“HE WASN’T WRONG.” 💥🔥 Nigel Farage Sets Westminster Ablaze After Defending Enoch Powell

Nigel Farage has once again thrown Britain’s political landscape into turmoil — this time by stepping directly into one of the most sensitive debates in modern UK history: the legacy of Enoch Powell and his infamous 1968 “Rivers of Blood” speech.

In a climate already shaking with accusations of racism, historical revisionism, and rising cultural tension, Farage’s decision to publicly defend parts of Powell’s doctrine has detonated a controversy that shows no signs of cooling down.

Farage insisted that critics are “distorting history” and “confusing political argument with hatred,” arguing that Powell’s warnings about social cohesion, immigration pressure, and cultural identity cannot be dismissed simply because they were delivered in a deeply inflammatory way decades ago.

According to Farage, the problem is not Powell’s analysis but the way it has been reduced to a caricature.

“People act as if discussing cultural and demographic change automatically makes you a bigot,” Farage said. “That is intellectually dishonest and politically dangerous. Debate is not hate. Warning is not violence. We can examine history without surrendering to moral panic.”

His comments landed like a spark in dry grass.

Opponents erupted instantly.

Labour MPs condemned his remarks as “reckless” and “deeply harmful,” warning that invoking Powell — even indirectly — risks normalizing rhetoric that has been tied to racial hostility for half a century.

Community leaders echoed those fears, saying Farage’s stance “reopens wounds that never healed” and “feeds a narrative of fear and division that can lead to real-world harm.”

At the same time, Farage’s supporters have rallied with equal intensity, arguing that he is simply defending free speech and the right to question how multicultural policies have evolved in Britain.

“These conversations don’t go away because they are uncomfortable,” one Reform UK member said. “They go away when politicians stop listening.”

So what exactly is Farage endorsing — and what is he denying?

He has been careful to say he does not support the violent imagery or sweeping conclusions embedded in the “Rivers of Blood” speech.

But he maintains that Powell’s broader questions about social strain, migration scale, and national identity are still relevant in 2025, when Britain is once again experiencing demographic change at a pace that many citizens say feels overwhelming.

That position, however, raises deeper questions:

Where is the line between examining cultural impact and promoting harmful ideology?

How much responsibility do modern politicians have when referencing figures tied to racial conflict?

And can a nation confront difficult historical ideas without repeating the damage associated with them?

The backlash is already reverberating through Parliament, media, and social networks.

Some commentators argue Farage is deliberately courting outrage to energize his base.

Others say he has misjudged the moment — that the political climate is far too volatile for this kind of rhetorical gamble.

Meanwhile, historians are stepping in to remind the public that Powell’s speech cannot be separated from the violence and social fragmentation it helped provoke.

“As much as we can study the arguments intellectually,” one historian wrote, “we cannot detach them from their consequences.”

That may be the heart of the issue.

In an era where political debate is increasingly reduced to moral absolutes, Farage is testing a dangerous boundary: can society separate analysis from impact? Can it acknowledge nuance without excusing harm? Can free speech coexist with hist

But one thing is certain:

Farage has lit a fuse that will burn for weeks, perhaps months.

Whether it becomes a constructive national conversation or a deeper cultural rupture depends on how both sides choose to respond.

For now, Westminster is on edge, the public is divided, and the ghosts of 1968 are once again walking through British politics.

👇👇 Read the full statement and the backlash here.