in police custody. but security forces appear to have prevented herfamily from conducting a ceremony at her grave. authorities in eastern libya have restricted access to the city of derna , after last weekend's devastating floods. although rescue efforts have been scaled up, the aid operation has been described as chaotic. a 14—year—old boy who died after being stabbed in manchester has been named as nathaniel shani. two teenagers have been arrested — one remains in custody. now on bbc news... political thinking with nick robinson. all too often, people in public life choose not to use their power

in the interests of the powerless, but rather to serve themselves or to protect the institution to which they belong. that is the verdict of my guest on political thinking this week. the former prime minister, theresa may. it is a quote from her new book, which is not a blow by blow account of three turbulent years in downing street. it is instead an argument, an argument that too often in britain we see, in the words of the title, the abuse of power. theresa may. welcome to political thinking. thank you forjoining us. very good to join you. were you not tempted at all to write a book full ofjuicy indiscretions, attacks on your enemies and self—justification? no, not really, actually, i have to say. i mean, the trouble is, i'm not that great a fan of political memoirs. and i think often. well, i'll either be one of two things, won't they? they will be full of juicy, juicy bits and pieces, or they'll be just very straight and often quite bland in a sense.

but i wanted to get, as you say, get an argument over, because i'd seen certain issues as both home secretary and prime minister that i felt i wanted to draw to people's attention and make people this abuse of power, as you put it. is that something that's been ticking away in your mind over time? well, i guess it has. and it sort of came to the fore when i had an opportunity after i'd left downing street. of course, you get more time to to to to think and reflect to think and reflect on my time in government. and it was in doing that that i recognised that the various issues i dealt with, like hillsborough, like primodos, child sexual abuse, other things as well. there was this sort of underlying theme throughout which was of people in power failing to use that power in the interests of the people they were actually there to serve. well, we're going to talk about one or two of those, not every one in the chapter, though.

it isn't a memoir. it begins with who you are. it begins, if you like, with the values that maybe underpin this theme of the book, the values of the vicar�*s daughter, isn't it? really. yes. and there's perhaps no surprise there, because i am a vicar�*s daughter. i was brought up in a country vicarage. so i was very much saw that sense of public service, if you like, from my father, but also of many people locally who were involved in the church, in charities, in improving the lives of those in their community and the good of their community. you say something very interesting in the book about how being, as it were, seen as a representative of yourfather, a representative of the church, inhibited you in what you've said. yes. and it's something, i suppose, that from an early stage i recognise that when people heard what i was saying, saw how i was behaving, they would often reflect that onto my father or onto my parents and therefore

i had to be careful and just sort of be just be aware of that from quite an early age. and do you think that affected the way you communicate it as a politician? because, you know, you write about it in the book, you faced a fair share of criticism about the way you communicate it. was that the legacy, do you think? i think it probably was part of the legacy. i think there were two things that led to my, if you like, ultra caution, which you and other journalists will have commented on and commentators will have commented on over time. partly that legacy from my childhood and that sense that similarly, when you're a member of parliament, you're notjust you, you're representing your party. and obviously on occasions you're representing your country. there was also the period immediately before i came into parliament, so i was elected in 1997 and if you remember, those last years of john major's government before that were quite difficult. people were picking up on the slightest

thing that a cabinet minister said or another member of the party said. and so that when i came into the house, i had that sense as well that we all had to be very careful. let's get on with it. with the book, the title, the abuse of power. and as you say, it goes through a number of episodes. strikingly, one of the first is hillsborough. now, you weren't prime minister at the time, either of the terrible tragedy that led to the death of 97 liverpool fans, or indeed when the inquiry was set up by your predecessor as home secretary, alanjohnson. but you are self—critical again of your failure and the failure of many people to believe the liverpool fans when you look back. why do you think that happened? 0h, ithink well, i mean, as you say, i make the point in the book that at the time of the tragedy back in 1989, i heard saw the reports on television, i heard the stories, and the police and others were saying this was all the fault of the liverpool fans.

and i knew no better. like most members of the public, we trusted what the authorities were telling us and therefore believed what the authorities were telling us. and it was only when, as home secretary, that i actually met some of the families, particularly margaret aspinall, who has been one of the leading campaigners for justice for the families of the hillsborough 97 that i recognised. actually, there's something maybe there's something here. maybe we all should have questioned a little bit more at the time. you did choose in the book to say, i apologise for this. "i apologise for this." yes, i think it was. i think it was something that led to a situation where the deaths of what obviously came to be 97 people, 95 on the day there were those people who had died. there were their families who wanted to get to the truth. but those in power were using their power to stop them from getting to the truth.

the passion of margaret aspinall of trevor hicks. jenny hicks, who i met in that first meeting, the passion of other family representatives who i met that wrong had been done, that theirfamily members who died had not been to blame. how interesting the phrase "wrong" would be that that those are the values of your father coming through, aren't they? well, sense of right and wrong. yes, this sense of right and wrong and the sense that there were a group of people who had raised their voices, but nobody had been willing to listen to them. and that is precisely what you conclude happened in the grenfell fire tragedy, another of the abuses of power that you write about, the fire in which 72 people lost their lives when you were prime minister then. what had gone wrong in grenfell, in your view? well, i think what had gone wrong was that here was a group of people who over a number of years had been raising concerns about the safety of their building, various aspects of that and action had not been taken.

and i think... and i what i do in the book is expand this into a greater sense of the attitude taken to those living in social housing. and i fear that over the years we have allowed a situation to occur. and, yes, you know, there's some party politics here. ithink, you know, some in the conservative party would have particularly taken this view, but that somehow those who were in social housing were... not as... economically dynamic, not as willing to be out there working and improving themselves. in some senses. there were some people who sort of saw them as second class citizens and. these are these were people like any others who had families who were working hard to bring up their families, who had formed a very tight community. there are many abuses of power described in the book. another one you come to is windrush, which was uncovered when you were prime minister, but obviously partly was the legacy you might argue of your

time as home secretary. afro—caribbeans who've been living here for years, worked. paid their taxes. shocked to find that they were told by authorities that they didn't belong here, sometimes deported as a result. and you're critical in the book of the way in which, as it were, the bureaucracy was effectively producing an abuse of power by ending this. the question i think people will ask again, though, is was this, as it were, bureaucratic bungling? or was it the foreseeable consequence of politics, which is an aggressive approach and aggressive language towards migrants? you know the phrase, you talk about it in the book, "the hostile environment". yes. and again, a phrase that i think was first used, certainly used by the labour party,

i think was first used by the labor party in government. and the theme that ran through that was the feeling that we needed to do something to deal with people who were here illegally. and that's only fair on people who've gone through all the hoops to come here legally, but who suddenly find themselves alongside somebody who appears to be able to live in the uk despite being here illegally. so the aim was to deal with those who were here illegally. but what language came to be seen? but what language came to be seen as an approach to immigration as a whole, a hostile environment to people who come here. it was interpreted by some as that, but it was never intended to be that. given what happened, given your own reflections on what you said and what you did. do you think there's a danger in the language that politicians now use to describe migration? i think it's very important. i always try to differentiate legal migration from illegal migration, and i think it's important that we maintain that differentiation and that people are aware of who they're talking

about when they use these phrases. but given you now are not terribly comfortable with the phrase "hostile environment", is invasion the right language to use about people coming to this country? look, that's not a term i would use. we've gone through quite large chunks of your book, and there won't be people listening or watching saying, "what about brexit, for goodness�* sake? isn't theresa may�*s whole premiership defined by brexit for for good and ill?" and what will intrigue people, i think, is that you say that, too, is about an abuse of power. how so? well, it was about the way in which various groups within the house of commons addressed it and others. and it's... i include it because i always took the view that the brexit referendum tight though it was close,

though it was gave a view the british people wanted us to leave the european union and therefore as the democratically elected house of commons, we should deliver on that. but we had to recognise the result was close. 48% had voted to remain and therefore i wanted to deliver a brexit that recognised the concerns of the 48%. and that was the deal i believe i negotiated. but what i saw in the house of commons as we went through, particularly, of course people say after the 2017 election and i recognise that. as i went through that process of negotiation and bringing votes to the house of commons, if you like, the hard liners on either side. so the hardline brexiteers and the hardline remainers who wanted a second referendum and just wanted to stay in, were increasingly trying to find ways to thwart a deal that i think would have been better because it would wouldn't have given either side 100% of what they wanted,

but it would have given the country a better overall deal. do you think of anything you could have done differently in order to deliver that brexit? would it have helped to reach out more to the 48% to try to get them on board rather than basically say you lost off? well, i didn't say you lost tough in that sense. i said i said brexit means we're going to leave the eu. but i was trying to deliver and show to those 48% that i was trying to deliver a resolution which matched their needs or recognise their needs. and so for an example, one of the things that has always frustrated me about the arguments was that it seemed to be from the brexit side, we want to make sure we give everything up in the eu and from the remainer side, particularly second referendum as oh, how much can we keep of the eu? actually what we needed to do was say, what should our future relationship be? how can we carve and create a new relationship with europe that will be to the united kingdom's

advantage, but that, as it were, but that, as it were, is to is to relitigate the argument you made as prime minister. i'm wondering, as you've been reflecting, were the things you think if only if only i'd done this? well, i think if only i got my vote through the house of commons. but i think what you see are some of your advisers at the time, and they said there were other options. you could have embraced the second referendum and said, let's have a second referendum on my deal. the deal that you still believe is the best deal that britain could have had for brexit. you could have dropped your deal, said, ok, that's not working, let's get a parliamentary majority for a softer brexit because you came up with quite a hard brexit. no, i didn't come up with a hard brexit. this is one of... no, no, no, no, no. but you see, this is exactly an example. i'm sorry, nick. you've fallen into the trap that i may have set you an. exactly the example of what i was

talking aboutjust now. you see, you're looking at it in terms of membership of the customs union and membership of the single market. now, one reason, of course, you found it difficult to get your brexit deal through is because you ended up without a majority, because you chose to have a general election that didn't go to plan in 2017. it went to plan for boris in 2019 because that was a result i'd hoped to get in 2017. well, that was the idea. we are we learn from a new television documentary. my old colleague laura kuenssberg has made that your chiefs of staff fiona hill and nick timothy decided to have this election without telling you. they said they decided in the december after you'd been elected that they would have an election or you would have an election. and i quote fiona hill, who was your chief of staff at this point. "we didn't tell theresa." well, i have to say that it's perfectly possible for people who are working in number ten to have lots of ideas about things and only surface them when they formulated a sort of firm proposal. of course, i had discussions with them about whether or not to hold an election. and are you know, i'll be honest,

i wasn't certain for quite a long and i, you know, i'll be honest, i wasn't certain for quite a long time, but there was i came to the view that the timing of the likely departure from the european union and then what would have been the next general election, was such that it would be preferable and also because we only had a small majority, it would be preferable to have an election and hopefully get a bigger majority. as you say, it didn't happen like that. there we are. that's politics. to get that bigger majority. and then that would have given us a number of years over the departure from brexit to get everything in place for people to see what that meant before the general election thereafter. i hate to intrude on private grief, but there was that news conference which was... oh, yes, i know it was. i shouldn't have said it. should i explain to. people what they it was on the social care policy and we'd made a tweet

to the social care policy and i was asked about it. it might even have been one of your bbc colleagues and i. and i said there'd been no change when there had been a change. i knew what i meant, which was the fundamental policy was still there. but of course it was you know, i was denying that anything had changed when in fact, it had. was that the girl in the vicarage, minding her words a bit too carefully again? i think maybe if i'd minded my words a bit more carefully, i wouldn't have said what i said. yeah, fair. fair point. what's interesting in this large section of the book is there is no apology. why not? well, i'm, i'm sorry i didn't get my deal through, but i'm afraid i do still think that the deal i negotiated was a better deal than the one we ended up with. now, the book doesn'tjust look at the abuse of power as you see it domestically. it talks about the abuse of power. internationally. focuses on some of the high profile incidents you were involved in dealing with. just before we reflect on that, how did you end up holding

hands with donald trump? i'm trying to say it was nothing to do with me. it was we were walking down, obviously, through the white house to go through that outside sort of section where the world's press are there. and he said to me, "there's a slope just around the corner, so take care. walking down the slope." ithought, well, i'm in heels, but they're not that big. i can walk down a slope. and then suddenly as we turn the corner, he grabbed my hand. i don't know whether that was. being gentlemanly because he was worried about me or whether he wanted me to help him. did he really ask you why borisjohnson, rather than you wasn't prime minister? well, there are lots of reports of what donald trump might have said about borisjohnson at various points in time. but was that one of them? i think i mean, he did need to be diplomatic. it's i mean, some of the things donald trump has said about me, i think he heard that somebody had paid for me to go and speak

somewhere and said he'd pay for me not to speak in front of him. so i think it's true to say that he wasn't exactly thinking that i was his type of prime minister. you should send him the invoice now. but the serious point you make is that as the leader of the free world, in inverted commas, as our most powerful ally, he abused power by not consulting us, consulting other allies about major strategic decisions. it was i mean, he... his presidency was a presidency like no other. i mean, we have obviously a special relationship with the united states. we have extremely good links and have built up over the years very good relationships at a whole range of levels within, you know, the officials, the civil service, the security services, law enforcement, defense. and through those channels you would expect if a major decision was being taken that affected the united kingdom, that there would be an ability for information in advance and, you know, maybe from the president to the prime

minister, but possibly elsewhere at other levels. but as president, donald trump was quite capable of announcing something through a tweet. or was it an x these days? i'm not sure. through a tweet and without that full consultation taking place. but again, to be clear, you see that as an abuse of power. well, i think because it's basically saying having no consideration for those others who would be affected and in this case, allies who would be affected, a country who had stood shoulder to shoulder with the united states in conflicts, who have stood shoulder to shoulder with the united states generally in a number of areas. and i think that is what is of concern to me. what about the events that you've watched? we've all watched since you left office in the united states. does that make it look like a country that is not clear enough about the abuse of power?

i think if you look at world politics today generally and perhaps it is. at its clearest or sharpest in the united states, we see an increasing polarization in politics. i say in the book, we live in an absolutist world. you either have 100% with me or 100% against me. and i think across the democratic world, we have to work hard now to uphold democracy in the sense of ensuring that the new generations understand the importance of democracy. there's polling evidence that a decreasing proportion of young people here and in the states think democracy is the right way to form a government. we should worry about that. and worry, not least because china is becoming the global superpower. you were the last prime minister to visit china. as you watch this debate about how to handle them, do we call

them a threat or not? what are your reflections? well, i think... it isn't possible to ignore china in the world. it is a key economic power. it is a country that very much obviously sees itself as one of the world's superpowers and has been extending its influence across the world. i think there is a need to look at how we deal with a china that is the state that it is, that a china that has extended its influence across the world, but its extended that influence sometimes because the west has not been there. and we must recognise that. now, we've talked a lot about your book. what we haven't talked is about your successors, because you choose not to do it in great detail in the book, because, as you make clear, is not about settling scores, not about giving a commentary. you do do one thing, though, is you make clear that you think breaking covid rules

was an abuse of power. breaking covid rules was an abuse of power, to use the title of the book again. why did you feel so passionately about that? there were so many people up and down the country who were. working desperately hard to make sure that they met the rules and people who and i had people in my constituency when i was knocking on doors thereafter and when the issues around what had happened at number ten and in some other parts of government on the lockdown, rules came out. i remember one woman saying to me that she'd not been able to be with herfather when he died. and then they saw the these things happening in number ten. and i think it was that sense. i raised a question in the house of commons to borisjohnson about whether it was that they didn't understand what the rules meant or they didn't think the rules were there for them. and it was that sense from the public that it was one rule for the public and one rule for the politicians

that i think was damaging. is he the reason you wrote the book? because the phrase "the abuse of power" seems to me to perfectly sum up your view of borisjohnson. no, the reason i wrote the book was and the first issue really that sparked this interest in me. but when i then came to look at these other issues, it was clear there was this theme of abuse of power. the first issue was hillsborough. that phrase i introduced this conversation with. all too often people in public life choose not to use their power in the interests of the powerless, but rather to serve themselves or protect the institution to which they belonged. and that's borisjohnson, in your mind. the examples in the book that i give of institutions and individuals in various ways exemplifies that that sense of including boris johnson, that sense of defending their institution rather than doing the job that, you know, protecting

those they were there to serve, including borisjohnson. including borisjohnson. listeners will draw that conclusion from your non—answer. one other thing that you do make clear that you wish to be your legacy rather than brexit is net zero and your successor. but three. rishi sunak is wrestling with that at the moment. you said recently you feared that this commitment that you put into law as prime minister of net zero by 2050, that we're falling behind. do you worry, as you watch the debates now about hair, shirts do you worry, as you watch the debates now about hareshirts and religious crusades as the prime minister and the environment secretary, the levelling up secretary, have described net zero, what could go wrong? well, first of all, rishi has been very clear that he's still committed to net zero. and if i may pick up, i mean,

the phrase he's used about the hair hareshirts, you know, that it's no good trying to lead people on this sort of hair shirt like existence in order to meet net zero. i put in a slightly different way, but it's the same theme, which is if we poke up, you know, shake our fingers at people and say, you can neverfly again, you can never drive a car again, you can never eat meat again. we're never going to get where we need to be because people are just going to say, no, hang on a minute. "no, hang on a minute. no, that's not me." we have to take people along with us. and i think that's important. now, do i think we should be, if you like, pressing the accelerator? because as there was a report on net zero done by one of my colleagues, chris skidmore, earlier in the year, where he said that this is the major economic opportunity of the 21st century, i think the uk should be grasping that economic opportunity as rishi says, he wants it to be aboutjobs, he wants it to be about economic growth. i think it really can be. and i want to see the government coming full throttle behind that.

this is not, as we make clear, all the way through a memoir, but of course, the story of your premiership at least did, to use the cliche, literally end in tears on the steps of downing street. your chief of staff at the time, gavin barwell, said, "i've been trying for years to get you to do that." and you ticked him off. and i think it's revealing as to why you ticked him off. why so? yes, because i said that. that's what i mean. he sort of said, this is this was good that you were showing him. i was showing emotion. and i said, that's not how the press will see it. and it wasn't how the press saw it. and it was a sort of, "oh, typical silly woman. you know, that's what women do." you know, it was that it was seen as a of weak weakness. yes. it's one of the challenges still, sadly, for women in public life is that, you know, if a man shows emotion, oh, its wonderful. he's showing that side of himself.

if a woman shows emotion, it's weakness. if a man shows strength, that's brilliant. the woman shows strength. she's an aggressive, you know, harridan. getting that balance is still difficult for women in public life. you say in your book that you wanted to become a member of parliament when you were 12. do you think if you'd been a man, not a woman, you would have gone into the church? 0h, goodness me. no, i mean, i think my mother wanted me to become a nun, and i was definitely not going to become a nun. no, i don't think i would have done i don't think i would have done. it was somehow it was politics that was maybe it was that sense of being able to improve people's lives across a greater range of activity. so if you could talk to your 12—year—old self, what tips would you give? i think i would sayjust have a bit more confidence in yourself. theresa may, thank you very much indeed forjoining me on political thinking. thank you.

live from washington... this is bbc news. international aid finally reaches libya's flood—ravaged city of derna but concerns grow for survivors struggling to access clean water. the british actor and comedian russell brand is accused of rape and sexual assaults. he denies the claims.

and protestors around the world mark one year since a young iranian woman died in police custody. i'm helena humphrey. good to have you with us. fears are growing for the survivors of the catastophic flood in the libyan city of derna, where there is a lack of medicine and clean water and worries that a cholera outbreak is looming. some international aid has begun to arrive in the city, including an italian ship with tents and blankets, and the world health organization says it has delivered medical supplies. up to 11,000 people are known to have died after two dams collapsed, inundating the city with water. thousands more are still missing. the head of the libyan search and rescue efforts has said the operation could take months or even years.

0ur correspondent anna foster is in on the ground in derna