their owners or editors as instruments of political power and then you say in which the boundary between use and comment is deliberately blurred. and then in paragraph 7, you're careful there not to identify which newspapers are, as it were, guilty of these characteristics and which are not. maybe you would not wish to do so now. but some people would differ quite markedly as to which newspaper falls into which category. would you accept at least that? >> up to a point, actually. i mean i think, you know, whether you agree with that position or not is another matter. but at the heart of my argument to you is really this. the problem that you have as a political leader is that where

with certain parts of the media the press becomes not merely politically partisan in their comment or editorial line but in their news coverage, then it becomes all the more important, and that's why i use the word "crucial" that you try and prevent yourself becoming an object of that attack. and that is what is -- gives rise to this closeness. as i say to you also in paragraph 8, emphatically this is not confirmed to the mar dock media. i'm not saying the murdoch newspapers, the tabloid ones, did not have that characteristic. they do, but they're not the only ones by any means at all. so i would say probably -- i think you'd say the bulk of what we call the tabloid press basically writes in a way that if they're against a particular

policy, party or person, it's a pretty all-out affair. >> certainly the position you stated with crystal i know and direct clarity in every instance. >> yeah. >> a comment on "the sun" which many have looked at as a sort of paradigm, do you agree that it generates special power and influence because of its appearance of being a form of floating voter with a constituency of circulation three million or readers eight million? >> yeah. "the sun" -- you know, "the sun" and "the mail" are the two most powerful of the papers. and "the sun" partly because it is prepared to shift. it makes it all the more important. i don't think there's anything wrong with that, per se, by the way, just as i don't think there's anything wrong "the

daily mail" being defense my government or against me. where i put the line is in the once they're against you, that's it. it's full on, full frontal, day in, day out. basically a lifetime commitment. >> just on the floating voter point, do you feel that that has been the result of some sort of deliberate strategy? or was it just the accidental byproduct of events? >> it's difficult to work out that actually. i think it's partly because rupert murdoch himself, i think, is not actually sort of a right wing person. i would never describe him as a sort of -- i'm indicating my own political prejudices here, but this is sort of tribal tory, i

wouldn't say that at all. he has bits of him that are very anti-establishment, sort of ame americratic, i would say, so maybe it's partly derived from his own thinking. is there an element of political calculation? i don't know. i suppose there could be. >> you say in paragraph 9 the wrong paradigm, this is to confuse political objectives with commercial interests. >> yeah. >> isn't it not possible to argue that the primary purpose on this approach would be the exercise of political power, the secondary purpose may well be to advance the interests of the paper, including its commercial interests? >> yeah. look, i think what i'm really saying here is of course like any commercial organization, they'll have their commercial interests there. but i also point out in my

statement, and i will say this very strongly where we get on to the detail of this, actually we decided more stuff against the murdoch interest than we did in favor of it. and -- now, did that mean that they changed their support for me? no, it didn't, as a matter of fact. and even though we did some things they really didn't like. on the other hand, of course all of these -- i mean, look, all of these organizations have their commercial interests and their commercial interests are important. i actually didn't personally, and i can't speak for others, i didn't feel under pressure in relation to commercial interests from the murdoch people or indeed anyone else. the pressure for me was more political. but that's maybe because the issues didn't arise in a particular way, i don't know. >> you mentioned "the daily mail" and the associated titles. the influence they exercise is not through appearing to be a floating voter, because that's not the way they operate.

therefore, how do they, in your view, exercise their power an influence? >> look, "the daily mail" frankly is the subject in which i wouldn't claim to exercise much objectivity. the fact is, if you fall out with the controlling element of "the daily mail," that is you are then going to be subject to a huge and sustained attack, so "the daily mail" for me that attacked me, my family, my children, those people associated with me day in, day out, not merely when i was in office but subsequent to it as well. so that is -- and they do it very well, very effectively, and it's very powerful. you know, i did a -- i just asked my office to do a random analysis of 50 stories straight

after the 2005 election, when after i had been re-elected for the third time, and 50 stories just prior to leaving office. just the 50 stories that you take on either side of that. so if you have a positive neutral negative column and the positive 0 in the neutral 0 in the negative 100. now, maybe i did nothing right during that period, but, you know, i think, look, i don't think there's much doubt about where they stand. so my point is, this is why i say it's very important not to see this as simply about the murdoch media. with any of these big media groups, you fall out with them and you watch out, because it's -- it is literally relentless and unremitting once that happens. an my view is that that is what creates this situation in which these media people get a power

in the system that is unhealthy and which i felt throughout my time uncomfortable with. now, i took the position and this could be subject to criticism. i took the strategic decision to manage this, not confront it. but the power of it is indisputable. >> you mentioned the controlling element within the associated titles. when you started off, it was the third -- he died in 1998. the editor, david english, was editor in chief until his death in 1998. where until 1998 did power lie, as it were, within these titles in your view? >> oh, i think when the lord rurtmere, the father, was around and david english, they were the

controlling people there. then when they passed away, both of them within a short period of time of each other, then obviously mr. daco was the chief person then. >> so he would be described as the controlling element from 1998, is that right? >> yes, i would say so. >> and not the fourth? >> i don't think so personally. but i may be right and may be wrong about that. >> relationships between pro pryteres and editors, we all got too close to news international. should you be included in that sentence? >> yes. as i say, the way i put it is that the closeness -- i mean for me with rupert murdoch and everyone else, this is a working relationship. it's actually subsequent to

leaving office, i would say, that my relationship is completely different with him and with his family now. in office, it wasn't -- this is why i say the concepts of coziness is not quite the way i would put it. it's that you were -- you were in a position -- i mean it was a working relationship, but you were in a position where you were dealing with very powerful people who had a big impact within the political system. and as i say, the big impact was hugely intensified and multiplied by the fact that if they were against you, they were absolutely out -- all out against you. and that's the issue in my view. now, you know, would these relationships have mattered in any event? yes. look, to give you an example, in 2005 i thought it possible the "financial times" would shift back to supporting the

conservatives. now, i cared about that. so so far as i was able, i tried to make persuasive arguments as to why they should stick with us. now, i wouldn't for a minute suggest the "financial times" if they decided to support the conservatives would have gone all out in their news reporting against me. that wouldn't have happened. you know, so even if newspapers are behaving in a perfectly -- you know, within the bounds of separating news and comment and everything, these relationships matter, and it's important to say that. otherwise i think we'll get to a completely unrealistic point of view where we sort of ignore history and say politicians and media people will have nothing to do with each other. we're bound to have that close interaction. it's not the closeness that in my judgment is the actual problem, it's the kind of imbalance that comes into it because you know that at a certain point with certain elements of them, if you're in a position where you're pursuing a course you believe in and they don't believe in it or they

don't believe in you, then you're in a big fight, and that big fight is something you've got to take into account before you decide to go off in a particular direction. so, you know, that's the difference that i would say. so i've always -- you know, when i've heard people describe this as cozy and close and so on, that's not quite the way i would put it. i don't know whether it was worse to put it in the way i'm putting it but it's a little different, i think. >> possibly it's unspoken but really self-evident aspect to the terms of engagement between you, is that a fair description? >> yes, i think that is a fair description. i mean, you know, they're aware of the power they have and you're aware that they have it. >> in a slightly different context, i use the term finely tuned antennae that some people didn't like very much but does that come close to describing it

in your view? >> in the sense of? >> i think that was in the sense of a particular lunch at checkers before your time on the 4th of january, 1981. you probably don't recall that little vin yet. but i'm now speaking more generally. >> antennae as to what you thought they were thinking? >> exactly. >> you knew what each other's positions were, they weren't very secret. but i think that in itself -- this is one of the things that i find hardest about this, is distinguishing what is wrong from what is inevitable. i mean i think -- you know, i can't imagine a situation. given the penetration of our media and this what i think is the other really important thing, which is the way i think broadcasters are very, very strongly influenced by the agenda of the press, it would be pretty bizarre if the senior politicians didn't have, you know, reasonably strong

relationships with major media people. i don't think that in and of itself is unhealthy, i have to say. i think it is virtually inevitable and sensible for any political leader. it's this additional dimension that i'm honing in on and saying that's what i think is the problem, because that's what i -- i'm just really almost describing how i felt at the time. so, you see, for example with rupert murdoch, it wasn't important to try to get "the sun" on board anyway, absolutely. they had been, you know, a major part of supporting mrs. thatcher and the conservative party in all those 18 years. you know, they did, frankly, and do represent a certain strain of support that labor might have that hadn't had throughout the '80s and early '90s. so, you know, even if the

situation had not been as i describe, if i had been given the chance to go and persuade them to come over to labor, i would have taken that. so that's why i think it's just important that we try and calibrate this very carefully. otherwise i think we will get into a situation that's a bit unrealistic. >> do you accept that you may have contributed to the mystique, if i can put it in that way, by at the time not publicizing each meeting with mr. murdoch or, 3 by, inviting him through the back door? >> i don't think we publicized any meetings with the media people actually. the reason having not just him but certain people who you then spend days trying to explain what you were talking about, is simply that you would spend days explaining what you were talking about. i think in future it's probably better you publish everything. but i don't -- i don't think we

actually published other media meetings either, but i can check on that. >> but then they may be a huge leap between lack of transparency and conspiracy. lack of transparency certainly gives rise to speculation. would you accept that? >> yeah. i mean i don't -- i think a alistar campbell said after he left, he came in the back door. he wasn't any conspiracy, he just didn't need was he coming back or taking over or whatever. >> in relation to mrs. brooks, do you feel that you got too close to her when you were in power? >> look, rebekah brooks mattered obviously because i think he was the editor of "the sun" during my time. she had come to this monsignor position in international after i left.

i guess frankly towards the end particularly, and i think you'll see a lot of meetings and calls towards the end, there wasn't a great deal of support left. so those people that did, sure, i was pretty close to. again, i mean bluntly, the decision maker was not rebekah brooks in relation to this. >> it was obviously mr. murdoch? >> yes. he was the key decision maker for sure. >> a schedule of all your contacts with editors between may, 1997, and june, 2007, has been provided. it runs to 18 pages. i'm sure we can put that on the screen. >> yeah. >> if there's any one point arising out of those earlier interactions, it's dinner at must sayerman's on the 15th of

september, 1994, which had been arranged by gus and jillian fisher. first of all, do you remember anything about that? >> i remember that such a dinner took place. i don't remember a great deal about it, frankly. but you -- i've seen this account. >> there's an account, so we do know its source from mr. neil, full disclosure. in the bundle we've put together for you, it's pages 31 and 32. >> yeah. >> mr. fisher is described as rupert's senior man in london. is that right or not? this is september, 1994. >> i think so. i think he -- i remember him being there for -- i think for a reasonably short time, actually. but i certainly remember him, yeah. >> mr. neil says that he had

been lobbying the labor party on news international's behalf onnish issue as cross media ownership and sky tv's control of satellite scrambling systems. did you know about that? >> i don't recall specifically being told about it, but i had known what that position was certainly on media ownership. and most particularly, the issue that i do remember they were very strong on was recognition of tribunals given what has happened in the past is not surprising. >> according to mr. neal, this is gus fisher, had also struck up a relationship with you. >> mrs. gus fisher. i'm sorry, i don't recall that one. >> no, gus. >> it's mr. fisher. >> sorry? >> it's mr. fisher. >> mr. fisher.

i thought you said mrs. fisher. >> no. >> okay. >> i think relationship is just in the sense >> it's a very loose friendship. i'm not sure what the implication is there. >> right. >> i think the suggestion is you well knew what his position was and what it was in the cross media ownership. >> our position was i say, i decided i was not going to take this issue on. i don't believe, by the way that ownership is the issue here. it's the rules under which is media operate. but we had, or i had taken the decision we weren't going to, you know, do a big inquiry into cross media ownership. i thought it would be a distraction for the lower part coming into office.

and i don't -- i don't specifically recall it's perfectly possible it would have come out at the dinner. and i would have explained to opposition as i would have onstepped the recognition. >> mr. neil's account of the dinner apart from it going apparently very well, mr. murdoch indicated his newspapers were not wedded to the toris. does that chime with your recollection? >> not specifically that dinner. i think -- it was clear that there was an openness that hadn't been before because of the way i was changing the labor party. i think -- i actually put the clause at that point, i think out there. you know, it was obvious i was going to be different type of labor leader. >> and then you apparently indicated that media ownership rules would not be onerous under labor. is it possible that you said

that? >> i think not onerous is not the way i would have put it. i can't specifically remember what was said. but it's perfectly possible. if that issue came up, i would have said that's not an issue we're going to be taking on. >> so whar the position, by it be end of that dinner, mr. murdoch would have had some degree of comfort from you at least in this particular domain, are we agreed about that? >> yeah. but i don't know that he would have particularly taken it. this was not something i was doing in order to get support from the murdoch empire. on the contrary, it was something i wasn't going to take this issue at the outset, if we come into power and start at a great thing about who owned what in the media, it would have been a huge distraction for the labor party. as i recall it, the big issue they were generally worried about and i think they were

perfectly entitled to do this where they were lobbying very hard was on commitment to trading and recognition. we indeed did introduce trading and recognition. >> there maybe be two things going on here for separate reasons these two across media ownership was not an issue you felt you were going to undertake because it would have been too controversial it would have been occupied too much time. but secondly, it might be necessary to communicate a degree of reassurance about that to mr. murdoch. so at least he understood that. is that possible? >> they would have understood it anyway when we published our manifesto and song. of course, i'm not -- it wasn't unaware of the fact if we decided to do this they would be center stage in that. one of the reasons the labor party had always advocated this was partly because they'd fallen out very badly with the murdoch

press. and this was in a sense aimed at them. this is absolutely correct. i didn't then and don't think now that's quite apart from the fact of what you should do or taking on these border issues to deal with the press. consistently my view is that it was not ownership that was the issue. i held that all the way through and still do by the way, the question is not a whether you have foreigner owners or british owners, or b, subject to competition and monopolies issues and trust issues about media ownership, the issue is the culture and rules under which people play. so, you know, that's -- it was, of course, i wasn't unaware of the fact that the murdoch media group would have been worried had we decided to launch some great inquiry into cross media ownership or media ownership. on the other hand, that's not actually the reason why we took

the position we did. >> in terms of this schedule, which you compiled i think with assistance in the cabinet office to corroborate various meetings. i think we can put it on a screen. in terms of trying to discern trends which may be difficult, certainly after the first of may, 1997, you were fairly electic in your choice of who you would meet with and speak to. we see a whole range of editors, sometimes proprietors from all the main national newspapers. is that fair? there's even a meeting on the 3rd of july, 1997. >> i think there were several at

that time. >> those meetings ceased at a certain point. certainly by that 2001. there's a meeting on the 18th of january, 2000, with him. i think that may be the last one. >> i haven't -- we literally were collating this information in the last two or three days. you may well be right. >> some meetings with news international which had been included which may or may not be correct. but i'm not sure you're right. >> on the 13th of july, 2000, there was a dinner with -- >> so 2001 i think is the -- >> you actually said 2000. 2001. very good. >> there was one after 2000.

we can check on that. >> as this goes through, the picture is i think fairly stated to be a greater interaction with mr. murdoch and certainly with rebecca way. would that be a fair assessment? >> i think if you collect all these meetings, i think about 1/3 were with -- and calls, by the way, we've included calls as well. i think basically half of the interactions that we've recorded were calls not meetings. i think it's about.

>> i find this confusing trying to align the records of my diary with what murdoch and others have put in their evidence. piers morgan says he met me on what would be 56 times he said. and i can't find that many. but that's not to say it didn't happen. i just -- so i'm sort of getting a disclaimer on this. sometimes there may have been calls or meetings that were fixed and didn't take place and so -- >> this could only be taken as a

broad definition and can't be analyzed with the sort of forensic accuracy that might otherwise be thought appropriate and it isn't necessary i don't think for the purpose of the exercise. >> yes, i wouldn't dispute in any shape or form that i wasn't interacting with these people closely. >> rebekah brooks in her statement has about five or six additional lunches or dinners which you haven't included. she may or may not be right about those. the references of the mod three file i suspect nothing much is going to turn on those. >> it sometimes depends on whether i think my stuff is basically about specific meetings. but there may have been occasions when you go to somebody's house or something and