Reinvigorated, Blair sets out his stall for historic third term

Tony Blair Interview

Tony Blair is travelling on a train back to London after another hyperactive 24 hours of campaigning in the West Midlands during which he had highlighted his plans for the NHS, the economy and education.

Tony Blair is travelling on a train back to London after another hyperactive 24 hours of campaigning in the West Midlands during which he had highlighted his plans for the NHS, the economy and education.

Predictably, he had not mentioned the war, the hidden issue of the campaign. So I ask him about the invasion of Iraq at length. We discuss other issues too, why he wants to stay on for a third term, his relationship with Gordon Brown, his views on what he would do if he was advising the Conservative Party and the chances of a referendum on the EU constitution. But I question him first about Iraq and the issue of trust in his leadership.

I put it to him that some voters are withdrawing their support from Labour because they worry that he would regard a substantial election victory as an endorsement of the war. His response is unequivocal.

"There are going to be many people who vote Labour in this election who strongly disagree with Iraq. There are people in my own party, there are candidates for my own party, who disagreed with Iraq. There will be some people who will vote for other parties who agreed with me about Iraq. Of course, I can't say that if we win this election that means everyone who supports us approved of Iraq. That would be absurd."

Mr Blair will always argue that his actions were "the right thing to do". No leader can express a change of heart on such a big decision. But he suggests that some voters mistake this assertion as an arrogant failure to see other points of view.

"The only thing I would ask people to do is understand that it was a very difficult decision. What I object to is people trying to frame the decision in terms of my integrity rather than in terms of the fact that I was faced with the situation where there were 250,000 troops down there. Saddam wasn't fully co-operating with the UN inspectors, he remained in breach of the UN resolutions and yet I couldn't get a second UN resolution with an ultimatum. I had to decide whether we backed off altogether, with all that would mean, or go ahead still and remove Saddam.

"It was a very difficult decision in very difficult circumstances and I have always made clear I respect those who disagreed with the decision I took".

He says there are some issues that are "a nightmare whichever decision you take". He points out that there was a sequence of events, each of which are sometimes taken out of context.

"We must remember the UN inspectors were only there because the troops were also there.

"It was the threat of force that got the inspectors back in. Now imagine what would have happened if I had backed away and that the Americans also backed away and the conflict had not happened. Saddam would still be in charge and immeasurably strengthened and there would be no further possibility about enforcing the community's will in regard to UN resolutions.

"Some will say that would have been better than having the conflict. That's a perfectly understandable view. I only ask people to understand there wasn't a middle way. So it was a nightmare in the sense that, whatever you did, you were going to get problems either in sorting out Iraq after a conflict or you would get big problems leaving Saddam in charge."

ON TRUST

As a result of what he said repeatedly in the build-up to the war against Iraq Mr Blair knows he has a problem in relation to trust. Specifically, there are some who are convinced he lied about weapons of mass destruction or at the least exaggerated the significance of the intelligence.

In particular, the dossier on the intelligence has been a continuing source of controversy. With hindsight, he admits that it would have been better if Downing Street had played no role in the preparation of the dossier and that the raw intelligence had been published.

"In retrospect, it would have been better to have simply published the Joint Intelligence Committee reports. Anyone who reads them knows it is absurd to say we had no intelligence about WMD and Saddam."

But what about the more central allegation- a subtly different one from the reports on the BBC in the summer of 2003 - that he exaggerated the significance of the intelligence? Did he regret portraying speculative intelligence as definitive evidence?

"All I can say is I never had any doubt that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. My assessment was not just based on intelligence but partly on the basis of history.

"Weapons were being successfully concealed when the UN inspectors were originally in Iraq, so it was inconceivable to me that, when the inspectors left, Saddam gave them up ... It is also the case that the Iraq Survey Group concludes that Saddam retained the intention to restart a WMD programme."

He knows, though, that a section of the media and the electorate regard his alleged lack of trustworthiness as a pivotal issue.

I ask him to reflect on his early Prime Ministerial declarations that his government would be whiter than white and compare them with the current situation.

"My frank assessment is that they were always going to say one of two things about me. The hope of the right wing was that New Labour would turn out to be old Labour, that we would mess up the economy and would not be strong on defence and therefore they could say that we came in as New Labour and turned into old Labour. If they weren't able to say that, I always knew they would go for my character. In 2001, they were calling me a liar and a cheat and that was before Iraq. The right wing plays this politics in a very heavy way.

"The problem with Iraq is that you ended up with an alliance of people on the left and the right saying the same thing. All I would say is that, on Iraq, people will make up their own minds but on the rest I think we have delivered. We said we would deliver a strong economy and we have. We said we would deliver massive investment in public services and we are doing that."

ON RESIGNING

There is much speculation that, during the traumatic post-Iraq period last year, Blair was on the verge of resignation. What made him decide to stay on and fight for a third term? His answer in terms of his own role is relatively modest.

"As a result of the foundations we have laid, we are poised to make big and radical change. I think I have got something of a role to play in that. Most people must accept the NHS is getting better. There will be a lot of change in the next few years but we can see the benefits in the increased investment. Gordon Brown and I also talk a lot about adapting to globalisation. I believe passionately about investment in skills, science and technology. I want to see that through."

ON GORDON BROWN

It is lunchtime and Mr Blair consumes the odd mouthful of salad as the train heads for London where his next stop will be a meeting with health professionals. In the carriage of the train there is a familiar entourage of advisers reading newspapers, gossiping about the campaign and speaking into mobile phones.

There is one absentee. This is one of the seemingly rare excursions where Mr Brown is not with him. I ask whether the rapprochement extends beyond the election and that the two of them will work together on the reform of the public services.

His answer suggests to me that their pre-election discussions have included ways of reaching some agreement on this agenda, the one that has been the source of most tension between them. Mr Blair goes out of his way to deploy a Brownite term, stressing the need "to personalise" public services.

"Yes we will work on public service reform. It's very important we work closely together on the whole public service reform agenda, on personalising public services, opening them up to a greater diversity of supply."

Has he managed to convert Mr Brown, who has publicly stated that markets in health care are ineffective and unfair?

"No one disputes that a market in the NHS can work like a market in supermarkets. But you can open up a diversity of supply so if a patient can't be treated by the NHS they can use the independent sector. But it must be free at the point of use. I don't believe Gordon has ever had a problem with that at all. It's never been a problem in the discussions we have had together."

Almost as an aside on NHS reform he asks: "Have you been tracking the questions I have been getting from Scottish journalists at the press conferences about the lack of reform in Scotland?" He does not expand, but the implication is clear.

I put it to him that when he and Mr Brown are perceived to be working well, the fortunes of the Government and Labour improve, and when they are getting on badly there is a sense of disarray. That suggests a fragile government as well as a stormy relationship.

"The relationship is not fragile because the mutual respect and friendship goes far deeper than people understand from the outside. But you are right if the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are at odds there is a problem. It is important that the two of us work together and closely.'

Polls suggest that Mr Brown is now more popular with the voters. I suggest that might have something to do with Mr Blair's determination to govern from the centre ground. In the end, such a position is bound to disappoint both those on the left and the right.

"There is that danger, although I think it comes more from the media than the public, that you lose support at both ends. But that is why it is essential that you have a programme that is fully worked out and that we lead from conviction. In opposition, we constantly analysed and reassessed what it is the Labour Party should be for. People in the party used to come to me and say we need to change a policy because it was unpopular with voters. I always said that was never a good reason for changing a policy. Instead we had to ask why the electorate was rejecting a policy. The change had to be rooted in conviction. What matters is that we are a modern social democratic party out of conviction and that you do not simply seek to split the difference on policy issues."

ON CONSERVATIVES

One of the mistakes of the Conservative Party, according to Mr Blair, is to regard New Labour largely as the product of spin.

But he is emphatic we are not witnessing what some have described as the "strange death" of the Conservative Party. "No of course we're not. In the 1980s, people said Labour would never win again. The Conservatives have got to decide what they stand for and how they relate their ideas to the modern world".

I suspect he believes they, too, should move towards the centre ground. "It's perfectly obvious what the Conservatives should do but it may not be obvious to them. I'm not giving them free advice, but while people say their current strategy is very clever it is not a programme for government. How can you run a campaign that doesn't talk about the economy?"

ON LIBERAL DEMOCRATS

What about the Liberal Democrats? Does he regret failing to work more closely with them as he once sought to do?

Perhaps his answer is a pointer for the future. "I wanted to work much more closely on issues beyond constitutional reform, but the Liberal Democrats were opposed to public service reforms. Inside the Liberal Democrats, some of the younger ones look at public service reform in a different way and I am perfectly happy to work with people like that."

On the broader front: "I've got a good relationship with Charles Kennedy and I like him but the problem is that they are not going to form the next government and their polices tend to be an easy way out of difficult decisions."

He highlights Europe as one area where they will be able to work closely. Will there be a referendum on the constitution in Britain if France votes "no" next month? He offers the most ambiguous answer of the interview.

"There will be a referendum in Britain provided there's a constitution." But if France votes "no" there won't be a constitution. "You can't say that for sure ... and we don't know what France will do. But I am assuming there will be a referendum in Britain."

As the train approaches London I ask him whether he actively enjoys being Prime Minister compared with the early days when he got a good press and was hugely popular in the polls.

"In the early days I did enjoy a benign press but I was far less equipped to do the job well. Now I know how to make the system work, my press is a bit different. But I feel more comfortable making the decisions and driving though decisions now compared with when the press was saying nice things and I was painfully aware of my lack of experience."

Next on the agenda was a seminar on health and interviews prior to a trip to West Yorkshire. As a cabinet minister put it: "He would not be putting himself through all this if he planned to pack in shortly after the election."