled, planned and organized, with material distilled by experts from elaborate surveys which bureaucrats have conducted into his benighted behaviour. The National Economic Plan of the DEA – we are threatened with another, you know – and the Diet and Health Survey of the General Register Office, they are all branches, some tiny, some large, of this same pervasive, poisonous upas tree of contempt for the independence, dignity and competence of the individual.”

On a personal level I do so like the phrases;

“All the myriad, diverse, unforeseeable activities of the whole economy have to be surveyed and predicted, until the simple act of putting a tablecloth on a table or making a portion of Bechamel sauce becomes a government statistic, and no one can move or act or breathe without the agency of government.”


“….the very same general assumption which is pervading and strangling our life and our economy, namely, the conviction that the citizen is perfectly incapable of conducting his own affairs unless he is managed and controlled, planned and organized, with material distilled by experts from elaborate surveys which bureaucrats have conducted into his benighted behaviour.”

This man, besides being a brilliant politician, was also prophetic in his observations. Are we not today indeed managed and controlled, planned and organized, with material distilled by bureaucratic experts from quangos and advisory bodies who in turn are funded by the state?

As a final thought, were our present politicians of the stature, principles and knowledge of Enoch Powell it is highly unlikely I would be such an advocate for change to our present system of democracy. Just saying.



A Saturday ‘ramble’

Extracts from a political speech

“In the Britain of today the majority are convinced that they, the majority, will always lose, and that a minority of one sort or other, however untypical, will triumph. The present discontents, and the present dangers, are those of a public opinion which feels itself to be unregarded. What distinguishes the present case is that there is nothing sectional or local about the disregarded opinion: the cry ‘there’s nothing we can do about it’ is not that of a class or a region; it rises more or less uniformly from one end of the country to the other, from one end of the social scale to the other.

What then is this ‘it’, about which the great majority feel that nothing can be done, and indeed that nothing which they say will be heeded? ‘It’ is what is happening to Britain. Or rather, since that is too impersonal, too passive, ‘it’ is what is being done to Britain. People feel that without their consent, without (if possible) their knowledge, and certainly against their will, their own country is being taken and altered into what they do not recognise. This is not a repining at the inevitable changes of the outer or inner world: the resentment is not against lost empire, or new competitors, or the maelstrom of technological advance. It is against things more tangibly, more obviously and deliberately imposed and devised.

At an educational conference not long ago, one head teacher spoke about ‘the seemingly planned intention of eroding all forces of authority’, while another said ‘we know that the enemies of law and order would love to see the schools brought down, as far as their moral influence and prestige are concerned’. What those head teachers were describing is what millions of people believe they are watching, helpless and not so much unregarded as positively derided: the deliberate dismantling of the frontiers of decency, morality and respect, with a view to producing far-reaching and indeterminate alterations in society itself. They do not believe that these and other phenomena, such as the spread of drugs or the undermining of the universities, are simply reflections of a change taking place spontaneously and generally. They believe that intention is at work, and that it is the intention of a small and elusive but powerful minority. What they do not understand is that they, the majority, seem to find themselves without voice or representation in the face of a prospect which appals them.

At the same time two other great alterations are either taking place or projected, with the appearance of unanimity or acquiescence on the part of those in power. One is a change in the population of these islands which, now that the facts are becoming known, is admitted to be incomparably larger and more profound than any other in the nation’s history or experience. How something of this importance could have come about without consent or consultation or even prior notification remains a cause of astonishment to millions. It renders them fearful that other alterations, as large and as unwelcome in their effects upon Britain, might similarly come about without consent and without consultation; for the pattern has every appearance of being the same: a minority, perhaps a small minority, determines the question over the heads of the majority, and then the majority is presented with a fait accompli and told that it is good for them and that anyhow it is too late to argue about now.”

The speaker continued:

“In just those questions which are of most crucial and lasting importance, debate and conflict between the political parties is conspicuous by its non-existence. Instead, the electorate find themselves confronted, at elections and between elections, by the bland front of open agreement or tacit connivance between the two great parties in the state.”

The extracts are not from a speech given recently; and those familiar with the construction and words used will have already guessed the identity of the speaker. It was, of course, Enoch Powell and the extracts are taken from a speech he gave to the Isle of Wight Conservative Rally, Barton Manor, East Cowes, I.o.W., at 2.30 p.m., on Saturday, 5th June,1971.

These extracts have been chosen in view of some news items that have appeared today in the media about our political class; and by inference, the standards of behaviour in our society; coupled with the continuing decline in democracy within our country.

We are informed today that David Cameron is to enact the obligatory ‘re-shuffle’ of his Cabinet and that David Laws is to return; that Sayeeda Warsi is to probably be moved to another post which will allow her to remain in the Cabinet; and that George Young is likely to be ‘put out to grass’. The three politicians named have all failed in the positions they occupy, not only where competence is concerned but also where morality is concerned. Both Laws and Warsi have had questions to answer on expenses and Young is considered by one of his constituents to be no more than a self-serving MP with little or no regard for those he is supposed to represent. As with all present members of the political class, those named three are also guilty of complicity in the wanton destruction of this country’s sovereignty and the social engineering of our society. 

The political class have indeed, without the express consent of the people and therefore against their will, taken and altered this country to a point that it is unrecognizable to those of 50 years or older. The political class have, time and again, presented the electorate with a ‘fait accompli’; no more so than in matters ‘EU’ and immigration. We all recall Peter Hain and his “tidying up exercise” as well as Keith Vaz and his  assertion that the EU charter of fundamental rights would have “about as much legal status as The Beano”. On the matter of immigration we also recall only too well the assertion by Andrew Neather that the huge increases in migrants were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”. On two extremely important matters that have had a massive effect on this country and its people, politicians have lied and are thereby guilty of deceit. But the subject of EU and immigration are not the only areas in which the political class have and continue to change the fabric of our country; one only has to look at education. Today children are indoctrinated politically and intellectually so that in a few generations time the political class will have negated any possibility of mass dissent where the implementation of political policies are concerned.

For some time the complaint has been made, by the electorate of this country, that it matters not for which party they vote – nothing changes. When one considers that, as Powell said, there is no debate on matters of importance – for sure, we get ‘shouting matches’ in the House of Commons during PMQs – the question has to be asked: where are the speeches filled with passion and erudition for beliefs held? Where the electorate’s lack of interest, or apathy, is concerned, when one witnesses what is only too obviously a bland front of open agreement or tacit connivance between parties then the electorate’s apathy towards the electoral process is well founded. This connivance between parties is evident in that the one political party that stands out as holding a view markedly different to the remainder is failing to resonate with the electorate when opinion polling is undertaken. This leads one to consider that maybe all politicians are ‘in it together’ and that the political party in question is just ‘going through the motions’ of opposition. If that were not so, then surely in the ‘climate of dissent’ that presently exists their standing would certainly be double, if not treble, the 7%-9% currently being achieved.

Many theories are expounded that we, the people, are being controlled by the political class who have ‘signed-up’ to an ‘agenda’ which is unknown to us and that they have a ‘common purpose’ in so doing. For too long it has also been evident that those entering the political class do so for personal gain, be that power or the wish to achieve a privileged lifestyle – one thing is certain, it is no longer for a wish to perform a public service for their fellow man. Hardly a scenario with which, had they been asked, I would venture most people would agree.

It is ironic that few have noticed the contradiction between the actions of our political class and articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Consider:

  • The political class dictate, through laws they pass, how we are expected to think, act and speak. Is that not degrading to the basic rights of an individual? (Article 5: No-one shall be subjected to degrading treatment)
  • By dictating how we are expected to think, act and speak are not the political class placing us under servitude? (Article 4: No-one shall be placed in servitude)
  • The political class are presently attempting to place restrictions on the use of the internet, while wishing to ‘read’ all electronic communications. (Article 12: No-one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence; Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.)
  • The political class lay down conditions on the education of children and forbid the creation of further grammar schools (Article 26: [3]  Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.)
  • The political class decree that it is not possible to revoke one’s nationality as a citizen of the EU without also revoking one’s citizenship of the United Kingdom. (Article 15: [1] Everyone has the right to a nationality [2] No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.)
  • The political class are intending to impose on us smart meters, one of the abilities of which will allow energy providers to control our heating and light. (Article 25 [1]  Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family.)

Which all rather contradicts Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

If we have all these rights, rather than have them infringed, restricted and/or ‘structured’ by the political class, then should not we have the right to decide for ourselves what infringements or restrictions we are willing to accept? Two points thus become obvious:

  • Under representative democracy the right to decide our own future remains but a pipe-dream;
  • That the Harrogate Agenda and their ‘Demands’ for a change in our system of democracy becomes even more necessary.

Just a few thoughts…………………



Blain/Blair – is there a difference?

According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary the word ‘blain’ is defined as a sore on the skin – according to the Concise WfW Dictionary the word ‘blair’ is defined as a sore on humanity.

Charles Moore writes about Tony Blair noting that he is dressed in a blue suit and brown shoes, a combination that, traditionally, is the mark of being not quite a gentleman. Unfortunately Moore did not point out that Blair had no need to advertise the fact, it being well known that he is anything but a gentleman, being more akin to Alan B’stard.

Enoch Powell, at an address to the Cardiff Business Club at the Royal Hotel, Cardiff, at 7.30 pm, Friday, 21st March 1986, said that democracy “is an abstract, a classification, a box into which we can drop  whatever we want to collect in it.” – and that is how Blair and his ilk view the subject. It is a ‘catch-all’ word used in order to create their vision of democracy, one that is to the detriment of the people. Blair appears to believe the key question is how the majority treats the minority, when in his vision of democracy the key question is how badly the minority (the political class) can treat the majority (the people).

Tony Blair is an example of the worst kind of politician (of which we seem to have an abundance), one who wishes to hold office for one reason and one reason alone – the self-glorification and the ensuing advancement of his position in our society and to hell with whoever and whatever stands in his way. 

It is quite possible that when Tony Blair shuffles off this mortal coil he may well become ‘homeless’ as neither incumbent ‘top man’ will wish to allow, in their midst, one who believes himself their equal, if not better.


Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012