David Ottewell's Politics

Hastilow – repenting at leisure?
Nearly four decades on and Enoch Powell’s “rivers of blood” speech retains both its notoriety – and its power. Nigel Hastilow, a prospective Conservative MP, would have been well aware of that before making these comments.
The standard defence of Powell is to point out that he didn’t support ethnic violence, only predict it. And of course that is true. But it is beside the point. What matters is the language he chose to use. Powell knew full well what the reaction to his speech would be – indeed it included the lines:
“How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation? The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so.”
It would be interesting to see how Powell’s supporters would react if an imam said something like “Unless Britain gets its troops out of Iraq, the streets of London will run red with blood”. Because, rightly or wrongly, there are those who believe our foreign policy is causally connected to the amount of extremist, terrorist violence we experience, just as there are those who think large-scale immigration is causally connected to the amount of racial tension we experience. And let’s say our imaginary imam later adds, “Of course I personally don’t advocate terrorism But it will happen.” Would he be greeted as a courageous truth-teller? Would people, in today’s febrile atmosphere, be claiming he was raising important concerns about foreign policy in a perfectly appropriate way? Of course not. He would be – quite rightly – denounced.
Hastilow claimed Powell was right to say “uncontrolled immigration” would “change our country irrevocably”. But has it? In some ways, yes – and in many of those ways, for the better. Immigration has been economically beneficial. It has made Britain a more outward-looking, broad-minded place.
In any case, how fundamental are these changes? The things that make Britain great remain perfectly in tact (that’s one reason so many people want to come here). I can still vote for whatever I want, say (pretty much) whatever I want, protest about whatever I want. In short, I can live however I choose to live.
Sure, immigration needs to be controlled and proportionate. So does our reaction to it.

Will Sir Ian Blair resign? Andrew Rawnsley says yes. And the Met chief certainly faces a stormy week ahead.
I still have a suspicion he’ll be around for a bit, not least because his position has now become a political issue. The home secretary has given Sir Ian her backing; the Tories and the Lib Dems both want him out. If he goes, then, it looks like a victory for the opposition.
If a vacancy does arise, who would fill it? Our own chief constable, Mike Todd, would presumably make any shortlist, should he put his name forward. He has experience of policing in London and has had to prioritise counter-terrorism and serious crime during his time at Greater Manchester Police. He can also point to some impressive falls in key crime rates – although the evidence is mixed.
Mr Todd’s virtues – he’s young-ish, media-friendly and doesn’t mind rolling up his sleeves and getting involved – would set him apart from other likely contenders (Sir Ronnie Flanagan, Hugh Orde). But they could count against him if the Met decided it wanted a tried-and-tested, safe pair of hands.