Talk:Enoch Powell/Archive 1

Views on Northern Ireland
There seems to be a lack of clarity in the article about Powell's views on Northern Ireland's devolved government vs. direct rule from Westminster:

"he opposed, with increasing vehemence, Heath's approach to Northern Ireland, the greatest breach with his party coming over the imposition of direct rule in 1972."

Then,

"he believed that it [The United Kingdom] would survive only if the Unionists strove to integrate fully with the United Kingdom by abandoning the devolved rule that Northern Ireland had until recently enjoyed."

And

"He claimed the ambiguous nature of the province's status, with its own parliament and prime minister, gave hope to the PIRA that it could be detached from the rest of the UK"

So, which was his attitude on direct rule? If he held both views at different times, this should be mentioned more explicitly, along with when and why he changed his mind.


 * These are not quite the same thing. He used to say he thought the status of Northern Ireland should be no different from that of (say) Yorkshire. This would mean not having an elected assembly for N.I. but the corollary would be that its number of MPs at Westminster would be increased to the same ratio to the population as for England & Wales. "Direct rule" in 1972 abolished the N.I. Parliament but did not increase N.I.'s MPs at Westminster, so there was what would nowadays be called a "democratic deficit" because there had always been reduced representation in the UK parliament to compensate for having its own local parliament. Woblosch (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it true that Enoch Powell and Ian Paisley did not get on at all well? Millbanks (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there was any great affection between the two. Powell always viewed Paisley as a demagogue who had no respect for Parliament. From reading Heffer's biography they had a few public clashes. In 1981 Powell called Paisley a "bully and a coward" and claimed that what Paisley really wanted was a Protestant Ulster outside the Union. In 1982 Powell called for voters to reject the "Protestant Sinn Fein" of Paisley and said Paisley wanted devolution to use it "as a launching pad for unlawful action and rebellion". Paisley then denounced the "venomous hatred and the mad rantings of the arch-Unionist Enoch Powell". In 1983 Powell said Paisley "would do better to stay away and abuse this House and parliament from long range instead of coming here to make a mockery of it by his presence". Paisley then claimed if Powell was in charge during the Ulster Crisis the Unionists "would have been sadly betrayed and sold to the enemy" because of Powell's belief in the sovereignty of Parliament, and that Powell knew nothing about Ulster people.--Johnbull (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Views on America
"He was also immensely suspicious of American foreign policy after what he deemed to be the American betrayal of British interests during the Suez Crisis."

This is not quite true. Powell had thought America was Britain's enemy while serving in the army during the Second World War after talking with some senior American officers in Algiers which had confirmed, to Powell, that one of America's main war aims was to end the British Empire and undermine Britain.

Powell was opposed to the Suez campaign of 1956 because he thought that when in 1954 the British decided to leave Suez they did so because they could not maintain themselves there and so any attempt to reclaim Suez was illogical.

Also in 1954 Powell changed from a believer in an "Empire of positions" (an imperialist) where Britain could be a world power through military bases around the world to a British nationalist where Britain should get rid of her nuclear weapons, get rid of the Commonwealth, not join the E.E.C. and keep Ulster.

Powell in the 1980s claimed that America was pressurising British Governments to get Ulster into a united Ireland so that the all-Ireland state would join NATO and so have complete mastery of the Atlantic.

one of America's main war aims was to end the British Empire and undermine Britain - what utter twaddle. RickK 21:23, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

No he really did believe that.

And he was not the only one. Certainly by 1945 Roosevelt and Churchill were at loggerheads over the future of the Empire.

Hey Rick, please read the facts documented in The Collapse of British Power by Corelli Barnett and then see if you still think it is twaddle that America wanted to finish the British Empire - AG, Stockport, UK.

A reading of the 'Atlantic Charter' and Churchill's doubts about US insistence on certain aspects of it is instructive.

"Some regarded as racist"
Way to down play the racism of Enoch Powell, a speech "that some regarded as racist"? What is unclear about Powells racism in that speech? (or more generally?) I agree, racism is 'controversial', something that is given little significance in this article at all, despite it being a defining element of Powells character/ideas

Of course, it all depends on what you mean by "racist". I personally, along with a great deal of other people, would not consider Powell racist. Certainly, saying it was "a defining element of Powells [sic] character/ideas" is not only intellectually lazy, but wrong as well. --- Powell was not racist in that he never believed in white supremacy or wanted repatriation because the immigrants were non-white. He didn't want immigration because the immigrants were foreign and had a different culture. Powell would often say he never understood the concept of 'race' because no one could tell him what it was - "are an Englishman and a Welshman the same race, or different ones?" to quote Powell. Also, he added that if the immigrants were German or Russian there would still be a big 'problem'. Powell even admitted in an interview it was not 'impossible' for a black man to be British - just 'very hard'. To Powell it was about culture and nationality, not colour of skin. -- Alot of what powell said has come true in todays "multicultural" society, he should be seen as a visionary rather than a racist -- I think you've confused 'visionary' with 'bigot'. --209.166.75.105 10:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC) -- Clearly, people are not going to agree on this issue. As a result, it is perhaps prudent to leave the text as 'some regard as racist' unaltered. Our opinions don't really matter on an encyclopedia.81.152.241.156 17:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Housman's influence
''...he completed his education at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he fell under the powerful influence of A. E. Housman... ''

I haven't got the books to hand, but I recall reading that by the time Powell arrived at Cambridge, Housman (in his mid seventies) was more or less withdrawn from active teaching, and that the only thing Powell learnt from him was the correct way to crack nuts or some other matter of social etiquette! True Housman may have still dominated the discipline but that isn't the same thing as implied above. Does anyone know for sure? Timrollpickering 01:32, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I am guilty of the above comments based on a half-remembered radio profile I think. However, now I check the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography it says Under the influence of A. E. Housman he developed his skills as a textual critic... Of course, Powell's poetry was obviously influenced by Housman's so I think that the comment stands. Cutler 13:35, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

"fell under the influence"? Sounds a little sinister. Is the implication that Housman and Nietzsche led him to his xenophobic politics? How about just "was influenced by"? Col pogo 23:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Toning down
Not sure why we're so scared of the word controversial, Powell was certainly that. Cutler 11:21, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not scared of it, I dislike it. It's a feeble cliche. Virtually all politicians are "controversial." Adam 11:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's only "controversial" if you disagree with it. For instance, at the moment, it says that one of his controversial policies was opposition to Britain's entry to the EEC. There's nothing controversial about that. It may be against the tide of popular opinion, but it's not controversial.

The Pogo stick story
The Times of 1962 has a story of a press photographer going through a London square and spotting Enoch Powell, the Minister of Education, bouncing around on a pogo stick. Anyone care to investigate further?


 * It's well known and reproduced in several biographies. (He was promoting a keep-fit campaign.) There was even a website a few years ago devoted to trying to find pictures of modern politicians doing similar stuff. Timrollpickering 17:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Certainly a bizarre image even if not seen.


 * It can be seen on the front page of Statesman or Skatesman?. Timrollpickering 22:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This link is non-functional 16 September 2005: would like to see it. Perhaps pogo-sticking and other interesting means of locomotion should be encouraged among present day politicians should be encouraged - might get the voters interested :)
 * Try this link to a version saved on the Internet Archive. --Spondoolicks 15:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Link here  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.225.229 (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"He was a staunch monetarist"
I'm not sure that there was such a thing as monetarism in the 1950s and even if there were, I'm not convinced that it was possible to be a staunch champion thereof. Nobody doubts Powell's free market credentials but to burden him with the baggage of a discredited fiscal strategy of the 1980s seems partisan. Any views? Cutler 02:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, he was, but they called it deflationism in those days. See the Roth book. Woblosch 15:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That pompous ass, Heffer, would have us believe Powell invented the whole bloody thing and handed it to Thatcher with a cherry on the top. As usual, the old coot is trying too hard. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Although a strong monetarist, his views were often socially relaxed. He voted for relaxed divorce laws in 1965 on the grounds that two unhappy people should not be forced to maintain their unhappy state. He also voted for relaxed abortion laws, claiming that such actions are on the conscience of the individual, not the government."

This paragraph could do with improvement. I don't see what monetarism has to do with anyone's social views.

Conversion to Anglicanism
Should it be mentioned that he converted from atheism to Anglicanism? http://www.nndb.com/people/382/000095097/ Homagetocatalonia 22:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher an Atlanticist?
'analysis was taken seriously by the Atlanticist Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher' was Margaret Thatcher really an Atlanticist? Mdecker london 06:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The article on Atlanticism gives this definition: Atlanticism is a philosophy of cooperation among European and North American nations regarding political, economic, and defense issues. One who believes in Atlanticism is known as an Atlantist or an Atlanticist. I'd certainly say definitely she was an Atlanticist.--Johnbull 15:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of Thatcher's attempt to get Gorbachev to halt German reunification. Please could we have a citation to back this up.

NBeddoe 14:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No cites forthcoming, so I removed that sentence.-Wikianon (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It was US President G.H.W. Bush (Senior), not Gorbachov, whom Thatcher tried to persuade to block German reunification. A Google search against 'Thatcher Bush "German reunification"' turns up links like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4403002.stm

"Last Updated: Thursday, 3 November 2005, 15:15 GMT "Kohl lambasts 'ice-cold' Thatcher "By Ray Furlong "BBC News, Berlin

"Mr Kohl says having Mrs Thatcher as an opponent was unpleasant "Margaret Thatcher always gave me headaches. Above all, during the process of German reunification in 1989 she played an unfriendly, dangerous role."

"Helmut Kohl does not mince his words in the newly-published second volume of his memoirs, covering the years 1982-90." 

[rest of article deleted]

Bush responded that he did not claim to speak for Britain or France (also ambivalent about German reunification), but would not repudiate numerous American promises over the years to the German people.Hcunn (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"a right-wing politician"
I took out the phrase "right-wing" in the opening sentence because it is not very objective. Powell was far from being a standard, penny-in-the-slot right-wing Tory. He was certainly on the right in economic terms (as demonstrated when he resigned in Jan 1958 with Thorneycroft and Birch over monetary policy). But his views on homosexual law reform, on the death penalty, on empire (once India was lost), and on nuclear weapons and Britain's defence needs generally, were all pretty much the opposite of what one would expect from a right-wing politician. These aspects are reasonably well explained in the body of the article, so readers can make up their own minds about whether or not he can be called right-wing. Woblosch 10:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of the discussion of fascism? There is no way the Powell could be said to meee the definition of fascism. It is quite ridiciulous to even raise the topic. Has any commentator actually suggested that he was a "fascist" or "proto-fascist"? The suggestion that he was a racist is a different matter, although that accusation also is unproven.JohnC (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Epbadge2.jpg
Image:Epbadge2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Epbadge.jpg
Image:Epbadge.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Epbadge2.jpg
Image:Epbadge2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Epbadge.jpg
Image:Epbadge.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Uncited Trivia moved
from article to Talk, here:-Wikianon (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The practice of moving trivia sections to the talk page was abandoned some time ago, as was their complete removal. Please see WP:Trivia sections.  Equazcion •✗/C • 11:12, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

Layout
I've rearranged text into a chronological order as per every other article on UK politicians. I've removed a lot of unsourced text too.--Johnbull (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism
The criticism section is basically collection of refutations of criticism of Powell, all of them unsourced and voiced as Wikipedia. 141.151.238.72 (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I do see it as being ridiculously long and a collection of statements, which is what it shouldn't be. I know very little of this guy, so if you would, you can edit it, jsut as long as it isn't biased. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 02:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Powell's war record
The statement that Powell was the only man to join the British Army as a private in WWII and end as a Brigadier is false. Fitzroy Maclean did the same (as testified by numerous sources, including his book Eastern Approaches and, of course, his wiki entry). For all I know, others may have achieved the same.

I'm new to wiki - do I just delete the offending phrase?

Nidzo77 (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Since you know of only one other person who achieved the same thing, it's clearly a most unusual achievement. I would advise changing it to "one of the very few men".  Lexo (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

classics
Shurely, classics is Latin and (ancient) Greek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

English or British
Which is more appropriate do describe Enoch? I figure English goes better (it is more specific and he was a nationalist) at the same time he clearly favored a united Britain. As an American I don't know an awfully lot about the politics/appropriateness of the terms, would any Englishmen/Britons care to comment?
 * As he was of Welsh extraction, English would be incorrect. He was British. Xenos2008 (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In general the default for politicians at the UK level is "British", particularly if they represented seats from more than one constituent country. Powell had Welsh ancestry (although his ancestors had migrated to the Black Country decades before his parents were born), was born in England and ended his career in Northern Ireland, just the natural recipe for a mess if any other adjective is used. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

An external link no longer works
The link to "BBC archive radio programme: A 1976 speech by Enoch Powell on the subject of repatriation." no longer works. Vaganyik (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither of those worked when I tested them. I deadlink-flagged them.  I am always torn on dead ELs:  to kill or not to kill.  *shrug*- sinneed (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Implausible quote
"I do here in the most solemn and bitter manner curse the Prime Minister of England for having cumulated all his other betrayals of the national interest and honour, by his last terrible exhibition of dishonour, weakness and gullibility. The depths of infamy to which our accurst "love of peace" can lower us are unfathomable". The 'Prime Minister of England' ?? An Englishman would never say this. It sounds like something Homer Simpson would say.Eregli bob (talk) 06:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you do a quick search of literature in books of the time, you may see, as I did, several such. It is a real concern though.- sinneed (talk) 06:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have Simon Heffer's biography in front of me. The quote is there on page forty-seven. As for "Prime Minister of England", I watched some years ago on BBC Parliament coverage of a general election from the 1970s and I distinctly remember the returning officer announcing the candidate as having been elected and therefore the "Prime Minister of England". Of course no one could get away with that today.--Britannicus (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"In popular culture" section
I have moved the above section here as it does not currently satisfy the inclusion criteria for popular culture sections; In popular culture. Such sections, when (rarely) appropriate, need to be composed of proper prose paragraphs thoroughly referenced to reliable sources: this is an unreferenced list. Skomorokh 18:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Am I missing the part on the talk page where the tags were determined to be unneeded?
Restoring them in a short while if I am not.- Sinneed  23:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Layout
I've rearranged the text into chronological order. I think this makes the article more intelligible to readers instead of going back and forth between years. It is also easier to edit the page that way.--Britannicus (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring
I have watched with some dismay as this article has been the subject of an extraordinarly long edit war. This has to stop now. All editors involved need to come to a consensus as to the sources used and to the wording used to refer to Mr Powell. I have protected Enoch Powell and Rivers of Blood speech until the editors involved discuss the issues involved. Please remember that all edits must be of a neutral point of view and verifiable to reliable sources. Discuss your issues here instead of reverting and sniping in edit summaries. Woody (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Our sources don't say that "maybe x happened", they say that x happened. I see obscuring the text with unwarranted uncertainty as a corruption of our sources. - Schrandit (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources are biased. Of the 167 references made in this article, no fewer than ninety are sourced to the biography written by pro-Powell journalist Simon Heffer - and most of the others have a pro-Powell slant too. This does not conform to the 'neutral point of view' principle. As it currently stands, the article is top-heavy with fawning adulation. I would also contend that it is much too long and should be truncated. Multiculturalist (talk) 08:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Did Heffer lie about his subject? - Schrandit (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Heffer is the standard reference on Powell, there is no disputing this. I see little fawning adulation in the article but I do see a lot of sourced material that you would like removed.--Britannicus (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Heffer is too subjective to be a standard reference on Powell. He wrote an article for the London Daily Telegraph on November 7 2007 entitled "When will Tories admit that Enoch was right". This is here: That said, my edits left the vast majority of references to Heffer's writings intact.Multiculturalist (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Multiculturalist, you need to provide reliable sources that state Heffer is subjective/not accurate and that refute his claims. These can then be added to contest any subjective statements sourced to Heffer in the article. Woody (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's some news for you, Multiculturalist: most biographies are written by people who admire their subject. Heffer is not uncritical of Powell, either (especially on his views of women).--Britannicus (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Only a minority of your edits are oriented around Heffer sourced material as it is. - Schrandit (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed!--Britannicus (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Britannicus, I thought your complaint was that I had rolled back sourced information? Woody, I doubt very much if there are many articles - let alone a whole book - in which I can source references to highlight my assertion that Heffer is subjective about Powell (for the obvious fact that most anti-Powell articles are just that: anti-Powell, with no reference to Heffer or anyone else). Further more, Wikipedia's Enoch Powell article would surely look rather strange if it was peppered throughout with criticisms of Heffer rather than Powell himself. The unfortunate truth, however, is that the title of Heffer's Telegraph piece "When will Tories admit that Enoch Powell was right" is disturbingly similar to the "Enoch was right" slogan frequently used by the far right National Front (and yes, I know that Heffer is a very different political animal to the average National Front member). Britannicus states that Heffer was critical of Powell's view on women - so why did Britannicus not repeat any of those criticisms, backed up by sources from Heffer's book, when he helped to formulate the article? Lastly, may I enquire as to why the Powell article amounts to a total of 128,852 bites (plus a further 25,076 bites for the Rivers of Blood article)? Compare this with the size of those Wikipedia entries for Powell's political contemporaries: the article on Heath is only 58,538 and for Wilson it is 87,542 - yet these were both prime ministers, and one of them successfully negotiated our entry into the European Economic Community - arguably the most profound political act of the post-war era! Who decides that one politician is worth so much more coverage than another?Multiculturalist (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia: there is no set limit. That Wilson and Heath do not have equal length to their pages is due to the simple fact there are no editors who have added sourced material to those articles. I think you would spend your time on Wikipedia more fruitfully by building those articles up with sourced material rather than trying to pull this one down to the quality of Heath and Wilson. I didn't add Powell's misogynistic views because I believed his political views were more important. Considering your opinion that the article is too long, I am surprised you want me to add more to it.--Britannicus (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My remark was not an invitation for you to add more to it - it was a request for you to be more balanced in what you do contribute. Multiculturalist (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Heffer's opinion piece in the Telegraph was just that; an opinion piece. Writers are allowed to have opinions. - Schrandit (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No one suggests they shouldn't have an opinion. The problem arises when their views are used to form a highly opinionated article that ignores Wikipedia's guidelines about neutrality. Incidentally, you will see from the edit history that most of my roll backs have been in relation to the Rivers of Blood article rather than the Enoch Powell one. That said, I do think it is a problem when a highly partisan claim about his influence in the 1970 general election is contained in the opening summary of the latter. Multiculturalist (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reason to believe that "Like the Roman" was anything other than a scholarly work? - Schrandit (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree the article is a bit long (although you try reading the one on E.H.Carr if you have an entire afternoon to spare) although I can also see that there is merit in some verbatim quotation to show what a powerful orator Powell was in his prime. I'm not going to be the one to cut it as I prefer not to delete other people's work unless what they've written is blatantly wrong, as it annoys me when people wipe constructive edits of mine! I might rewrite something if it's ungrammatical. Heffer's biography is a serious work (it is not a "Sunday Telegraph" rant) although obviously very favourable to its subject. As discussed on the 1970 election talk page, this is all covered in the 1996 Shepherd biography, which is rather less pro-Powell (he also wrote one of Iain Macleod). Whatever one's opinions of the man, it is surely an objective fact that in 1970 Powell was one of the most popular and influential politicians in the country, so the introduction should surely mention both this and his alleged influence over the 1970 election, even if the latter is prefaced with "some commentators argue that..." or whatever. His influence was a bit less by Feb-74, perhaps because his obsession with what was then called the Common Market seemed less relevant to the public. Sources should be treated with a degree of scepticism where appropriate. Even if they are factually accurate (which Heffer surely is) they may be biased in terms of which facts and arguments they choose to present. In the absence of double-blind scientific experiments it is almost impossible to prove the relative importance of different factors in determining General Election victories (eg. Heffer always used to argue in the 1990s that the Tories would have done better by being staunchly anti-Europe - although I myself am a eurosceptic this was total rubbish IMHO as it ignored the fact that the issue is not a priority for the public and that it allowed the media to portray the Tories as right-wing extremists; nowadays Heffer argues that Cameron would do better by being more right-wing etc etc). So we cannot conclusively prove one way or the other how far the election was decided by Powell, England's loss of the World Cup, the poor Balance of Payments figures, Roy Jenkins' tough budgets, general public boredom with Harold Wilson etc etc. Paulturtle (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * References

Why is a neo-Nazi website being used as a source for this article?
By clicking on reference number (1) you end up in the website of the Australian League of Rights. According to Wikipedia, this group has links to David Irving and claims the holocaust is a hoax. To deny historical facts such as the holocaust is to lie. What guarantee do we have, therefore, that this group is not also lying when it claims that Powell had a large public following? The research quoted by their website is attributed to an article allegedly published in the Brisbane-based The Courier-Mail which, in turn, quotes from an article published in the Daily Express. Why can a direct link not be provided to one of these two as the source – why does it have to be a link to a neo-Nazi website? There has been much debate on the discussion page of Wikipedia’s UK 1970 General Election entry about whether the centre right political commentator Simon Heffer is a suitable source of information about the electoral influence of Powell, but surely to use a far right website as a source is to go completely beyond the bounds of reason. I would strongly contend that my alteration to the article (which enables the reader to see the dubious source of the claim regarding Powell’s alleged popularity) should stand until an alternative source can be found. Wikipedia should not be used as a covert way to advertise the malevolent propaganda of neo-Nazi organisations. Multiculturalist (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I dont think it's too big of a claim to challenge. I dont think the content should change unless someone is challenging its validity. Are you? Do you really think this is neo-nazi propaganda??? Come on... It's clear he had quite a following. Outback the koala (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What is "neo-Nazi propaganda" is the website that comes up when you click on the reference number. For all his faults, Powell never used anti-semitism, so why cannot a more suitable source be found for the claim that he had a large popular following? 89.195.65.115 (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Schrandit is locating the original quotation. The status quo should remain until then, this is a bpl article afterall. Outback the koala (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll give him two weeks. Multiculturalist (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's now been two weeks. I don't believe there is a genuine source for the original quotation, or it would have been found by now. Multiculturalist (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * People loved him. Get over It. - Schrandit (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove comments. I didn't find a source, although I did not look too in depth. However I find it very hard to believe that Mr. Powell did not have a following, supporters and I think it is clear he had a range of influence on the politics of the day. Must it be explicitly sourced to your liking? Outback the koala (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I found a book that mentions a Gallup poll taken in 1969 that showed EP as the "most admired person" in Britain. At the moment, it's ref # 1.  I also added an external link to the BBC's "100 Greatest Britons" poll in 2002.   --Kenatipo (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality
Dishonest article. Why do left wingers edit every biography and put in reams of text regarding false claims of homosexuality? Ridiculous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.107.69.121 (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue is discussed in Simon Heffer's heavyweight biography, and Matthew Paris (former Tory MP) once said in a newspaper article that he and other House of Commons colleagues had included Powell on a list of MPs who were, or might be, gay. So it's not just left-wingers,and the article isn't dishonest, at least not for that reason. Paulturtle (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes but that's still just hearsay. Where's the evidence that he took it up the chuff? --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's suggested that he actually "took it up the chuff" as you put it - lots of gay men (including Oscar Wilde apparently) don't, and in those days "up-chuffing" was illegal anyway. The suggestion is that he may or may not have had intense romantic relations with other men, of the kind that used to be not uncommon in quasi-monastic academic communities. There is (apparently) some evidence of this, as per the article. It's not hearsay to say that he set Matthew Parris' gaydar off - whether or not Parris' gaydar was accurate is a different question.MissingMia (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is too long
What an excessively long article for a man who had an influence over nothing except the minds of a few insignificant Little Englanders. This article is longer than the article for the late Ayatollah Khomeini.....a man who changed the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.94.87 (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I think British people of a certain age (both pro and anti) have a view of that Powell really is a prominent personality. however in 2010 I really question whether his article should be this length. Also the opening "Brigadier Powell" is ridiculous and I've deleted it. DeCausa (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree about the article's length. It is one of the best Wikipedia articles about a British politician that I've read. It needs to be long because Powell was so prolific and controversial. To shorten the article you would either need to remove some of the controversy, or some of the non controversial stuff, either of which would imbalance what I think is a nicely balanced article. --Theresonator (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

What does the year when the article was written have to do with it? Why should only people who are living receive full articles? If you think there are more important people who deserve longer articles, why don't you add information to them rather than trying to destroy this one?--Britannicus (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

DeCausa is not trying to "destroy" the article at all. As I have stated before, there is little in the way of balance in the article - and this problem will remain so long as most of the references are from pro-Powell Daily Telegraph journalist Simon Heffer. The quality of an article is not necessarily determined by its length: one could add a passage about Powell's favourite colour of socks, but it does start to get superfluous after a while. This is why others have called for it to be divided into more than one article. Multiculturalist (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes but it is a bpl, can it be divided? I mean, he lived a full life that takes up alot of space; why not try to get the article GA rated instead. It's a former FA candidate. Outback the koala (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"What does the year when the article was written have to do with it?" As time goes by article subjects can be seen more accurately in their proper context with better judgment on their long-term significance. If one were writing this article in 1968, one would be forgiven for delving into every biographical detail to shed light on probably the most prominent politicians of the moment who might be on the verge of, for instance, creating a historic split in the Conservative Party - and therefore potentially one of the most significant UK politicians in the 20th century. Similarly, you could say say that in the 70s he was one of the most divisive or controversial politicians of the moment whose notoriety meant that a lot of detail would be of interest in an article such as this. However, from the perspective of 2010 one can see that he was ultimately a sideshow whose significance was much more limited than one might have thought if one were speaking in 1968 or 1974. This is one of the longest articles I've seen of a British politician (dead or alive). It's just not warranted - and it does make me wonder if there is an ideological agenda behind those who have created it. My point is that the length of the article shows lack of balance. DeCausa (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What you are in effect saying is that you do not consider Powell important enough to warrant a full, biographical article: he committed the ultimate historical crime of being on the losing side. I must say that that view is to me grossly unhistorical. The fact is that after 1968 Powell was one of the most popular politicians in the country and that for at least the next two general elections after that speech his speeches were treated by the media as being at least as important as those of the leaders of the Labour and Conservatives parties. That is remarkable for a man who was a backbencher and who had only held a rather minor Cabinet post. There are people who believe he is still very much relevant considering the recent disturbances that have been seen in the UK. According to Wikipedia's rules, the length of one article does not mean others should be truncated. Yes there are more important people than Powell who deserve long articles but that is irrelevant in discussing this one. The people who complain about this article being too long and point to other important people who have short articles never seem to use their time on Wikipedia adding information to them: their contribution seems to be entirely negative.--Britannicus (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In answer:

(A)"What you are in effect saying is that you do not consider Powell important enough to warrant a full, biographical article". No, I'm saying he wasn't important enough to warrant an excessively detailed and lengthy article, above and beyond the normal full, biographical article. (B) "There are people who believe he is still very much relevant considering the recent disturbances that have been seen in the UK". Yes, you've understood my point: there is an ideological agenda behind this article. However, having glanced at your talk page I suspect there is little point in engaging in discussion with you.DeCausa (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is clearly an ideological agenda behind your wish to delete information from this article, as you showed in your second post: that you believe articles on Wikipedia should be judged on whether you consider them relevant in 2010. History is studied for history's sake, it is not (or ought not to be) studied for transient, shallow "relevancy". If history is studied only because someone happens to find it relevant to the present day then they will never truly understand what they are studying. This is the fallacy you believe in. I find it rather suspicious that someone who has only made 29 edits on Wikipedia, none of which have to do with British politics except on this talk page, chooses to come here and argue that this article is too long because Powell is not important.--Britannicus (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, having seen your talk page I know that any discussion with you is pointless. Anyone from the UK will understand what I mean. Incidently, I came to this article because I wanted to check when he died. I don't edit political articles - I'm not that interested in politics. But when I saw how bizarre this article was, I came to the talk page to find out what was going on. I have my answer. DeCausa (talk) 08:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * DeCausa, you are correct to highlight that there is an ideological agenda behind those who have expanded the length of the Powell article and made it full of fawning adulation: and as you say, the talk page of Britannicus (in which he states "We want no foreign examples to rekindle in us the flame of liberty") illustrates what that ideology is. You say that "anyone from the UK will understand what I mean". You are correct about that: Britannicus may be reasonably articulate, but the average Powell supporter of the late 60s and of the 70s or 80s was generally nothing more than a foul-mouthed thug with a chip on his shoulder about the over-achievement of those British citizens of Indian origin. These are the people Powell appealed to: and he knew it, too. The type of people who were incapable of stringing a sentence together without recourse to several "F" or "C" expletives. Sadly, there are still people like that around today - I have had occasion to meet them. When Britannicus says "There are people who believe he is still very much relevant considering the recent disturbances that have been seen in the UK" as justification for an over-sized pro-Powell article, you can be sure he is not talking about the rioters and trouble makers who routinely cause mayhem at football matches: such people are, after all, almost exclusively white. Therefore it does not behove the Powellites to make their race an issue. Multiculturalist (talk) 12:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Mr. Taylor, can you show what part of the article is "fawning adulation"? Bear in mind when I added the information on the race riots I also added the criticism Powell received. But of course it does not suit your ideological agenda to acknowledge this. Football rioters have nothing to do with Powell's Rivers of Blood speech, and neither do they routinely occur. The real problem you have with the article is that it does not demonise Powell. Your visceral hatred of Powell's supporters betrays your snobbery, elitism and contempt for the working class. If you look at the article on the Rivers of Blood Speech, you will see articulate people who supported him.--Britannicus (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's easy to throw accusations of an "ideological agenda" being behind the length of this particular article. I have a different perspective. Powell was unique. He may not be to everyone's taste and I certainly disagree with him on many topics, but he was unique enough to justify an article of this length. What was unique about him? He was a Tory, who got chucked out of the Tory party at the same time that he was one of the most popular politicians in the country. So that dynamic needed to be explained and that takes a lot of words, unfortunately. Then you have his controversial views. Then you have his renowned oratory prowess. Then you have his unusually complex political career. And his military career. And his academic career. The article is long because it needs to adequately explain all of the important facets of Powell's life and there are many of those. One can disagree with Powell on almost everything and still recognise that he is an important British political figure whose breadth of accomplishment should be reflected in Wikipedia's article about his life. --Theresonator (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Britannicus: in answer to your question as to which part of the article is "fawning adultation", where do I start? Perhaps with the opening passage, which reads: "John Enoch Powell, MBE (June 16, 1912 – February 8, 1998) was a British politician, linguist, writer, academic, soldier and poet." This is a highly romanticised introduction, and incidentally, I would contend that he was not a poet at all. When I tried to edit the article about the late Sir Edward Heath by adding a similar introduction, it was quickly reverted. Without giving further specific examples, what makes the Enoch Powell article inherently biased is the number of sources that are themselves favourable to Powell (for example, I have stated before that the right wing Daily Telegraph journalist Simon Heffer is frequently referenced in this and other Powell-related articles). Regarding your comment that my "visceral hatred of Powell's supporters" betrays my "snobbery, elitism and contempt for the working class", I am curious as to why you think I was referring to working class people when I identified some of Powell's supporters as being people "who were incapable of stringing a sentence together without recourse to several "F" or "C" expletives". I've met many working class people who do not use that type of language, and I've met some middle class people who do. I would contend that the National Front activists who marched with placards saying "Powell is right" were drawn from both social classes and many of them certainly did use provocative language in public. (I know, because on occasion they directed it at me). You also state that "If you look at the article on the Rivers of Blood speech, you will see articulate people who supported him". Yes - and you're one of them: but in my observation, you are in a minority. Theresonator: it is not true to say that Enoch Powell was "chucked out" of the Conservative Party. He was sacked from the Tory shadow cabinet in 1968 and left the party of his own volition when he made a pre-planned decision to publicly endorse a vote for the Labour Party in the February 1974 General Election. He did so because Harold Wilson did a shoddy backroom deal with him whereby Powell would back Labour in return for a referendum on the issue of the Common Market. From Powell's point of view this whole scheme backfired badly when the British public quite sensibly ignored his advice and voted by better than a two-to-one margin to endorse the UK's continued membership of the EEC. One of Powell's most memorable quotes was that "All political careers end in failure" - none more so than his, for he failed to achieve just about every one of his ideological objectives. You go on to justify the length of the Powell article by making reference to his "renowned oratory prowess" and his "unusually complex political career, military career and academic career." These last three attributes could well be applied to the late Sir Edward Heath, who was in addition a Prime Minister, but whose Wikipedia entry is less than one half of the length of Powell's. Incidentally, whilst I would not claim that Heath possessed Powell's oratory skills, he was generally credited during the discussions relating to Britain's proposed EEC membership with having finely tuned negotiating skills and a great command of detail, although at the moment no reference to this is made in his Wikipedia article. (I'm currently thinking about how I can add a sourced passage highlighting his ability in this regard without it being reverted). Finally, you mentioned Powell's "breadth of accomplishment". I have difficulty in seeing what he actually did accomplish, especially compared to Heath - who had EEC membership to his credit. Multiculturalist (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing romantic about the introduction: it is fact. Powell also wrote poetry and it was published. That is fact. Heffer is used as the main source for the simple reason that he has written the fullest and the most authoritative biography of Powell, which you won't accept but it is a fact. Heath's academic career does not match Powell's&mdash;Powell was a professor at 25 and achieved 100% in his final grammar school exam and got a double-starred first at university; Heath got a second. Powell published articles in academic journals and published academic textbooks; Heath did not. (The fact that this article is called "Enoch Powell" and not "John Powell" is due to the fact that Powell needed to distinguish himself from another scholar called J. E. Powell and so started signing himself "J. Enoch Powell".) Whilst Powell did receive support amongst all social classes, it is acknowledged that he received mass working-class support too, and this was widely commented on because it was an unusual situation for a Tory MP to be in. As for Powell's "ideological objectives", he is acknowledged as the father of Thatcherism (along with Sir Keith Joseph) by none other than Thatcher herself. Powell advocated many of those economic policies (whether you agree with them or not) many years before they were Conservative Party policy. The problem with a lot of your edits is that you cannot grasp the Wikipedia policy of neutrality, not that you are simply adding information that is reverted. There is no conspiracy: the simple fact is that more people have taken the time to create this article than Edward Heath's. You spend more time lurking on talk pages than building up articles. Why don't you expand Heath's? There is no excuse.--Britannicus (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I think my point is simpler. I certainly don't think that the size of the article should be limited because Powell may or may not have had distasteful views. I don't have any tremendous axe to grind against Powell. I certainly wasn't a supporter, but on the other hand I'd agree he was an interesting character who had a big impact on British politics for a few years about 40 years ago. Whilst that means I have no problem with him being described as "a British politician, linguist, writer, academic, soldier and poet" it does mean that the excessive detail of this Article looks bizarre. "He attempted to join the Chindits, and jumped into a taxicab to bring the matter up with Orde Wingate,but his duties and rank precluded the assignment." Really? Who cares - it's ridiculous. He's just not important enough to warrant that kind of treatment. It's unbalanced compared to politicians of similar significance. What appears to have happened is that a small group of admirers have built a little shrine to him. DeCausa (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no particular problem with the opener, I think while easy to read it is still accurate. - Schrandit (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It is bizarre for Britannicus to start comparing the academic performance of different politicians: we are dealing here primarily with people's political biographies and surely not trying to compile some sort of "Who's Who" of University achievement. The fact that Powell may have got a first and Heath only a second is not a convincing argument for devoting more significance to the former than to the latter. If you believe the propoganda of the Eurosceptics, Heath surely did the most profound thing of any prime minister by taking us into the EEC: this did, after all, sow the seeds of the downfall of his successor. He was also far more level-headed than Powell and his basic decency and determination ensured that he stuck to his guns when he was the target of protestors (and hate mail) demanding Powell's reinstatement. In short, he did what he knew to be right: The old phrase "If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs..." comes to mind. The notion that Powell was the ideological father of Thatcher's economic policies has been made before, but personally I am not convinced: he claimed to be a champion of the free market yet quite happily threw his lot in with left wing Labour politicians who were campaigning against membership of the EEC precisely because they did not agree with market economics. The truth is that his adversity to co-operating with other nations in order to free up markets showed that his nationalist ideology outweighed his free market ideology. When she took over the Tory leadership in 1975, Thatcher was a committed pro-European whose first act was to campaign vigorously to retain the UK's membership of the EEC: only much later in her political career did she veer off the rails with her increasingly hysterical Europhobia (until eventually the saner heads in her own party were forced to get rid of her). Finally, I find it baffling that Britannicus can lecture me about the Wikipedia policy of neutrality when he approaches this whole matter with as much of an ideological bent as I do. Multiculturalist (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I only brought up Powell's academic credentials because you said their academic careers were comparable, which is nonsense. I am not disputing the importance of Heath but that is irrelevant when discussing this article. If you want a longer Heath article, add the information. Powell is the ideological father of Thatcherism: Thatcher said so herself. As for "Europhobia", Powell was fluent in French, German, Italian, Greek, Latin amongst other languages. Compare this to Heath's frankly embarassing attempt at speaking French. It is true that Powell placed national independence above all else, but in the case of the EEC this in no way compromised his support for free markets. In fact, his crusade against the EEC was part of his free market agenda because the EEC was inherently protectionist (external tariffs, the CAP). Powell wanted Britain to trade freely with the entire world, not locked into a European Zollverein, a customs union that was a prelude to political union (not leading to free trade at all. If they wanted a free trade area they should have joined EFTA. But the EEC was never about free markets). Once again you misunderstand the issue. And for neutrality: all of my edits have been neutral, unlike yours.--Britannicus (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The extremes of both the left and the right have hijacked Enoch Powell. The left use him (incorrectly, in my view) as a leader of the racist parts of our political system. The racist part of the political right also misunderstand his views and claim him as one of their own. So the left want nothing except Powell's supposed racism to appear in any Wikipedia article about him, whilst the right also want Powell's views to be misrepresented, so that they appear to have a well-known politician espousing their views. As Daniel Hannan said, after being smeared with accusations of racism after agreeing with Powell on some issue, "I’m surprised that no one has picked up on the thing that I most admire about Enoch Powell, namely his tendency to ignore conventional wisdom and think things through from first principles. Like Rowan Williams, he always did his hearers the courtesy of addressing them as intelligent adults. Both men regularly got into trouble in consequence, either because they were genuinely misunderstood or because their detractors affected to misunderstand them. Neither responded by dumbing down. That, in politics, takes a special kind of integrity." Anyone who thinks that the person who said "Nor can we ourselves pick and choose where and in what parts of the world we shall use this or that kind of standard. We cannot say, 'We will have African standards in Africa, Asian standards in Asia and perhaps British standards here at home'. We have not that choice to make. We must be consistent with ourselves everywhere. All Government, all influence of man upon man, rests upon opinion. What we can do in Africa, where we still govern and where we no longer govern, depends upon the opinion which is entertained of the way in which this country acts and the way in which Englishmen act. We cannot, we dare not, in Africa of all places, fall below our own highest standards in the acceptance of responsibility" is a racist must be using a different definition of "racist" to me. --Theresonator (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, it was me who added that quote to the article.--Britannicus (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If Britannicus thinks the EEC was "inherently protectionist" and that it was "never about free markets" then it's truly amazing that the likes of Tony Benn, Michael Foot and Arthur Scargill campaigned so vociferously against it (and that the current Marxist leader of the RMT Union is still one of its most ferocious critics). It is also surprising that the CBI overwhelmingly favoured our entry into the EEC: they did so because they favoured protectionism, did they? By the way, you say all of your edits have been neutral: does this include the one about Powell attracting up to five million votes to the Conservative Party in the 1970 General Election? Multiculturalist (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's only surprising if you know nothing about politics. The Labour Left disliked it because it would prevent their brand of socialism being implemented, as well as depriving this country of sovereignty. The CBI supported it because it would help their profits. Businessman are always in favour of free markets when it helps their profits: when their profits are in danger from foreign competition they demand protectionism. The CBI believed that membership would protect their profits (also they were never laissez faire, they were willing to join with the government and the unions in prices and incomes policies). But of course you never actually respond to my posts, you just post irrelevant questions and diatribes over and over without making substantial replies. The EEC was a political project from the start, it was never about being a free trade area. If the nations of Europe wanted free trade they could either have individually abolished tariffs for protective purposes or joined EFTA. But that is not what the EEC was about, it was about creating a Zollverein: an economic union with a common external tariff as a prelude to political union.
 * Yes, that edit was neutral because it came from a reliable source and was worded neutrally. I did not insert: "Powell added give million votes to the Tories" but added: "The pollsters claimed... etc.", thereby clearly attributing the claims to the people who made them, not just putting my own view in.--Britannicus (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The edit was not neutral and the source was not reliable. Anyone who claims that Powell's influence resulted in the Tory vote increasing from 8,000,000 to 13,000,000 in the 1970 General Election does not understand psephology. Regarding the CBI's support for the EEC, you tell me "It's only surprising if you know nothing about politics". This is an ironic put down, because you then go on to claim that one of the two reasons why the Labour left opposed membership was because it would have meant "depriving this country of sovereignty". So your understanding of politics leads you to believe that the Labour left are worried about issues of sovereignty? I don't think we can really take this discussion any further. Multiculturalist (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The source was valid because it came from a reliable source: Heffer's biography. Considering your past mutterings, I am not willing to accept you as an authority on psephology.
 * I will take two leading examples of the Labour Left: Michael Foot and Tony Benn. Here is what Foot's biographer says about Foot's stance on the EEC: "Certainly in part Foot opposed Europe because he was a socialist. Europe was a capitalist club, a ‘rich man's club’, as he told the voters of Ebbw Vale, that would take powers of economic management away from the British government and from domestic agencies like British Steel Corporation, and make socialist planning in Britain impossible...But Foot's basic objection to Europe lay not in his being a socialist but in his being a parliamentarian. Throughout, his fundamental antagonism to Britain joining the Common Market lay in the fact that it undermined the sovereignty of Parliament, the very foundation of Britain's constitution, and diverted control away to institutions overseas over which the British electors would have no control."&mdash;Kenneth O. Morgan, Michael Foot. A Life (London: Harper Perennial, 2008), p. 274.
 * Here is what Tony Benn said: "Britain's continuing membership of the Community would mean the end of Britain as a completely self-governing nation and the end of our democratically elected Parliament as the supreme law-making body in the United Kingdom."&mdash;The Times (30 December, 1974), p. 1.
 * So the Labour Left's opposition was a mixture of socialism and sovereignty, as I said it was. But don't let the facts get in the way of your spurious arguments (they don't normally).--Britannicus (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * One prerequisite for having an understanding of politics is being able to differentiate between reality and rhetoric.Multiculturalist (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, so Foot and Benn were lying then? You are capable of mind-reading now? Other than analysing their speeches and writings, how on earth can you discover what a politician believes in? Their speeches and writings show that the Labour Left opposed the EEC due to its prevention of socialist policies and that it eroded this country's sovereignty. You haven't actually provided any sources to prove otherwise. But I didn't expect you would because you never do. Like I've said before, you never actually engage in debate but continually snipe without offering any facts. You are never constructive. Over and over you pose ridiculous questions and nonsense remarks that are always disproved by facts. --Britannicus (talk) 10:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not take lessons in "facts" from someone who promotes the absurd notion that Enoch Powell added five million to the Conservative vote total in the 1970 general election. So far as the Labour left is concerned, my long-term involvement in anti-fascist politics has enabled me to listen first hand to the reasoning of those who occupy that part of the political spectrum: the defence of so-called parliamentary and national sovereignty had absolutely nothing to do with their motivation for opposing the EEC: many of them wanted to negate the powers of parliament by recourse to 'extra parliamentary action' and were anti-Common Market because they would have preferred a greater soviet involvement in this country's affairs. The nationalist phobia that is in evidence on your User Page may reflect the reasons for your own adversity towards this country's membership of the EC, but it has never been the basis for the left's opposition to the European project.Multiculturalist (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have provided two reliable sources for my assertions, which are facts. You have yet again not provided any sources, but spouted McCarthyite, paranoid nonsense. Where are your reliable sources for proving your claims? You don't have any because you can't produce them, all of your assertions rest on nothing more than thin air.--Britannicus (talk) 13:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I have read through this nonsense about the article being too long. How can the facts (hopefully) in any encyclopedic article (except possible the twitter encyclopedia) be too long? I came here looking for info on his conspiracy theories on the CIA murdering Lord Mountbatton and who he thought really wrote the works of Shakespeare (which I just caught the end of on the BBC Parliament channel tribute to him)and can find no reference, so in my opinion the article is not long enough. Please expand it.

If memory serves he thought the USA had some conspiracy going to get the Irish Republic into NATO and so wanted to strongarm the UK into pro-Dublic policies. I think it's mentioned in the biographies starting with Cosgrave. IMHO Powell, although an interesting and important character, and intellectually brilliant as a young man, became more than a little unhinged in his later years. Others may disagree of course.Paulturtle (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)