if in given john wakeham's approach. self-regulation come to with one precipitated by "the mirror" paper can't be ruled out. with that enacted which were left with only the nuclear threat regulation for improving but as you know i'm not attracted to the rhetoric of the last chancellor but my proposal -- [inaudible] so i suppose he's saying they would be the immediate step before the final nuclear option. we can introduce, perhaps it breaks down the ticket in stages, is that what he is saying? >> that is what he has written. spent statutory regulations in this context means full-blown statutory regulation. >> i don't think that is what he had in mind. i think it's just a phrase. i think he is thinking of a statutory body but i don't think he was thinking of a statutory code of conduct, if i can draw that distinction. >> and finally, if i can move forward to tab 25, again to you, 24 april 1995, our page 03974, where you're thinking now, he's thinking of how does one present the so-called do-nothing option. on the next page

i think people felt that lord wakeham was a more credible chairman of the pcc an all of that. but it was a political question. i'm not sure either i devoted a vast amount of time to this one. no, the point you make is a perfectly reasonable one and probably if this thing had cropped up in 2006, not 1998, i would have, you know, gone along with the original compromise in the beginning. >> move forward in time, mr. blair, we're now in 2001 in your second election victory. mr. campbell's diaries again, page 20, the bottom of page 21, 30th of october. so this must be the year 2000. at the bottom of the page t.b. saw murdoch in steltser and then in brackets murdoch adviser and asked them outright whether they were going to back us. murdoch said they were unelectable an that was that. t.b. seemed to take it at face value. is that an accurate account or not? >> yes, i think that would be an accurate account. >> so we do have you asking a direct and explicit question of mr. murdoch and getting a blunt answer, don't we? >> yes. i mean he wouldn't -- i don't think it was -- that other m

if in given john wakeham's approach. self-regulation come to with one precipitated by "the mirror" paper can't be ruled out. with that enacted which were left with only the nuclear threat regulation for improving but as you know i'm not attracted to the rhetoric of the last chancellor but my proposal -- [inaudible] so i suppose he's saying they would be the immediate step before the final nuclear option. we can introduce, perhaps it breaks down the ticket in stages, is that what he is saying? >> that is what he has written. spent statutory regulations in this context means full-blown statutory regulation. >> i don't think that is what he had in mind. i think it's just a phrase. i think he is thinking of a statutory body but i don't think he w t

if in given john wakeham's approach. self-regulation come to with one precipitated by "the mirror" paper can't be ruled out. with that enacted which were left with only the nuclear threat regulation for improving but as you know i'm not attracted to the rhetoric of the last chancellor but my proposal -- [inaudible] so i suppose he's saying they would be the immediate step before the final nuclear option. we can introduce, perhaps it breaks down the ticket in stages, is that what he is saying? >> that is what he has written. spent statutory regulations in this context means full-blown statutory regulation. >> i don't think that is what he had in mind. i think it's just a phrase. i think he is thinking of a statutory body but i don't think he was thinking of a statutory code of conduct, if i can draw that distinction. >> and finally, if i can move forward to tab 25, again to you, 24 april 1995, our page 03974, where you're thinking now, he's thinking of how does one present the so-called do-nothing option. on the next page

. >> can i ask you about the appointment of lord wakeham, which was on january 1, 1995, paragraph 91 of your statement. >> yes. >> overall, to you think that that was a positive step in terms of what he was able to do over the time he was the chair? >> i think if he wanted someone who could guide the pcc to a better code of behavior, it would'fficult to find anyone better or more capable of being able to do it. certainly, he made some efforts to do it. but i think at the end john would conceded there was more perhaps needed to be done than he was able to do. but it was perfectly credible to believe he would achieve more than almost anyone in doing at. >> you tell us the byproduct of this, last sentence of paragraph 91, was the appointment made it even less likely the conservative members of parliament would support statutory regulation. >> silda evidently. i mean, those who were at all queasy about it would say, "look, here is one of our own, a very respected former cabinet minister who was actually sharing -- chairing the pcc." so, his appointment did have a material effect on parli