A long time ago, I had the privilege – I use the word unadvisedly – of seeing Enoch Powell speak in person, not once but twice. Neither was the infamous ‘rivers of blood’ speech, but educational, nonetheless. With the national dialogue once again mired in racially aggravated rhetoric, presented disingenuously as reasonable argument, it may be an appropriate moment to revisit that time.

The first gathering was occasioned by the second. Powell had been invited to give the annual Mensa Lecture to that organisation of which I was then, as now, a member. Even then, with my political opinions less than fully formed, I cannot say that I was tempted by his viewpoint, but I was intensely curious.

An earlier and informal opportunity to hear his views had been arranged as a meeting for West Midlands members at the home of a local luminary in Wolverhampton. A friend and I and around a dozen others attended. I later concluded that this was an exploratory foray, created by Powell to sound out an audience with which he was unfamiliar. He may well have been delighted to receive the invite from the national society. It was an honour that may have surprised him as much as it shocked me.

Powell spoke with his customary energy and rhetorical power. He was politely and uncritically received. He had not stirred either way the emotions of those present. Perhaps they were like me, simply intellectually curious.

A month or so later, he gave his formal speech to a couple of hundred members of that august high-IQ society. He had perhaps learned that this was an audience for whom logical reasoning was essential. For the best part of an hour, he reasoned meticulously and almost painfully slowly. To that point, there was little that could be objected to, either on logical or political grounds, but also next to nothing of the views associated with him.

At that point, in what looked to me like a carefully planned move, he acknowledged that his remaining time to speak was short and rushed through the rest of his argument. Now came the dire warnings against immigration, black immigration, but also the weakened logic, the non-sequiturs, all at a pace that appeared designed to forestall critical examination.

I was, as I said, surprised and a little horrified that an organisation that purports to be of intelligent people had offered this accolade and opportunity, with no strong objections raised, other than on the fringes. It was nevertheless a very positive moment for me. I had sat and stood within a metre of this national figure, had listened carefully to, presumably, his strongest argument, and had not once but twice found it wanting. It has allowed me, whenever such arguments have been made subsequently, to attend to the individual making the play, rather than the flawed content. What are their fears, what their motives?

I have a further admission to make. The reason this keeps returning to my thoughts is that I have a predilection for playing with words, as the reader may have noticed, and that there is a current politician, similarly prominent, by the surname of Badenoch. There seem to be multiple further ironies in that she is black and speaks strongly on the subject of immigration. Several other candidates for the currently toxic role of leader of the Conservative Party are at this point still available.

I don’t wish to suggest that the views of these two right wing politicians, multiple generations apart, are the same. Kemi has a relaxed style and speaks with subtlety. In my view, she might, just might, be the one candidate who will not lead that renowned party deeper into the racial hole of its own making. I will watch the Tory Party Conference with almost as much interest as the Labour one, and await the October 10 vote with considerable interest.

I was brought up in an era where Left and Right were defined by economics, the laissez-faire free trade of Adam Smith and Milton Friedman versus the interventionism of John Maynard Keynes. I read entire books presenting both sides of the argument. I was impressed by two things, firstly the clear and persuasive logic of both, but also how they each felt obliged to acknowledge finally the truth of the other. It taught me that, in politics, too, there is often truth on both sides. I expect both economic arguments to be prominent in the budget statement in October. Other times, as on the subject of racial scaremongering, one side is simply wrong.

In the lead up to the Budget and the new Tory leader, there is a lot of fluff that by November will simply not matter. I would have been shocked if Downing Street Chief of Staff Sue Gray and Cabinet Secretary Simon Case had discovered that they got on after all, and I know who I believe will be still standing come January. As for the wardrobe ‘malfunction’, perhaps the taxpayer would prefer to foot the bill for its highest representatives to look the part on the world stage. Silly season has come late this year, and most of those bored media folk making mountains out of these molehills earn significantly more than Ms Gray.

October will be far more relevant to our country’s future