when it came as opposed to the more skbrenl issue of media and regulation and sort, when it came to the specifics, i think it's very, very clear in the 2003 communications act is appear example of that. headlin

most dangerous man in the world or something. so this is not -- it's misdescribed the issue actually. >> he says a bit later down, i've never met mr. murdoch. there are times that i worked at downing street, he seemed like the 24th member of the cabinet. his voice was rarely heard, but then the same could be said of many of the other 23, but his presence was always felt. well, what do you make of that? >> with respect to policy, by the way, the whole -- if you look at the policies that rupert murdoch or indeed anybody else was concerned about, they fit into certain categories. europe was obviously -- that was probably the major thing he and i used to row about actually and debate. but sometimes what people wouldn't accept from the labor party perspective was things like public service reform or

trade union reform, for example. our views may have coincided, but i believed in what i was doing. i didn't need him or anyone else to tell me what to do. so i think this is, you know -- >> he says when he submitted his book, "the spin doctor's diary" to the cabinet office, your staff was deeply unhappy. a third of their objections related to one man, but to rupert murdoch. do you remember that? >> i don't. it says from 1998 to 2001 i see down at the bottom. >> the final point in, my first few weeks as alistar campbell's deputy, so that was 1998, i was told by somebody who would know that we had assured mr. murdoch we wouldn't change policy on

europe without talking to him first. was that assurance given? >> no. we never gave an assurance to mar do murdoch or anybody else that we were not going to change policy without seeking some sort of permission. that's absurd. however, having said that, if we were about to engage in a major change of policy on an issue that mattered to any particular media group, we probably would have tried to prepare the way for it. but that, again, i think is perfectly sensible and there's nothing wrong with that. you see the thing that's important to realize about this is of course you were aware that he and indeed other papers had very strong stances on issues. again i think it's important this is not simply located with the murdoch media or anybody else. we realized "the guardian" would have strong issues on certain

things and "the mirror," for example, and the mail group and so on, "telegraph." and would we interact with them -- if we thought they might be opposed and stopping that opposition, look, i think you should be aware of x, y and z so when you're writing about this, you realize this is our argument. of course we would. a, i don't think you're ever going to stop that. and even if you don't do it -- if you're a cabinet minister about to take through a difficult piece of legislation, you're going to speak to many, many media outlets to try to get your point of view across and that won't just be by formal interviews. you'll be briefing them. you'll say, look, this is what i'm trying to do, this is why i'm trying to do it. i think it would be -- i just think that -- a, i don't think there's anything wrong with that. i think that's a perfectly healthy interaction with the media. and, b, i think it's absolutely inevitable. that is a completely different

thing from saying, you know, you've got veto over policy. and by the way, if we -- i mean the most obvious case i gave you earlier is the e-rebate when there were vitriolic editorials written about all of that and we did the budget deal -- i doubt we got any part of the media on board for that and that was a big deal. we did it and we did it irrespective of what the murdoch media or anybody else thought because i thought it was the right thing to do for the country. >> all right. that's p-- we'll resume at 2:00. thank you very much indeed. >> all rise.

both the inquiry and hmcts, which is responsible for security in this building, take the incident this morning extremely seriously. considerable effort has been put into ensuring that all witnesses can give their evidence in a safe and secure environment, and i very much regret what has happened. an investigation is being undertaken and i will be giving consideration to the steps that can be taken and should be taken against this particular intruder. efforts will be redoubled to ensure that incidents of this nature do not recur. i preept repeat my apologies to blair and indeed to everyone else who was involved in the inquiry. >> mr. blair, may i move forward in time to 2009. were you aware from your personal interactions with mrs.

brooks of the shift of support from labor and the person fiction of mr. brown to the conservatives in the person fiction of mr. cameron? >> i don't think i was actually aware that the shift was going to occur until it occurred. obviously there was a debate going on and obviously i hoped that news international would carry on supporting the labor government, but i don't think that i actually knew of the decision, as it were. >> so there was no discussion between you and mrs. brooks which would have gave you a prior indication that it might occur, is that it? >> certainly it was pretty obvious there was a strong debate going on within the organization as to what they were going to do. as i say, my position was clear and it was clear throughout that i wanted them to carry on supporting the labor government. >> were there any discussions to the reasons for the shift or

not? >> i mean i think it had to do with basic policy questions and, yeah, this was a conversation that was pretty active within political circles as well, frankly. so i don't -- there was no -- i can't recall any specific issue being mentioned. >> now, we heard from mr. murdoch of a telephone conversation he says he had with mr. brown. the upshot of which mr. brown said he was declaring war on news international. do you have any direct evidence you can give us as to whether such a conversation occurred or not? >> no. >> do you share lord mandellson's view that there is evidence of a deal being done between the conservative party and mr. murdoch? >> i've seen no knowledge of anything like that so i can't really comment on it. and also, by the way, in the

year since i left office, obviously i have a lot of responsibilities, i've got a lot of work that i do in africa and different parts of the world, so i really wouldn't be in a position to know. >> if it's clear from what you're saying about mr. murdoch that he didn't do deals with you, you might say it would flow from that that he's unlikely to do deals with anybody else or would you not go that far? >> i have absolutely nothing to support that, but i don't -- i'm simply saying there's things i can comment on and things i can't from knowledge. all i can say is that he never made such an approach to me. >> do you feel that "the sun" overstepped the mark with its personal attacks on mr. brown, particularly in relation to the letter he wrote to the mothers of soldiers killed in afghanistan? >> yes, i do.

i think that was out of order actually. and i said that at the time. >> did you discuss that with mrs. brooks or not? >> i think i did, actually. but i think as well, to be fair, i think even within the organization it was acknowledged that that was not right really. and i think -- you know, one of the things i think is important in this is that, you know -- because newspapers will change their support from time to time, by the way. not all of them do, but they will. but what i think is very important when we're talking about the culture is that if you switch support, it doesn't mean the person you disagree with is a bad person. i think one of the most -- one of the ugliest aspects of modern politics, maybe it's always been like this, but i think even more so today, is that people don't

seem to feel they can have a disagreement with people. you just agree with them. you disagree with them about an aspect of policy and so on, you might think they have the wrong policies for the country. it doesn't mean they're a bad person. >> that happen in the judiciary all the time. >> quite hard to remember from my days in the bar. but it's -- i think, you know, this is -- this is one aspect of it. i think and hope actually subsequent to that particular instance things were a little calmer. but there was no need to do that. and i think -- actually i think that's probably accepted within that organization too. >> do you think it's just become a little bit more personal? this is really the inference from what you've been saying. >> the thing is the world in which we live today, especially -- this is why the social media has not had the

impact some of us thought it would have when it first came along. what i thought at the beginning of this, because this obviously was developing during my time as prime minister, was that the social media would operate, if you like, as a kind of discipline or -- maybe discipline the wrong way, but an alternative source that might be more independent, more objective actually than the mainstream or conventional media. that's not how it is. an if you read a lot of what people say, an example of that this morning with the guy bursting into the room, people just -- they can't -- you know, the way a lot of debate is conducted is highly personalized, very aggressive, and is always -- you know, you've got to impugn someone's motive and it's not because they have taken a different position. now, to a degree politics has always been a bit like that. but i think the flip side of a social change that i support, which is that people elect

differential, the flip side of that, if you like, is that it can turn into a very, very aggressive form of writing and people sending, you know, stuff out on the internet, which is, you know, i think unnecessarily cruel, unpleasant, aggressive and so on. now, what you can do about that, as i say, i think this is primarily what i would describe as a cultural question, and it's quite hard to see how you -- a solution, it's quite hard to see how you do that. i think the first thing to do is surface it as an issue, because it is an issue. i think what is very hard for politicians in today's world is that you have to try and shut out this noise that's going on the whole time around you, which is pretty ugly a lot of time, but it's there and it's part of

today's world. >> mr. blair, may i move on to the evidence of mr. wattson, who, as you know, gave evidence here last week and is one of the co-participants. his statement really is under tab 19 in your bundle. you'll find his witness statements. a couple of points he makes. 05557, he says at the bottom of the page, he understands that you were in receipt of e-mails from rebekah brooks at the time. this is the time of his resignation in 2006. that will demonstrate that it was her intention to exact retribution for the resignation. now, we know you didn't in fact have a personal e-mail. but apart from that obvious point, is there any other comment you can make on what he says there? >> no. i mean, look, i didn't use text or e-mail at the time.

something of which i'm profoundly grateful now. but i don't recall anything of that nature, whether they were sending. mails. i don't know. i have no knowledge of that at all. i don't think so. by the way, the issue to do with tom watson's resignation was perfectly simple. i was at the time prime minister. he was a government minister. and he effectively had taken part in the so-called coup in september of 2006. in fact had been a prime organizer of it. you know, from my perspective of it, as a minister he was going to have to go, an i think he resigned moments before i was about to issue the letter of dismissal. >> he also alleges on a similar theme that mrs. brooks texted people close to the prime minister telling them that he had to be sacked. but i think it's clear from your answer that was going to happen

anyway. >> it was going to happen anyway. look, he's perfectly entitled to his point of view but you can't really remain a minister in the government if you called for the prime minister to go. >> page 120 of your book, mr. blair, you say i reinned back my folk who wanted to go into, quote, kill mode on it. he said that must be a reference to special advisers and mps working with mrs. brooks. is that correct or not? >> no, it's got nothing to do with rebekah brooks at all. the fact is -- when that coup began, and i think there was some story about him having visited gordon brown. those are my people who felt very strongly that they should go out and attack on this and say this is part of a conspiracy to get rid of the prime minister. you know, i just -- look, i had

taken my own decision that really by then i was going to have to in effect say when i was going to go, and i thought it was just going to be unnecessarily damaging and unpleasant if you ended up having just a huge fight between me and the person who is almost certain to be my successor. >> i think mr. watson told us that he arrived a dvd from before brown. he gave evidence in that chair from exactly those lines. >> well, you know, i'm sure. >> i'm just not sure how this issue is going to help me. the last point he made, to make sure we're covering all the points of mr. watson, he gave evidence about a message

communicated from mr. murdoch first to you and then passed on from mr. brown to him effectively to back off the phone hacking issue. i think the date for that was 2009. was there any truth in that sfl. >> there obviously is no truth in that. as was said at the time, it was completely wrong. you know, this is not somebody i was going to influence one way or another, even if i thought it appropriate to do so. i most certainly would not have thought it appropriate. >> on the theme of personal attacks, can i bring it sort of home, as it were? we know your wife has been the subject of personal attacks over the years.

is it your feeling some of those are obvious given her position. can you help us with that? >> yes, i mean, a certain amount of comment is legitimate. there were certain things that happened legitimate for people to comment on. i thought particularly the male group took it too far, and it turned into a sort of personal vendetta. for the purpose of this i asked her solicitors to go back from a period of may of 2006 to i think the last interaction was november of 2011. and i think it was something like over 30 different other actions started and the trouble is that what happens with these

attacks is that even though you may end up getting an apology. you may end up getting damages. in a sense. the story is there. it's been written. you're always going to feel sensitive about your own family. but i thought and do think the attacks on her and the attacks on my children were unnecessary and wrong. i'm not saying all were stories written about her kon have been written. i think if we were operating in intervention number ten, you would expect someone to be saying, hang on, are we getting this right? when you come to over 30, it indicates a certain patent. so that's how i feel. i don't think it's necessary.

i suppose it's the way -- well, anyway. i've said what i said. >> that chimes not just a little bit from what i heard from the same chair last november from other members of public that may be celebrities, that may not be celebrities. i've heard from a whole rake of different people on not dissimilar lines. so it it fair to say this cuts across? you're making the point you have to be in public life. that's fair enough. but for those in public life there is a line on which it is not appropriate to go. you clearly said you think it's been exceeded. and equally you said, and make sure i'm not just putting words in your mouth that the ability

to maintain address is hard. >> i think what many people who are in public life would say, that they actually accept that it's going to be intruded upon, if you like. to a significant degree. intruded upon in the sense people are going to want to know far more about you. that's sort of absolutely right. the rubbish is written about it that go alongside it. and in the end, and my wife is always the person who used to say this to me. she would say stop complaining. it's voluntary. you're the seat of the prime minister. that's what it's like. but i think it's -- what i think is wrong is when a section of the media, and again i emphasize a section, and powerful people

within the positions will say, right, we're going to go after this person. then what happens is they will go after you. full on, full frontal, day in, day out. and that is not journalism, in my view. you know, that's an abuse of power, actually. so you know, it's not necessary to do. and i don't think it needs to happen in that way. and i felt that some of the stuff crossed the the line completely. but i also felt that frankly, because, you know, in a way for both me and my wife if you're the prime minister, there's a lot of privileges that come with that position. i felt more anxious about ministers who would get into a situation where if they were doing something that one of the media groups didn't like and

they were gone after, it was pretty hard for them. and i think even in certain circumstances i would say and look back and regret them. where i was thinking, look, i'm going to have to let this person go. even though i'm not sure it's really justified to do that. -- if you prefer not to, i'm entirely comfortable with that. >> i mean, i give an example in my auto biography. it's the second resignation. where in my last period of government i think i would have handled that differently. we had an investigation into it, and in the end the investigation

cleared him. but by that time he had gone. but if you measure the vehemence of the headlines about the life and the publicity given to that, and then you measure the publicity given to the treasury list report, that then cleared him, i think that it illustrates the problem. that's somebody where the end, i mean, i felt at the time, towards the end i was getting very hardened to this. but i felt at the time, we just can't ship anymore water in. i felt he had to go. even though i felt very reluctant about it. but the point i'm making is, then when there is a report, a proper investigation by a credible person that clears him,

that should at least -- >> these are two points, aren't they? the first point is that the power of the press caused you to take -- for good or bad, caused you to take a step, at the time when read between the lines, although you felt driven to it then, you regret the speed of it and the circumstances of it. and the second is that after the complaint is being made. there's no kweat redress. there was another example where you complain to the press. the reaction is very don page 2. i've been told that many times. but -- but, yeah, it doesn't have the same prominence. >> yeah. the two points now i would like back and think actually, i

should have pushed back harder. it's easy to come and say that now. at the time it was very difficul difficult. >> you do make one interesting point in your book. what you said is police stations serve many a admiral and necessary challenges, so there are places to keep secrets. was that based on gut reaction, suspicion or evidence, mr. blair. >> i think more general gut reaction. i put this absolutely on the record. i don't believe anyone has ever leaked any information of any sort.