 Well, let's take a closer look at the legacy of that speech and what it means in modern Britain. Well, I'm joined now by Ash Sarka, senior editor at Navara Media and Peter Whittle, UKIP London Assembly member. Very good morning to both of you. Let me start with you, Peter Whittle. Do you think that Britain is a racist country today? No, I don't. I think that it is a huge slander, actually, to say that Britain or British people are racist. I think that they are no more or less racist. In fact, a lot less racist than most other countries, many other countries in the world. And I think that this narrative that has to be kept in place, that somehow this is a racist country, is incredibly damaging. Ash Sarka, let me bring you in on that. What do you think? Is Britain a racist country today? Have we evolved from the times of Enoch Powell's speech? I mean, obviously a lot has changed since the time of Enoch Powell. But, you know, the reason why I'm smiling is that almost exactly a year ago, Sky News brought me in to discuss this exact topic is Britain racist. And yet the conversation has not moved forward from that point. And what worries me is that multiple independent organisations, including Theresa May's own race disparity audit, has found evidence of institutionalised racist discrimination. And yet we keep debating whether or not racist discrimination even exists. We wouldn't do the same over, say, climate change. Why do we keep questioning the existence of endemic social problems rather than trying to fix them? What do you say to that, Peter Whittle, and to accusations that because of the whole sort of febrile environment around the whole Brexit campaign that there's sort of anti-immigrant? You roll your eyes, but it's what people say. Yes, exactly. Because this is the narrative. This is the narrative that somehow, rather, people who voted for Brexit, we're talking about, I was brought on hit still by Enoch Powell and is Britain a racist country? And you go straight to Brexit. I mean, the fact is, is that the people who voted for Brexit voted because they wanted to get control of our borders, they wanted our sovereignty back. That does not make them racist, bigot, xenophobic or anything. And this is something which you just slip into a question like that, as though it's actually a fact. Well, it's a very natural question when you consider... It is not a natural question, it is not something that you take for granted. Home office statistics which showed hate crimes rose 29% they peaked right after the referendum result. And 80% of those are race hate crimes. Hate crimes, right? So-called hate crimes, which you're talking about there, they are hate incident statistics. They go straight on to the statistics, whether or not actually they are prosecuted or even if they are convicted as a result. If you look at the number of convictions that come from that, basically it's very, very small, it's a fraction. This was something which had to be basically to build up the narrative that somehow or other this great hate was unleashed. I'm sick and tired of British people being slandered in this way, right? When it comes to hate crime, it is an unusual thing in that it requires no evidence whatsoever. It just simply requires to say so of the person who might be offended. That could be someone just listening to this programme now. It could be someone who's not even watching, but actually is told about it. Let me bring Ash Sarkar in here, cos she's shaking her head. Your response to Peter Wickle's comments. Surprise, surprise. The reason why I'm quite alarmed by his remarks is that once again we see someone denying the evidence in front of his very eyes. So why don't we move it on from hate crimes, which you say are subjective? Why don't we look at something like housing? In the past five years, we've seen a 22% increase in statutory homelessness. But then you break that down by race. That's a 9% increase for white people, a 71% increase in statutory homelessness for Asian people. So here we've got institutional racism. It doesn't necessarily need an individual perpetuating it, but we've got these endemic racialised outcomes. And the problem with getting, with all due respect to my fellow debater, someone who's representing a party which is polling lower than the Liberal Democrats, which is really quite some achievement, while the problem with getting someone like him on is that he is to be trusted on this matter the way we would trust Nigel Lawson on climate change, i.e. not at all. I think you're revealing yourself by your comments there. If you want to take my party on fine, we can. It will be very boring, actually. But the fact of the matter is, I'm on here, presumably because I was actually elected, right? Are you elected to anything? But let me just ask you. You're on here, too. I'm here as a journalist, my friend. Your party does have a problem, a reputational problem, with racism, does it not? I mean, your former leader said that the basic principles of the rivers of blood speech were correct. I mean, what's your view? How do you defend your party's reputation when it comes down to being racist? Absolutely. There's nothing racist about my party when people have actually said things that have been racist in the party. They have been got rid of. That has always been the case. But there's been a whole load of them. You want to talk about racism in England at the moment. We do actually have a problem with racism. We have got one of the main political parties that is riddled with anti-Semitism and a leader who seems absolutely to do not anything about it and no intention of doing anything about it. Why don't you discuss that instead of attacking UKIP? The fact of the matter is, right, the overall effect of the Enoch Powell speech was somehow to make all discussions of immigration, which is one topic, linked immediately with race. And that has been one of the main problems with it, I think, because the two are completely separate and this is a problem which came about because, obviously, he was fired and after that, all kind of discussion has pretty much been closed down. Your response to that, Ash Tharke? There's a cultural theorist called Stuart Hall, an amazing cultural theorist. He wrote that, while Mr Powell lost, powerlism itself had won because the achievement of the Rivers of Blood speech was that it drew together immigration, race and anxieties around the nation's state. And this played out with sometimes fatal consequences. In the 60s and 70s, we had racist hate crimes like the murder of Altab Ali and, more recently, we will mark another anniversary, the 25-year anniversary of the murder of Stephen Lawrence and it's nearly 20 years since the McPherson Report gave us that phrase, institutional racism. I don't think that we are adequately dealing with these issues and, weirdly enough, I agree with my fellow debater in that racism is not simply a matter of the right wing. It's something that permeates the entirety of our political culture and the only way we are going to be able to deal with it successfully is if we're really honest about ourselves, about that fact. I think that we see the afterlife of Enoch Powell in Theresa May's hostile environment policy. I also think that we've seen it in new Labour's obsession with the asylum issue or some comments by Labour MPs about their constituency being a tinderbox that's ready to go up in race riots at any second. This is the impact of Enoch Powell's speech. It's not contained to the right wing, though I think it's much more powerful there, and it takes all of us, each and every one of us, to confront that tendency within our own political circles. And just one very brief final word from you, Peter Whittle, on this discussion. I totally reject that Britain is endemicly racist. I think it's no question that it is not. I think it's always been a very welcoming society and I repeat, talking about immigration and, of course, Powell was talking about 50,000 people a year. We're now talking about between a quarter and a third of a million people a year. It is completely different. It is not racist to be concerned about that. OK, Peter Whittle from New Kip and Ash Sarka from Navarra Media. Thank you very much, Indy.