mkpdavies

http://www.24dash.com/content/news/v...57&newsID=9758

It would have been between Heath and Blair for me, for doing the most damage to Britain, thus being effective, but in a bad way.

By the way, exactly what public outcry are they talking about? They don't say what measure they used. Smells like an assumption or just made up to me, based on bias.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Colin McNamee

errr............... boy Cameron would be my guess based on his most recent considered utterances :roll:

Edward Longshanks

But Cameron isn't a former PM, and hopefully will never be one. Churchill has to be the greatest leader the country has had during this period. To put Heath up there so high will see many reaching for the sick bag. :shock:

Britannist

The revolting Heath is down there at the bottom as far as most Conservative Party supporters and members feel (whatever ranking polls and surveys might put him on). He lost three of the four General Elections he contested (1966 and twice in 1974) and only won in 1970 because Enoch Powell went on television and urged people to vote for him (something he later regretted). His appalling relationship with the voters nearly destroyed the Conservative Party altogether. It is highly unlikely that someone leading the Conservative Party will be allowed to stay and lose three General elections again.

And then there's the fact that the graceless Heath wouldn't quit - even after notching up his third defeat at the polls in October 1974. It took the courage of Mrs. (now Lady) Thatcher (and her team composed mostly of what, today, we would call eurosceptics) to get rid of him - some would say she deserved to be named as the greatest peacetime Prime Minister in the last century just for doing that. She rid the top of British politics of a most unpleasant man and the nation of a man who acted totally against the interests of the British people.

Of course, this is all quite apart from the fact that Heath obediently gave to the EEC/EU what wasn't his to give away - our sovereignty :evil: .

Which is why Enoch Powell urged people to vote Labour in 1974 and which is why so many anti-EEC/EU campaigners did so. To get the treacherous Heath out and finish off his political career after only 3 years and 8 months as Prime Minister.

Edward Longshanks

I often wonder what would have happened if Powell had formed a new party after the famous "Rivers of Blood" speech in 1968. He was approached by the National Front, but declined their invitation, however he had huge support both within and outside the Tory Party. He was also very reluctant to leave the Tories despite the obnoxious Heath and his sell out of this country to Brussels. His eventual choice in joining the Ulster Unionists was a form of compromise as he was seen to both leave the Tories and yet remain within them at the same time.

No one can doubt his powerful oratory and huge intellect, also his magnificent putdowns of careerist nonentities in the Commons who tried to take him on!

Britannist

Everything Enoch Powell said on the 'europe' issue was right, is right and has been proved to be right with the passage of time.

I have a book of his views on europe which was signed by him.

However, Enoch Powell always spoke against the setting up of small parties saying that "the solving of the nation's problems cannot be dealt with by establishing new political parties." It was, of course, easy for him to say this - he had joined a small party himself (the Ulster Unionists) but it wasn't a path that was really open to most anti-EU campaigners on the British mainland.

Had Enoch Powell started a new political party (committed to EU withdrawal and the tightest of immigration controls) it would certainly have taken off - the feeling against Heath across the country was hostile (in 1974 when he quit the Conservatives) and Wilson (Labour leader) was not, understandably, trusted. Some would argue that Enoch Powell's refusal to start a new political force in the UK has put the patriotic movement 30 years behind - although UKIP's successes in the EU election of 2004 shook the vile metro 'elitist' establishment in this country to the core. There are people who think Enoch Powell badly let down anti-EU camapigners in Great Britain by not using all his power, influence and skills to set up a new anti-EU party in the mid-70's (around the time of the 'in or out of the EEC/EU referendum).

There is just the unresolved matter of Mr. Powell's views on immigration. Some critics have accused him of 'opening the doors' and bringing a large number of 'new' commonwealth immigrants here himself (when he was Health minister) :shock: .