WI: No “Rivers of Blood”

Enoch Powell’s Rivers of Blood is one of the most famous (or infamous) speeches in British history, sparking new racial tensions in the country while also singlehandedly ending Mr Powell’s respectable political career.
The transcript of the speech can be read here:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643823/Enoch-Powells-Rivers-of-Blood-speech.html
But what if this speech was never delivered? ITTL, Powell simply doesn’t take the the risk of delivering the speech, suspecting it could tarnish his image and popularity.
How would the rest of Powell’s political career go? Could he be the Conservative’s frontman in an election, or even become PM? How would British politics as a whole be different?
 
That's really out of character for Powell, he never really acted in the typical political way, worrying constantly about his numbers. He knew that the speech would tarnish his chances for a cabinet position, at least one of respect, and would lead to people harassing him. He wouldn't care or would be so confident that people felt the same way that he would just give the speech anyway. This is, after all, the guy who endorsed the opposing party in 1974 and openly blamed riots on people he found foreign. No matter what you think of what he said, he was, without a doubt, unflinching in his beliefs, and would not hesitate to speak his mind.

But, as an exercise in thought, if he didn't give the speech or the Morecambe Budget speech, we could potentially not see Thatcherism, at least not the way it played out, and the Conservatives may not have won the 1970 election, or at the very least, the entire 1974 election would have been totally different. Powell was instrumental in introducing increasingly right-wing policies into the mainstream and providing a challenge to previously widely supported one-nation conservatism, and the whole post-war consensus as a whole. He doesn't really have a comparison in modern-day politics... he was loved by many and hated by many simultaneously because of his controversial beliefs. Probably only Nigel Farage or Bernie Sanders in the US could come close to him, and even then they are much less controversial then he was. It's like removing Farage from UK politics, without him, the entire post-2010 UK would be unrecognizable, Brexit wouldn't happen and David Cameron would probably still be in No.10, the same thing with Sanders, without him, the Democratic Party would probably still be in the mold of Clinton and Obama, third-way centrism instead of progressivism.

Let's say that without the speech, Heath would still win the 1970 election, and narrowly win in 1974 due to a general lack of division within the Tories. He loses in 1979, due to stagflation and the horrible late-70s that would tear any leader to shreds, probably to Michael Foot, who would be elected leader because he's popular with unions and radical. He would be the Thatcher of this world, the person who breaks politics because he is so far left. He would not, in any way, help this. He would nationalize more industries, attempt to abolish the House of Lords (failing to do so because of Blue Labour MPs who wouldn't support it, at least not yet), and he would be the cause of another major change. A relatively small breakaway faction would cause him to lose his majority, and in 1982, there would be another general election. This faction, call them whatever you would like (preferably SDP), would ally with a Liberal Party that would, justifiably, call for an end to the current system, which became a choice between a communist and an ideologically timid one-nation conservative, probably Whitelaw. Labour would lose in a landslide, especially after they surrender the Falklands, giving them the image as the party that wants to surrender the national identity. This leads to a hung parliament and mayhem, as Foot is thrown out of office as Leader in favor of Kinnock, and the alliance, which is now in opposition with Labour close behind. The Tories are the only people who could remotely be seen as authoritative, and they attempt to find a working coalition with the Alliance, who are resistant to it. The Tories form a minority government, and immediately call another election, increasing their seat share at the further expense of Labour, but not securing a majority. May I add that this will most likely change the US as well. Without Thatcher, Reagan wouldn't have as much diplomatic or political capital, especially if it's Michael Foot in office.

From there, it's difficult to see what will happen... but needless to say, Powell changed politics, and the world, no matter what you think about what he said. Without the Rivers of Blood Speech, everything is different, down to the way we talk about issues. It's the epoch for our current political discourse, and a monumental event in modern political history.
 

Ian_W

Banned
From there, it's difficult to see what will happen... but needless to say, Powell changed politics, and the world, no matter what you think about what he said. Without the Rivers of Blood Speech, everything is different, down to the way we talk about issues. It's the epoch for our current political discourse, and a monumental event in modern political history.

No, he didn't. England is still about class, not race.
 
No, he didn't. England is still about class, not race.

That's to say race is not an issue, Powell made it more of an issue and brought widespread popularity to what was then known as "racialist" sentiment, which is still present in UKIP and the Brexit Party.
 

Ian_W

Banned
That's to say race is not an issue, Powell made it more of an issue and brought widespread popularity to what was then known as "racialist" sentiment, which is still present in UKIP and the Brexit Party.

There is a Nazi tendency in British politics, and Powell was a legitimate part of it - the Empire that Powell rejected in that speech was about Scots or Birmingham workers being no better or no worse than labourers in Bombay or Maori on the South Island, in that they could do good things if officered correctly by gentlemen who had been to the right schools.

But Powell's speech was 1968. If you want to draw a line between him and Brexit, you need to explain fifty years of abject failure of his ideas.
 
There is a Nazi tendency in British politics, and Powell was a legitimate part of it - the Empire that Powell rejected in that speech was about Scots or Birmingham workers being no better or no worse than labourers in Bombay or Maori on the South Island, in that they could do good things if officered correctly by gentlemen who had been to the right schools.

But Powell's speech was 1968. If you want to draw a line between him and Brexit, you need to explain fifty years of abject failure of his ideas.

I do agree with much of what you are saying when you clear that up further. I'm merely stating that by saying what he did, a discussion opened up that changed (at the very least, challenged) the general way politics was discussed and certain policies were seen, not necessarily that his idea worked or had very much merit, that's why I included several statements with the gist of "whether you liked him or not". Personally, I think many of his ideas are ineffective and overly prejudiced, focused on race-baiting and stoking tensions rather than finding viable and agreeable solutions. I'm saying that, as a means of opening a conversation, this speech has made a large impact upon the current day, down to the ways people talk. Nigel Farage seems to be trying his damndest to put on the aura of a modern new lad version of Enoch Powell every time he gives a speech, and the whole Leave campaign, and ensuing Brexiteer argument seemed to be channeling the idea that the River Tiber (or, rather, Thames) would foam with much blood if the EU, foreigners, and special interests kept trying to, in their eyes, destroy the UK as it was.
 

Ian_W

Banned
I do agree with much of what you are saying when you clear that up further. I'm merely stating that by saying what he did, a discussion opened up that changed (at the very least, challenged) the general way politics was discussed and certain policies were seen, not necessarily that his idea worked or had very much merit, that's why I included several statements with the gist of "whether you liked him or not". Personally, I think many of his ideas are ineffective and overly prejudiced, focused on race-baiting and stoking tensions rather than finding viable and agreeable solutions. I'm saying that, as a means of opening a conversation, this speech has made a large impact upon the current day, down to the ways people talk. Nigel Farage seems to be trying his damndest to put on the aura of a modern new lad version of Enoch Powell every time he gives a speech, and the whole Leave campaign, and ensuing Brexiteer argument seemed to be channeling the idea that the River Tiber (or, rather, Thames) would foam with much blood if the EU, foreigners, and special interests kept trying to, in their eyes, destroy the UK as it was.

Again, nahhh. There are conservative cabinet ministers from the lands of the Empire - but they went to the right schools. It's still about class, not about race.

Farage is just a low-rent Marie Le Pen, who is a Mussolini clone with worse dress sense.

Brexit is about Britain failing to deal with the success of the EU, and it's continued relative decline (with a large double helping of self-delusion).
 
Michael Foot, who would be elected leader because he's popular with unions and radical. He would be the Thatcher of this world, the person who breaks politics because he is so far left. He would not, in any way, help this. He would nationalize more industries, attempt to abolish the House of Lords (failing to do so because of Blue Labour MPs who wouldn't support it, at least not yet), and he would be the cause of another major change. A relatively small breakaway faction would cause him to lose his majority, and in 1982, there would be another general election. This faction, call them whatever you would like (preferably SDP), would ally with a Liberal Party that would, justifiably, call for an end to the current system, which became a choice between a communist and an ideologically timid one-nation conservative, probably Whitelaw. Labour would lose in a landslide, especially after they surrender the Falklands, giving them the image as the party that wants to surrender the national identity.

Seeing as Foot was no Communist and backed Thatcher's efforts to regain the Falklands, you clearly know very little about him.

As for Powell, the man was quoting Virgil. He was a classics scholar.
 
That's really out of character for Powell, he never really acted in the typical political way, worrying constantly about his numbers. He knew that the speech would tarnish his chances for a cabinet position, at least one of respect, and would lead to people harassing him. He wouldn't care or would be so confident that people felt the same way that he would just give the speech anyway. This is, after all, the guy who endorsed the opposing party in 1974 and openly blamed riots on people he found foreign. No matter what you think of what he said, he was, without a doubt, unflinching in his beliefs, and would not hesitate to speak his mind.
He certainly had conviction, but that's not to say he did not calculate the impact of what he said in the same way that any other politician did. If you examine the content of Rivers of Blood, it's pretty clear that the speech was written to express racist sentiment whilst carefully avoiding anything that would prove that Powell's shared those views himself. Plus I've heard anecdotes from people close to him at the time which indicate he knew exactly how controversial the speech was going to be. There is no doubt he believed in a lot of what he said, but he also had little hesitation in using those views to further his own career at times.
Let's say that without the speech, Heath would still win the 1970 election, and narrowly win in 1974 due to a general lack of division within the Tories. He loses in 1979, due to stagflation and the horrible late-70s that would tear any leader to shreds, probably to Michael Foot, who would be elected leader because he's popular with unions and radical. He would be the Thatcher of this world, the person who breaks politics because he is so far left. He would not, in any way, help this. He would nationalize more industries, attempt to abolish the House of Lords (failing to do so because of Blue Labour MPs who wouldn't support it, at least not yet), and he would be the cause of another major change. A relatively small breakaway faction would cause him to lose his majority, and in 1982, there would be another general election. This faction, call them whatever you would like (preferably SDP), would ally with a Liberal Party that would, justifiably, call for an end to the current system, which became a choice between a communist and an ideologically timid one-nation conservative, probably Whitelaw. Labour would lose in a landslide, especially after they surrender the Falklands, giving them the image as the party that wants to surrender the national identity. This leads to a hung parliament and mayhem, as Foot is thrown out of office as Leader in favor of Kinnock, and the alliance, which is now in opposition with Labour close behind. The Tories are the only people who could remotely be seen as authoritative, and they attempt to find a working coalition with the Alliance, who are resistant to it. The Tories form a minority government, and immediately call another election, increasing their seat share at the further expense of Labour, but not securing a majority. May I add that this will most likely change the US as well. Without Thatcher, Reagan wouldn't have as much diplomatic or political capital, especially if it's Michael Foot in office.
As has been noted, Foot was not a communist in any sense. He had a strong anti-authoritarian record, and was a devout supporter of parliamentary sovereignty.

He is also far less likely to have become leader if Labour lost in 1974 than he was IOTL in 1976 or 1980. He did not hold ministerial office until the second Wilson government, and if Heath had won in 1974, his highest qualification for the job would be a few relatively junior shadow cabinet posts. Plus many of the circumstances that allowed Foot to eventually become leader would be absent in this scenario. The hard left were on the rise at this point, but the situation wasn't as bad as it became in 1980, so there would be fewer moderates willing to support Foot as a unifying option (particularly without the threat of a Benn leadership that was raised by the creation of the electoral college), or even as an act of deliberate sabotage in order to give a new breakaway party the best possible headstart-which a handful of future SDP members did actually do IOTL. At the same time, the competition from the right of the party would be much stiffer.

Callaghan would win if he put himself forward, but even if he opted for retirement instead, there's still several alternatives to him which weren't available for various reasons by 1980. Healey hadn't made his 'tiny chinese minds' comment which weighed him down in 1976 at this stage, and he'd be less likely to pursue his tactic of refusing confrontation and saying as little as possible in order to get himself over the line, because the moderate MPs would have other people they could cast their votes for instead-like Jenkins or Crosland. Without the significant defeat of 1979, you'd also have more moderate MPs knocking about too.

Honestly, if Heath wins in 1974, the most likely scenario is someone like Callaghan or Healey taking over Labour, and whilst there would be a lot of infighting between the different factions, it wouldn't be quite so bad as 1979-83, and if the Tories struggle like most other western governments were doing at this stage, we're probably looking at Labour back in power following the next election with a somewhat left wing manifesto, but a moderate leadership that is cautious about implementing it, and eventually takes the UK down a similar road of incramental monetarist reform similar to France or Spain or other social democratic governments of this time. A more left wing leader like Foot, Benn (who I think might have been viewed as more moderate in 1974 than he ultimately became) or maybe Peter Shore is possible, but it's not the most likely scenario by any means.
 
Last edited:
Top