you can do deals with and without ever saying it is done. do you think that is a fair observation? >> note. >> do you understand the point mr. keating is making? >> i understand what you are saying but is not true. >> mr. keating is given to extravagant language. >> but i wasn't going to -- >> i am sorry. >> not necessary to equate everything in language i blurted out but what about this? anything he cares about, the only language he respects his strength. love affair by -- >> certainly not. >> mr. keating also said according to mr. campbell that you like to pick winners. mr. keating speaking. if he thinks you are a winner he

prefers to be with you than against you. >> i think we all like to back a winning race horse or whatever. but that was not a motivation. >> you gave a little speech, his speech was a roaring success according to those who were there. >> understanding from everybody there. >> a consummate attorney that will end up making love like porcupines very carefully. did he say that? [laughter] >> as you point out in your witness statement, the son in

1995 remained noncommittal. >> 95? >> the endorsement only came late in the day in march of 1997. >> i forget the date. >> was it part of your strategy to wait as long as possible, labor party, and commercial lead vantages from them? >> certainly not. >> and policy on media issues at this point? >> i don't think so. >> and the king commercial interest to the company's know

what labor party's policy on meeting issues would like to be? >> what could they have done? >> what could they have done? i don't think so. and the labor party, to undertake to the issue of ownership and concentration of media ownership? >> it is obvious that is something you would want. >> that is fine. >> weren't you reassured when the 1997 labor manifesto did not say any legislative proposal on

media ownership? by which i mean concentration on media ownership? >> i don't remember noticing it. >> is that right? quite apart from overuse supported, presumably as a businessman, substantial interest in this country, would be very interested in what every party was saying in their manifestos that might impact on the way you did business. wouldn't it? >> yes. yes, sir. i wanted to make it quite clear that my commercial interest such as they are never came in to any consideration where we stood on

issues. for political parties. >> i refer you to an extract from mr. campbell's diary that 634 entries the third of february, 1997, came to be staffed. eight lines down -- >> are we on the right page? >> 633. >> 634.

>> eight winds down, do you have that one? >> yes. >> went to see murdoch and 01 still sir. mr. campbell's footnote, rupert murdoch's economic tour would be that. >> no. it was a friend and someone i enjoyed talking to.

a fine economist. >> i want to say in ten years never asked mr. blair to meet him, dorr deny received anything. if you want to check that you should call him. >> that was my question. a more subtle question. >> indeed it was. the sophisticated newspaper proprietor would not be hard-nosed commercial negotiation, how much to pay something. it would be a far higher and more subtle level, trying to work out how much to give and how much to press for.

do you follow me? >> i don't. >> don't you? >> no. >> did you at least sense this sort of encounter with mr. blair or mr. brown, two most powerful people just before the general election that they were very anxious to sound you out and see what you're thinking was. >> they probably wanted to convince me that they were the right people and i am sure they mapped to every other present priority. >> you didn't feel they were sizing you up trying to work out

what you were thinking and what was necessary from that perspective? they had to do to win your support? >> i don't think so. >> mr. campbell's entry for the tenth of march 1997, page 6 -- >> 664. >> let me just read it to you. tb spoke to bowlen later and

said murdoch was emerging -- commercial reasons to make clear at the start of the campaign. might you have had that discussion? >> no. if he said that he had no right to. >> isn't that the sort of thing you did discuss? >> no. i don't know how many times i have to say to you that i never took commercial considerations. >> so he got completely the wrong end of the stick? >> yes. >> if one reads carefully, he is not suggesting quite that. what he is saying is mr. seltzer

was providing feedback which sounds as if it were accurate that he were moving toward supporting the labor party and he's making a separate point that actually they have the start of the campaign. and that might be for commercial reasons connected with wanting to sell copies of your newspaper. neither more nor less. >> that is possible. >> i thought mr. jay was putting a sinister motive. >> i was not putting a sinister motive. for commercial reasons, possibly with long term interests of your company company's, what government policy might be on media ownership.

>> could you repeat that? >> for commercial reasons a reference to what future government policy might be on media ownership which would affect the commercial interests of news international. >> yes. >> in the run up to the endorsement, the endorsement of the "sun" was on the eighteenth of march, 1997. according to what this is -- [talking over each other] >> full disclosure, 1997 edition which is no. 24.

>> yes. >> you look five lines down, this relates to what happened on the seventeenth of march 1997. blair when to the final mile for an article for the sun at the start of the election campaign. he wrote in skeptical tones that rupert was delighted. were you delighted? >> i don't remember whether i would have been. he rode in highly skeptical terms. >> and no reason to delay the endorsement for labor.

that endorsement was your decision? >> it certainly would have been in my approval. >> some would say you extracted as much as you could from mr. blair in terms of policy. had gone considerable distance in your direction and as far as he was ever going to go that you endorse him. that is right, isn't it? >> i think so. i don't follow it this way but yes. >> mr. neil's assessment confirmed something you said. it was an additional point. he says i do not believe there was an explicit deal between

murdoch and blair in which "the sun" gave support to policies where the labor commitments with the british media empire alone. you're disagreeing or strongly agree? >> absolutely. >> he said there was an implicit understanding never openly talked about between men, an understanding nevertheless. >> that is not true. if it was true he doesn't keep to it because there were wide powers. >> another five minutes. [silence]

>> we're watching live coverage of testimony by the chair and ceo of news corp. and rupert murdoch answering questions before the lesson inquiry into media practices and ethics. he and his son appearing before the board this weekend we will have more from mr. murdoch's testimony after this quick break. in news related to the hearing this morning special advisor to olympic minister jeremy hunter has resigned over his role in rupert murdoch and news corp.'s attended take over a satellite broadcaster sky b. e-mails were released tuesday. you can see yesterday's inquiry and testimony by james murdoch on c-span.org.

♪ >> while we wait for the hearing to resume the senate gavels in this morning at 9:30 eastern and will be considering moving forward with the violence against women act. at 2:00 they will resume work on u.s. postal service changes and vote on methods of final passage. each requires a 60 vote majority. live coverage of the senate on c-span2. homeland security secretary janet napolitano is on capitol hill today testifying before the senate and the department of homeland security oversight hearing. was expected to address

cybersecurity and cyberthreats and lack of experts to assist the federal government. the secret service investigation will come up. live coverage of that hearing starting at 9:30 this morning on c-span2 -- un c-span3. arizona's immigration law is in front of the supreme court this week. the court will decide if arizona has the authority to enforce its own immigration law or whether that is the role of the federal government. c-span will air the oral argument starting friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. we are bringing you live coverage of the testimony of the chair and ceo of news corp. rupert murdoch. he is answering questions into media practices and ethics at his company. taking a short break and will return to live coverage in just a moment here on c-span2.

the british phone hacking investigation is looking into the culture of practices and ethics of british media. last year david cameron appointed board justice brian leveson to oversee a committed sins of the main it -- between politicians and the police and celebrities. at the conclusion of these hearings the committee will make recommendations on the future of press regulation and governments. you can see the full inquiry and c-span.org. this morning rupert murdoch testified before the leveson committee and discussed former prime minister margaret thatcher's ownership of news corp. and his relationship with

unions. >> it was quite an infamous occasion. one looks at the few numbers of people there and mr. factor and mr in them and you and the meeting was that your request. you see that? >> i hope you don't mind if i tease you about this. when you told the select committee on the nineteenth of july that he wished politicians would leave you alone, you were at this meeting. what we see -- >> from the company, the likelihood of a of ownership. it was quite appropriate. >> that was probable and one

outcome, might have closed the title if you couldn't sell them. there were two purposes. one was to give your thoughts about what is described here as the embryonic and developing reason administration. do you see that in paragraph 2? >> i think it shows at least the conversation, time taken up by american politics. >> in this way president-elect reagan and you were on the same page politically. weren't you?

>> i guess. this was just before his inauguration. >> is it part of the purpose of this meeting, to talk psychologically, demonstrates how much you were, quote, one of us. was that part of your purpose? >> no. >> you appreciated the importance of a face-to-face meeting and that is why you requested it? >> yes. >> and if you looked -- >> you don't need to tell her about -- the purpose was not to tell her about president reagan. >> the main purpose of the visit was to brief the prime minister

on his bid, your bid, the times newspaper and you explained to her what your bid amounted to in financial terms and treated her to sins speculation. is that fair? >> yes. that was the speculation. that was always bidding. >> why was it important to understand the nature and quality of your bid? >> as i said, this was the movement of a great institution which under threat of closure. and i thought was perfectly

right that she said no. what was that stake? continue that anyway. >> would you were speaking -- >> she did know. what it could be -- and extend -- >> were you thinking to demonstrate to her that you were the right man to acquire these great figures because you had the qualities and charisma to take the papers forward and equally importantly you had the will to crush the unions? >> i didn't have the will to crush the unions. i might have had the dishonor. that took several years. >> a portion of the testimony this morning of the chair and chief executive news corp. rupert murdoch and now back to live coverage of the judicial investigation into british phone

hacking. rupert murdoch will testify tomorrow morning starting at 5:00 eastern. we will have that live on c-span2. now back to live questioning. >> one month and one day before the election. he said this. remember it quite clearly. let me state the position clearly that no one is in any doubt. the essential elements of the trade union legislation of the 1980s will remain. he is saying it is not going to dismantle -- are you with me? the changes we do propose would lead british law the most restrictive on trade unions in the western world. this must have been music to your ears. >> i don't think i read it but yes. >> according to what you

disclosed with your meeting with leaders of the opposition there was dinner with mr. blair that evening, march 31st. 1997. do you think you discussed that article and congratulated him? >> i doubt it. >> labor party in 1997, we move forward to march of 1998, on the 24 of march. they claim the italian prime minister had taken a call from mr. blair which they discussed your multimillion pound office? >> multi-billion? >> if i say million -- and mr.

perotthey -- an italian bidder. what truth is there behind that story? did you speak to mr. blair on the seventeenth of march 1998 and asked him to speak to mr. r proudy to say he shouldn't interfere? >> no. i had access to mr. proudy and talked about it. we wanted to get rid of it. and we had negotiations and asked him what to do. and he said an italian better -- it was a friendly conversation. i would not say he agreed to anything but i knew him

slightly. i may well have spoken to mr. blair separately and how do you think of british industry is going to get on? >> you didn't ask mr. blair to haul mr. proudy up? >> no. >> you couldn't have said anything to give mr. blair that impression to give him to being on his bar? >> endeavoi never asked blair f favors. >> mr. blair said you would think about it but the phone call came from proudy to blair asking the other way around in mr. campbell's diary. [talking over each other] >>