Hat tips: Guido, the utterly neutral BBC
Business Secretary Lord Mandelson has criticised a former Labour Prime Minister for citing Enoch Powell as a political influence.
Tony Blair told a website the 1960′s anti-immigration campaigner was “one of the great figures of 20th-century British politics, gifted with a brilliant mind”.
The Labour Party said he had not been talking about Mr Powell’s views on immigration but Lord Mandelson said it showed the “two faces” of the party.
Mr Blair later told the BBC he was in favour of white immigration from Central and Eastern Europe but disagreed with Mr Powell over the size and role of the state.
The former MP caused controversy during his time in office prompting Tory leader David Cameron to say of Mr Blair: “He does have some quite eccentric views about some things – particularly his choice of Chancellor.”
‘Rivers of Blood’
Mr Powell was sacked from the shadow cabinet by Ted Heath in 1968 for his “Rivers of Blood” speech about the dangers of mass immigration.
Business Secretary Lord Mandelson said: “Yet again, we are seeing the two faces of the Labour party: the one which attacks the Conservative Party and the one which quietly implements the best Conservative policies.”
And Labour MP Parmjit Dhanda urged Mr Mandelson to rebuke Mr Blair.
Blairite sources said Mr Blair would not be disciplined because his praise for Mr Powell had not referred to the late politician’s stance on immigration.
Heh. Nicely done….
Blue, am I in any way “linked” to you? I guess anyone who comments on a blog can be `linked` to whomsoever a desperado journo thinks may be of use. And what is it, exactly, that the Daily Mirror mirrors? So, in case any of their news hounds are reading your blog, good luck when you meet Mr Browndelson later this evening – and watch out for the loose stair tread outside the guest bedroom. (That should cause a last minute re-write of the political page)
(PS. Very nifty little post dear boy)
Wonderfully done…!
Julia, Patently – thanks
Hogday – you are linked to me to the extent that we are WebFriendsTM but otherwise I do not know WTF you are on about, feel free to email if it’s not for public consumption… (ps thanks)
I have just read my comment and can only conclude that someone else wrote it, because it makes no sense to me either.
The demon drink?
PS: I think I must’ve been referring to Daniel Hannan’s comments about `linking` being a journo term to create intrigue and suspicion when there is none. Even then, I still don’t know WTF I was on about. I’ve not been well, you know.