The Prime Minister Sir Kir Stmper has said that he regrets saying that the UK in a speech about the immigration took the risk of becoming “a island of strangers”.

The Prime Minister was accused of using the divisive language by some critics when he gave a speech to announce a plan to cut immigration in May.

Some MPs in a famous speech about immigration in 1968 compared Sir Kir’s comment for those made by former MP Hanok Powell.

At that time, Downing Street rejected the comparison and said that the PM stood by their words and their views that “migration needed to control”.

But in an interview with his biographical writer, Tom Baldwin, Sir Kir said: “If I knew that they knew that they do not use those words, or even Powell would be interpreted as a resonance.

“I had no idea – and my speech writer did not know either.

“But that special phrase – no – it was not right. I will give you an honest truth: I regret using it.”

There was an interview Observer published in newspaper Sir Kir’s one year ahead of the next week became Prime Minister next week.

Sir Kir’s comments suggest that neither he nor his speech writer Powell knew about any similarity for a line in Powell’s 1968 speech.

In the speech, Powell described a future in which Britain “found himself stranger in his country”.

It is widely known as rivers of blood speech because due to Powell’s context of “The River Tieber Faming with More Blood”, when your fear of immigration is determined.

In an Observer interview, Sir Kir said he gave a speech on long immigration after an alleged arson attack at his family’s house in London.

“It is appropriate to say that I was not in the best state to deliver a big speech,” said Sir Kir. “I was really really worried.”

He said that his wife Victoria “was really shaking”, “It was just a matter of reading words and getting in any way”.

The Observer article quoted Sir Keer, saying that he should read properly through speech and “kept it a little more to light”.

Responding to the interview, reform UK leader Nigel Faraj said that the PM’s regret in using the phrase was “full proof that Kir Stmper has no faith, no principle and just reads from a script”.

“This country needs a leader who has vision,” Posted Furge,

Powell was compared by John McDonal, who lost the labor whip last year after rebelling on a welfare vote.

Speaking in Parliament in May, the independent MP said: “When the law of this nature is being introduced which is serious and it can be controversial, it is seriously important that the minister should use the language carefully.

“When the Prime Minister reflects an island of strangers, reflecting the language of Hanok Powell, does he realize how shocking it can be?”

In the same debate, Labor MP Nadia Whitom said that immigrants were being “made a sacrifice for problems that they did not” and “The rhetoric around this rhetoric” stirred up racial misuse “.

The MP asked: “Why are we trying to improve apes, when it will nothing to improve the lives of our components and just stoke more partitions?”

Home Secretary Yatete Cooper later defended the language used by Sir Keir.

Cooper said the stormer’s speech for Powell was “completely different”, telling the BBC: “I don’t think it is right to do those comparisons.

“Prime Minister said yesterday, I think in almost the same breath, talked about a diverse country which we are and it is part of our strength.

“I know that everyone always gets caught in focusing various phrases and so on, but we have to talk about policies.”

The launch of the government’s immigration scheme in May followed the local elections in England earlier this month, which saw Labor lost the runkourne and Halesbi parliamentary seat to improve the UK.