Like The Roman by Simon Heffer, 0297842862, Lowest Book Price Finder

Customer Reviews:

Not just for students of politics.

It almost goes without saying, now, that this is a work of enormous erudition, its primary subject certainly worthy of the skill and effort that produced it. John Enoch Powell was a fascinating man and a real thinker; his life was almost unbelievably strange but very significant. We are fortunate that Simon Heffer has seen fit to devote his attention to the man, his life & his times.
I would suggest that people who are initially uninterested in the man or his politics, indeed politics at all, can learn a lot from this enormous book. The way that a deeply non-racist man can, despite a rare level of articulacy, come to be seen as the friend of nationalist thugs gives us insight into the traits that are now referred to as Asperger syndrome; so do a great many descriptions and anecdotes. In a long list of ways Mr. Powell exemplified the gifted Aspie, and there is therefore a theme that unifies his extraordinary character, with all its prickliness and social gauchness, with his initial inability to steer a truck.
So much of Mr. Powell's analysis, behaviour and speech betrays his inability to appreciate the woolly and emotionally irrational nature of his fellow human beings that it is somehow appropriate that his view of what is essentially English is so acute. His devotion to reason and to duty holds up a mirror to those of us who have a morally easier life; his remorseless intellect brings up in clear relief the spineless opportunism of those of his colleagues who sought to enhance their own reputations by aligning themselves against a distorted representation of his views on immigration.
Few armchair liberals will take the considerable trouble to read this engrossing tome, and a popular condensed version would perhaps serve to set the record straight.

Was Powell a racist?

I must take issue with a previous reviewer, who feels that Powell must have been a racist to have made the speeches where he raised racial issues. But as Powell himself pointed out, these were issues of great concern, and NOT to speak out would have been a dereliction of his duty as a citizen and representative of his constituents.

Powell had the ability to see through a lot of cant and get to the crucial issues and consequences. To bring up one set of consequences for discussion is not to suggest that it will happen, must happen or should happen, and Powell himself pointed this out. But if someone foresees problems ahead, it is a responsibility to present them for consideration and discussion. The almost inevitable downside of this action is to be portrayed as advocating the very consequences that one is warning against.

Has what Powell feared come to pass? In part, yes. The above reviewer clearly forgets things like the race-based and anti-police riots of the early Thatcher years. It is easy to look around Europe and see the disappearance of national sovereignty. (It may be one reason why the IRA and the Basques more-or-less gave it up, as even if you get a separate state, that whole notion disappears in the new Europe.) Powell's fear of the US becoming a major, almost dictatorial, world power has partly come true under Bush. Where else in the 21st century would a nation decide that it had the right to pre-emptive invasions on mere suspicion? Further, the nature of Britain and British society today is most certainly not like Britain in the mid-1960s, and a part of that is a consequence of immigration. And Political Correctness still holds significant sway.

So why didn't Powell get it exactly right? One obvious factor is that he was dealing with a very complex society in transition, and predictions are very difficult. Second, he was looking at the more dire consequences, not for sensationalist purposes, but because they were a possibility and needed to be discussed. Third, the mere fact that he did get the topic into discussion, meant that some people did think about it, and that may have mitigated some of the consequences. Finally, I think he overlooked the homogenising effect of the school system.

Many immigrants have a tendency to cluster together, simply because it is something familiar and safe. This was a concern of Powell's, that segregation was happening in an unplanned way, but happening nonetheless. But the next generation has a tendency to move away from their parents and into the mainstream. Schools help this process by providing phenomenal peer pressure from the students, rather than any intent of the system. The result is the assimilation/integration that Powell wanted, but the net result is not the original society. With the different inputs and the changing times, the result is a new society. It's not just immigration, but also the information age, the age of globalization, and the closer ties with Europe. The next generation of childen of the children is more closely integrated again. And Britain has another advantage, in that it is actually quite accepting of immigrants in many ways, perhaps far more than many other countries, and that seems to be in the culture. (No, it's not universal, but collectively it is better.)

I have watched the process in Australia and the US, as well as the UK. I can see where Powell was coming from, and what he saw. I also know why he spoke out: he personally had no choice, and he had the courage and integrity to do it and face the consequences. But Powell was always his own man, in the best sense of the term.

This biography doesn't really do Powell the man justice. But it does give insight to one part of his mind and gets part of his thinking out for discussion. I hope that history is far kinder to Powell as time goes on than it has been to date.

Captivating political biography

This is the finest book ever written about one of Britain's greatest politicians. Heffer's superbly detailed account of this remarkable man fills one with admiration. This is the kind of the book that forms and advances political philosophies - anyone wanting to see through today's arguments on Europe or immigration or economics should read this. They will never be fooled again.

A highly readable biography of a controversial politician.

Here is a political paradox: Enoch Powell had all the qualities we claim to admire in politicians - intelligence, honesty, integrity. He spoke his mind freely, his private life and financial affairs were beyond reproach. Yet he never advanced to high office, and had he done so it would almost certainly have been a disaster.

Simon Heffer's 'Like the Roman' is the closest we will ever get to an autobiography of Enoch Powell (1913-1998). A close friend, he was given unique access to Powell's private archives, and has produced a solid, thoroughly researched, well-written and detailed apologia for a complex, paradoxical political figure.

Enoch Powell will forever be remembered for one extraordinary speech he made in 1968 - the 'Rivers of Blood' speech, as it came to be known, in which he warned of appalling violence in the streets of Britain if non-white immigration were allowed to continue. Dropped from the shadow cabinet as a result, he immediately became a hero to many people, an object of hatred for many others. Over the years, the image remained of an eccentric, racist figure.

The picture Heffer presents is rather different: a bright, awkward grammar school boy, a classical scholar (Professor of Greek at the age of 25), a poet, a soldier, an effective health minister, a loving father and grandfather. His admirers ranged across the political spectrum from Margaret Thatcher to Tony Benn, and his views on economic policy were to influence a whole generation of politicians, becoming in effect the orthodoxy of our times. A Tory right-winger, he nevertheless opposed nuclear weapons, supported the legalisation of homosexuality and the abolition of the death penalty. He remained a hugely influential and important politician.

The book, at over 1,000 pages, is the work of a friend, and if this has allowed Heffer to give a very intimate picture of the man, it has also prevented him from producing a truly effective critical study. Powell, as he tells the story, can do almost nothing wrong, his opponents constantly being confounded by his inexorable logic.

Certainly, this brilliant academic was able to apply a mind keenly trained in the critical analysis of classical texts to exposing ruthlessly the fabric of half-truths and illusions that makes up most political discourse. He continuously attacked the flawed and doomed attempts by Tory and Labour governments to maintain full employment in a time of high inflation by the use of an incomes policy.

But Heffer's fondness for his subject blinds him to the man's glaring faults. A thin-skinned, sensitive man, Powell could sometimes be crashingly insensitive to the feelings of others. His continued insistence on speaking his mind in opposition to party policy led to him being accused, understandably, of betraying his colleagues. It is difficult to avoid an impression of vainglory and spitefulness in his behaviour at times, including his admonition to former Tory voters to vote Labour in 1974.

Nor has history justified most of his stances. European Union, the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Race Relations Act, Equal Pay for women - these have all become commonplace elements of our lives, without any of the dire consequences Powell warned of. His comments on the Ulster situation at times hinted at wild conspiracy theories.

Nor, in the thirty years since that fateful speech, has continued immigration led to the sort of disaster he spoke of. On the contrary, British life has been enriched by the resulting cultural diversity.

One key question any biography of Powell must pose is this: was he a racist? He always denied being so, and Heffer supports him. True, he worked hard for all his constituents, whatever their colour; no cultural bigot, he spoke many languages including Hindi. But two important points stand out: first, by taking such a public stand on the immigration issue, he lent his undoubted authority to the clearly racist views of many who were prepared to go much further than he was, and almost certainly encouraged racist attacks and abuse; and secondly, the offensive tone of many of his comments belie his claim that immigration, and not race, was the issue.

In truth, his views, which would have been unexceptional in the nineteenth century, were often out of step with this on. His language often reflected this: on visiting America at the age of 55, he explained that it was his first visit to the country, adding: 'I should disembarrass myself of this peculiarity'.

View more reviews or product details from Amazon.co.uk