Can Enoch Powell (ironically considering how he is remembered my most here) ride the reaction to the growing Christian revival to victory on a platform of social liberalism and immigration reduction? 
TLIAPOT: Blinded by the Light
- Thread starter Gonzo
- Start date
The New Statesman
The New Statesman
By the start of 1971, the Conservative Party was seen to be either just behind, or neck-and-neck with the Labour Party in the Opinion Polls; several put the Tories ahead by a point or two. Unlike James Callaghan, who most considered to be on his way out by the end of the parliamentary term; Iain Macleod seemed to the public to be a pillar of strength and support within the Conservative Party - ensuring the ideological schisms and conflicts of the Butler years did not resurface within the party again. This was in many ways a sense of false stability within the party - Macleod had only been elected due to the distrust and fear of those on the party’s liberal, moderate and soft-right wings; concerning Enoch Powell becoming the leader of the party. A common saying at the time among Tory MPs was that Powell would only get the leadership over Macleod’s ‘cold dead body.’
This appeared to become a reality on the evening of the 16th of July, 1971 when Macleod, at his home in his Enfield constituency, succumbed to a massive heart attack while in his living room - he died not long after in the early hours of the morning.
Due to the circumstances of a new leadership race, it was considered wrong to announce any sort of leadership intentions until the period of mourning for the party leader had passed. Enoch Powell, despite the strong ideological and even personal conflict among the two, wrote a moving letter of condolence to Macleod widow, Evelyn; the Prime Minister himself paid a personal visit to express his “utmost and sincere condolences” to Macleod’s family.
Despite the effective moratorium on politicking during the period up to Macleod funeral - many party moderates began to panic and began to become paranoid with the possibility of a Powell led party. In the years since his sacking as Shadow Defence Secretary, Powell had become a strong critic of the Conservative Party leadership’s inability (in his view) to stand up to the “communist infiltrated and aligned” elements within the trade union movement; as well as his support for the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, introduced under Bob Mellish’s stewardship by John Stonehouse (a former Home Office Minister who would be reshuffled by the time of the General Election to the position of Overseas Development Minister); a bill which Macleod had strongly opposed and argued against (like many in his Shadow Cabinet.)
Powell - in the view of the party moderates - would kill any sort of chances the party had at winning the next General Election - alienating many voters with his hardline statements on trade unions and potentially not gaining too many voters over (and instead losing more) with his strong stance and speech on the CIA. As a result of these fears, a group of leading party moderates came together to discuss their options on how to beat ‘the man.’ The group, dubbed by hard-right Powell supporting Portsmouth MP, Peter Griffiths in his column in the Daily Sketch as the ‘Tory Socialists,’ comprised of several Shadow Cabinet members - such as Francis Pym, Robert Carr, Anthony Barber and backbenchers Michael Heseltine and Ian Gilmour; all were supporters of Macleod - either out of ideological or personal reasons - or out of a pragmatic need to prevent a hard-right take over of the party.
Meeting in the ‘smoke filled rooms’ of the bars and offices of the House of Commons into the late hours of the night and into the early hours; they compiled a list of ‘suitable candidates’ to take on Powell. Their criteria was that the individual would have to be rather ‘non-ideological’, have reasonable experience, to be non-controversial and to be able to appeal to some of Powell’s softer support base. Some candidates who they considered flat out declined to challenge or run for the leadership, such as William Whitelaw. By the time the window for nominations was approaching (Powell had received the backing of nearly a hundred Tory MPs - similar to the number he achieved at the prior leadership election); the ‘Tory Socialists’ were becoming desperate - it appeared that the Powell steamroller would continue rolling towards the conference in mid-October in Brighton. Whatmore former Butler cabinet member and leading backbencher Sir Hugh Fraser announced he would be standing. Fraser was more known for his hobnobbing with the Kennedy family (he would marry Jackie Kennedy Onassis in 1975 - after he and his wife divorced, due to her affair) than any form of legislative achievements in the past decade. A real concern of the group of moderates was the threat of Reginald Maudling standing; Maudling after all had been the party deputy leader and was serving as the pro tempore leader of the party until the election. By 1971 Maudling was seen to be caught in his own delusion of self-importance and was harmed by his standing in the 1968 leadership race; as well as his daughter’s ‘indiscretions’ (by this stage she was a columnist on youth issues of the Daily Mail) in having a bastard child. After pleading with Maudling and telling him what was likely to happen - he would be humiliated into third place and be beaten by Fraser, leading to ‘that odious man’ rising to power in the party. Maudling’s leadership bid was finally scuttled by the a fraud case - his business activities were causing considerable disquiet and speculation in the press. In 1966, he had obtained a directorship in the company of John Poulson, an architect Maudling helped obtain lucrative contracts. Poulson routinely did business through bribery and in early 1971 was made bankrupt by the problems with the Dollar which were beginning to affect British markets. The bankruptcy hearings disclosed his bribe payments, and Maudling's connection became public knowledge. Maudling came to the decision that his alleged links to the fraud investigations into Poulson, ensured that he would have to finally dispel any sort of suggestion of a Maudling leadership bid. [1] Maudling begrudgingly ‘dropped out’ and said he’d support a “unity candidate” for the party leadership - in reality he was still hoping for a high profile cabinet post within the party.
A day before the close of nominations the moderates finally came to a decision on their candidate. Robin Chichester-Clark hailed from a political dynasty that stretched back to the early 19th century, his great great grandfather the Rt. Hon. George Robert Dawson, a Tory MP, served as Financial Secretary to the Treasury in 1830; he was married to Mary Peel, the sister of Tory Premier Robert Peel. Directly he was the third generation of politicians in his family - his grandfather was the Member of Parliament (like Dawson) for the Londonderry Constituency, his grandmother and father were members of the Northern Ireland parliament. His brother, James Chichester-Clark had ran for the Ulster Unionist Party leadership in 1969 - losing by a single vote to the more middle-class Brian Faulkner; he was now the Minister of Home Affairs in the Stormont Government. Robin Chichester-Clark was educated at the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth and Magdalene College, Cambridge. He began work as a journalist in 1949, worked as public relations officer for Glyndebourne from 1952-3, before joining the publishing house Oxford University Press. [2] In 1955 he was elected the Member of Parliament for Londonderry and rose through the ranks of the Conservative Party to become a Whip in the Butler Government - who he supported. Chichester-Clark was a leading supporter of Maudling in 1968, later carrying his vote over to Macleod in the second round of voting. After the 1970 General Election he was promoted from Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the position of Shadow Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity. His stance on Northern Ireland was one of support for the reforms of Terence O’Neill and a rejection of the more hardline elements and anti-Catholic rhetoric; yet he acknowledged the need for the maintenance of ‘Law and Order’ in the province - something moderates were seemingly failing to do. He said on the issue of hardline versus moderate Unionism that “only the work of moderate people on both sides can maintain the hopes of those who yearn to see the scars of history vanish.” His own stance on many of the leading issues such as trade unions, morality and immigration was rather vague - he had quietly abstained on the Immigration Bill; not being persuaded to vote either way on the bill by the debate. He was also personally opposed to abortion, though he had voted for reforms to the law on homosexuality and contraception; unlike his fellow Ulster Unionists. He could therefore appeal to some of the more High Church Anglican elements in the party; especially if he amplified Powell’s own social liberalism, an anathema to many social conservative Tory MP’s who would nominally have supported Powell. His ideological vagueness appeared to work in his favour, as he couldn’t be accused of being a ‘Tory Socialist’ or ‘Godless liberal.’
Much like in the prior leadership election, many Tory MPs, who would nominally have voted for Powell, resolved to back the more centrist (in Tory Party terms) candidate, who could finally take the party out of it’s longest spell in the political wilderness in nearly over sixty years. Surely common sense moderate Toryism would prevail over the divisive ‘reactionary’ Powellism, would win the day?
On the first ballot Chichester-Clark led Powell by two votes - on 121 and 119 votes respectively. Fraser had won a respectable and larger than expected thirty-seven votes on the first ballot. Fraser thus was eliminated from the next round (officially "dropping out"); most of his votes were expected to go to Chichester-Clark on the second ballot. That they did, with 154 Tory MP's voting for the Londonderry MP, as opposed to a mere 123 for his opponent. Realising he had no chance of victory - despite holding Chichester-Clark to a victory margin of less than 15%, Powell opted to drop out - thus ensuring that Chichester-Clark was elected the new leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party.
Chichester-Clark vowed to "take the fight to Labour" and to offer "a comprehensive rebuttal to Labour's arguments." He set about forming a shadow cabinet 'of unity' - however the main issues still prevailed among many voters up and down the country - who are you and what do you stand for?
---
[2]Taken from the Wikipedia, 'Robin Chichester-Clark' page.
Last edited:
Powell gets dangerously close to winning - again - and gets beat by an electable politician - again.
Is that something like Red Tories in Canada?
Is that something like Red Tories in Canada?
Can Enoch Powell (ironically considering how he is remembered my most here) ride the reaction to the growing Christian revival to victory on a platform of social liberalism and immigration reduction?
Not, it would appear not. Now it is Robin so-and-so who has to take the fight to Labour and sock it to them.
Yeah - the great thing is that Chichester-Clark is an unknown quantity - so I can mess about with him, to an extent.
Yeah - it was more inspired by a little discussion/joke in the infobox thread.
T'is neither the first, nor last, time an obscure political epithet of generic inclinations has been recycled by a group.
Very into culture and the arts I believe, otherwise I know little about him
shiftygiant
Gone Fishin'
It sounds like his parents mixed up birthplace and forename.
But yeah, he resigned when Reggie "get me a scotch, what a bloody awful country" Maudling didn't give him enough troops to deal with the IRA, so I'm expecting his inevitable [INEVITABLE] Premiership to go off the fucking rails in Norn.
EDIT: Oh wait, that was his Brother. Well fuck I don't know then.
Last edited:
Ian "You cannot be an Ulsterman without being an Irishman" Paisley points out the two isn't exclusive.
"Irish"
Thanks; Chichester-Clark was the last NI MP to serve as a Minister in a Government - so it wasn't unrealistic to have him make a Shadow Cabinet and even the leadership.
Thank you very much - means a lot.
Thank you - you have been trained well.
Yeah... whatever he said...!
Yes he was. He was a leading Heath backer OTL, MoS for Employment in the Heath Government and a supporter of a power sharing deal between moderates on both sides of the fence. Was also (like Stratton Mills) one to remain with the Government after Sunningdale - though he was deselected by hardliners in February 1974 and failed to secure an English seat.
Needless to say Bill Craig won't be too happy with him...
Well coming from a political dynasty does make you posh - also living in a manor house in County Londonderry might help that.
*Evil Laugh while smoking a cigar and stroking a white cat in a swivel chair*
His parents merged their surnames together to create the double-barrelled surname.
Yeah wrong one - this one is a liberal Unionist - who was a moderate in Tory Party terms (pro-EEC...
, like his Shadow Foreign Secretary, Geoffrey Rippon... )Ian "You cannot be an Ulsterman without being an Irishman" Paisley points out the two isn't exclusive.
I am still amazed he actually said that.
*Begins to whistle 'There'll always be an Ulster'*
A near-complete unknown becoming leader - and from early Troubles Londonderry??
TELL ME MOORRRRE
TELL ME MOORRRRE
Reaching the end of the rope
Reaching the end of the rope
The 1965 'The Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965' was one of the few pieces of liberalisation that managed to filter through during the Labour Government in the 1960's. The private member's bill, introduced by noted abolitionist Sydney Silverman in 1965; passing later that year. The act in effect had all death sentences for the act of capital murder commuted to life imprisonment. The act itself overlooked the four other capital offences: high treason, 'piracy with violence,' arson in royal dockyards and espionage, as well as other capital offences under military law. The legislation contained a sunset clause, which stated that the act would expire five years after being enacted "unless Parliament by affirmative resolutions of both Houses otherwise determines." An attempt to do so and make the act permanent, in 1969 was defeated by the House. The year after that a further five year extension was passed narrowly by the House, in effect ensuring that the death penalty would continue to be de facto abolished for the capital murder offence throughout Great Britain (the death penalty for murder was still in force in Northern Ireland.)
Silverman for his part in 'abolishing' the death penalty was to pay dearly at the 1966 general election. In his Nelson and Colne constituency the local Conservative association withdrew, acknowledging the herculean task ahead of them, instead they threw their support behind the candidacy of the newly formed English Nationalist Party candidate Patrick Downey. Downey was the uncle of Lesley Ann Downey, one of the victims of the Moors murderers Myra Hindley and Ian Brady, who was brutally raped and murdered on Boxing Day 1964 after behind lured from a fairground which she had attended on her own. The murder left the Downey family, understandably, distraught and angry that their ten year old had been killed by two monsters. The murdered child's uncle, Patrick Downey achieved notoriety when at the trial, he leapt forward while the defendants were being led away, and proceeded to smash Brady in the face, breaking his jaw. The act led to some cheers in the public gallery of the court, and no charges were ever put against the distraught uncle. The Daily Sketch famously interviewed Downey, where he went into detail as to what he'd like to do to the murderers of his beloved niece.
Running on an explicitly anti-abolition and pro-hanging platform, Downey surprisingly defeated Silverman in one of the few defeats for Labour at the 1966 general election; defeating Silverman by 307 votes (representing less than one percent of the votes cast.)
Downey would by 1970 see his majority increase to nearly 4,000 votes; he would after the election form part of the 'National Technical Group' with the two Democratic Party MPs, Desmond Donnelly and Woodrow Wyatt. The informal alliance enabled the three MPs to project a 'unified' message and to 'project' their voices "much" louder than they would as individual Members of Parliament.
The pro-death penalty camp would receive a shot in the arm in October 1971 at the Conservative Party conference. While most observers were focused on the ongoing leadership election battle between Chichester-Clark, Powell, and Fraser; the conference passed a motion affirming the party and her Members of Parliament to support a restoration of the death penalty for murder, and maintaining 'the rope' for the four other capital offences still on the books for the rope. The divide within the party was not clear cut. Notable proponents of banning the death penalty included arch right-wingers such as Julian Amery (whose brother John had been hanged for treason committed during the war) and Enoch Powell (who considered hanging "repugnant.") Meanwhile others such as former Prime Minister Rab Butler, now a backbench MP, had come out in favour of restoring the death penalty (a move which was seen to be strange, considering some high profile cases while as Home Secretary, where Butler had commuted death sentences.) The Liberal Party was almost unanimous in their opposition to restoring the death penalty; though Liverpool MP Trevor Jones was said to support restoring the noose on the statute books. The Liberals were come 1972 less focussed on the threat of Downey, instead they were preoccupied with showcasing their new MP and the first coloured Member of Parliament, Sir Learie Constantine (a former West Indian cricketer, who had survived a heart attack the year prior) who had won a spectacular by-election victory in (early 1972 in) Rochdale, in part on his opposition to the Commonwealth Immigration Act. The Labour Party was generally in support of restoring the noose; most Members of Parliament were unlike the more 1964 intake, instead they were compared to the PLP of the 1950's in terms of their social views. The leading proponent of restoring the noose of the government benches was naturally the Home Secretary, Bob Mellish, who stated that one of his only regrets in politics, "was to allow that damned bill [Silverman's PMB] to pass under my nose and into the Lords." The Prime Minister, Jim Callaghan, along with most of his cabinet were said to be (as stated in a 'Times' article from the time) "quietly supportive of any efforts to repeal the extended bill of the late Mr. Silverman."
Downey introduced his PMB in early summer 1972 with behind the scenes support from the Home Office and from the government. The bill achieved a second reading in May 1972 without much fanfare in the press or parliament. That all changed once the main debate of the bill began. Former Education Secretary Roy Jenkins, a Liberal Member of Parliament with a fractious relationship with some of his other 'fellow' Liberals, railed against the bill calling it "a barbarous bill which aims to bring back a barbarous act." Eric Lubbock attacked the bill as "backward looking act which will certainly take our nation's justice system in a backwards motion, back to the nineteenth century." The bill was defended by various members of parliament such as the Home Secretary Bob Mellish who proclaimed it as a "bill which will honour the victims of murder, who seem to be those who should be blamed - in the eyes of the opposition," a remark which received calls of "shame" from the opposition benches. By far the most potent and moving moment of the debate was when Downey himself got up to speak in defence of his bill. Doughnutted by Donnelly and Wyatt, Downey recounted the hours after his niece's abduction, when the rest of the family wondered where she was. This curiosity turned to panic and then to fear. Downey recounted, with tears in his eyes, the moment they realised that his niece had been brutalised and murdered; he then angrily condemned his predecessor as Member of Parliament for Nelson & Colne, who had "denied Lesley justice." When he finished he was applauded by pro-death penalty and even some anti-death penalty Members of Parliament. Leader of the Opposition Robin Chichester-Clark manoeuvred himself backwards to shake Downey's hand and congratulate him on his "deeply moving and heartwrenching speech."
When the bill went into the lobbies, many undecided MPs, such as the Leader of the Opposition were moved by Downey's speech, into voting for the bill. The bill was won, by a 231 to 196 margin, with 25 abstentions. "Justice for Leslie Ann" boomed the Daily Sketch the day after, with a picture of a tearful, but pleased Patrick Downey on the cover. The news would soon after be forgotten in the 'long hot summer of '72' with news from US presidential election and of course further new from the conflict in South Arabia, where Britain had been dragged into once again.
---
On the other side of the Atlantic the issue of the death penalty also reared it's ugly head. The Supreme Court in January 1972 began hearing oral arguments in a case dubbed 'Furman v. George.' The case, which emerged from a burglary-gone-wrong which had led to murder, had worked it's way up to the Court by 1972. In the case, the resident awoke in the middle of the night to find William Henry Furman committing Burglary in his house. At trial, in an unsworn statement allowed under Georgia criminal procedure, Furman said that while trying to escape, he tripped and the weapon he was carrying fired accidentally, killing the victim. This contradicted his prior statement to police that he had turned and blindly fired a shot while fleeing. In either event, because the shooting occurred during the commission of a felony, Furman would have been guilty of murder and eligible for the death penalty under then-extant state law, according to the felony murder rule. Furman was tried for murder and was found guilty based largely on his own statement. Although he was sentenced to death, the punishment was never carried out. [1]
The Court, which had seen Democratic Senator for West Virginia, Robert Byrd joins it's ranks (after John Marshall Harlan II stood down in due to ill health in September 1971), decided the case on a 5-4 margin, in favour of Furman. The case effectively struck down all death penalty schemes throughout the United States (as it apparently violated the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments), in effect banning the death penalty throughout the country, much to the ire of pro-death penalty advocates. The debate was far from over, with the court revisiting the death penalty in the years to come.
---
Last edited: