JEREMY PAXMAN:
Prime Minister, there aren't enough doctors or nurses. There aren't enough teachers. There are more cars on the road than when you came to power. The train service doesn't work. Violent crime is rising. Is that what you meant by the new Britain?

TONY BLAIR:
No. We accept there are all sorts of things we still have to do - to take each one of those things in turn. There are more doctors than when we came to power. There are about 17,000 more nurses. Crime is down 10%, burglary down 25%. I would say, we don't say we've done everything. We've made a start, we've laid foundations.

PAXMAN:
You said "over the five years of a Labour Government, we will rebuild the NHS."

BLAIR:
We made a specific pledge on waiting lists. And we said we'd start to put right the rebuilding of a National Health Service where it depended on need. And as a result we've actually got some 17,000 more nurses and more doctors.

PAXMAN:
But you said "over the five years of a Labour Government we will rebuild the NHS." Did you underestimate the task?

BLAIR:
I don't think we underestimated the task.

PAXMAN:
Why say you could do it in five years?

BLAIR:
We didn't.

PAXMAN:
You said you would rebuild the NHS in five years.

BLAIR:
We made it clear we couldn't do everything in the first term.

PAXMAN:
Why did you say it?

BLAIR:
If you look at the full text, we made it clear...

PAXMAN:
It's in the manifesto.

BLAIR:
It is in the manifesto. We made a specific pledge, to get the waiting lists down by 100,000. We have achieved that pledge, but it is plain that we have to... It is plain that it was never going to be done overnight. Of course it will take time.

PAXMAN:
It was a mistake to say it then?

BLAIR:
No. We do have to rebuild the National Health Service. We are doing it.

PAXMAN:
You said "we WILL" rebuild the NHS in five years.

BLAIR:
What we said was that we will rebuild the National Health Service. And that is precisely what we are doing.

PAXMAN:
Over the five years of a Labour Government. It says so.

BLAIR:
We made it absolutely clear to people. The pledge we gave on health was a pledge that we would reduce waiting lists by 100,000. By no stretch of the imagination could you say that is every problem the National Health Service dealt with. We never pledged incidentally in the last manifesto a single extra nurse, but we have provided 17,000 more.

PAXMAN:
But you did pledge to...

BLAIR:
We didn't commit ourselves to providing any extra doctors or consultants but we have.

PAXMAN:
But you did pledge to rebuild the NHS in five years. You accept that hasn't happened. You've made a start on it.

BLAIR:
We certainly made a start on it. Incidentally, before you leave that, I made it absolutely clear throughout that we could not accomplish it all in one term.

PAXMAN:
Are you still committed to reaching the European average on health spending by 2003/2004?

BLAIR:
No, I didn't say we were committed to that.

BLAIR:
You did say...

PAXMAN:
I said that by the end of the second Comprehensive Spending Review, I wanted to reach the European average.

PAXMAN:
When is that?

BLAIR:
The first Comprehensive Spending Review comes to an end 2003/4 and then you have the next three-year period after that.

PAXMAN:
We are talking about 2006/2007?

BLAIR:
Yes. I made it clear again - because this refers to an interview on the Frost programme - we could only do that provided the economy remains strong.

PAXMAN:
That would be the intention - to reach the European average at that date, not the European average at the time you made the promise?

BLAIR:
Exactly.

PAXMAN:
It's a promise firmly...

BLAIR:
Assuming the strength of the economy. I can't write the Comprehensive Spending Review now.

PAXMAN:
So it's just an aspiration?

BLAIR:
It's what I said at the time. You probably have the words...

PAXMAN:
Yes. ..

BLAIR:
..Of what I said, you will see that I said that, provided the economy remains strong, then we should be able to reach the European average. And incidentally, if we do that, we will only be able to achieve the changes we want to the health service if we accompany it by far-reaching reform. Money is not all it needs.

PAXMAN:
But it is a firm commitment that by 2006/7, if the European average is 8% or 9%, it will be that in this country unless we have had economic collapse?

BLAIR:
No, I didn't say unless there was an economic collapse, I said provided the economy carried on being strong. I wasn't saying there would be a collapse.

PAXMAN:
Strong is a relative judgment.

BLAIR:
It is. It stands to reason that obviously you can't sit down and work out your spending plans now. But it is our objective to reach the European average, and it is our objective to carry on not merely raising health service spending but education spending as well. Which is why the choice in the election is so stark. The Conservatives are saying £20 billion worth of cuts and we're saying keep the investment going.

PAXMAN:
I assume you believe the economy will remain strong?

BLAIR:
I certainly do believe that, yes.

PAXMAN:
Can we look then at your longer term plans? There are proposals in here, and everybody understands that this is a longer term project you are embarked upon, but the plans here stretch ten years. So not just this government but the next government?

BLAIR:
It's sensible in public services to set out a longer term perspective, which is why we have for health, education, transport and so on.

PAXMAN:
But your budget plans only extend to 2003/4. Do you accept that at that point you'll have to cut spending plans or you will have to raise taxes?

BLAIR:
No, I don't accept that. The reason we've been able to get so much money going into the health service and schools now, why we have forward investment plans for schools, hospitals, crime, transport, is because we have had a strong economy and because of two other things which are absolutely vital. The first is a reduction of the national debt, which is reduced interest payments on debt. We were paying out more on interest payments on debt than on the school system when we came in. We're now spending £10 billion more on schools. Secondly, because unemployment is down, there are fewer benefit claimants. Many people have moved into work through programmes like the New Deal, and so we have saved several billion pounds like that as well.

PAXMAN:
So, it can be squared, this circle?

BLAIR:
Well, you can spend more money provided you have a) a strong economy, and b) you are making sure that you are not spending on the costs of economic and social failure. You referred to my manifesto at the last election. I think it was the opening point of the 10-point contract - was spending less on the bills of social and economic failure and more on investment in education.

PAXMAN:
You talk in the latest manifesto for this election about using the private sector to support public endeavour in the public services. What do you think the private sector could do that can't be done by the public sector?

BLAIR:
You have a very good example with the PFI programmes on both school and hospital building. They have been successful - we have built the hospitals on cost and on time. That is one example. Another example is in winter pressures. This year, particularly, we have been prepared to use the private sector where the public sector doesn't have enough facilities to do so.

PAXMAN:
You have been talking about a radical second term.

BLAIR:
Mm-hm.

PAXMAN:
You are now talking about more of the same.

BLAIR:
No, I am not talking about more of the same but building on what we have done. But that is not the only thing about the health service plan that is important. The plan is also important, for example, breaking down the demarcations between nurses and doctors and consultants. I see no reason why nurses can't prescribe more medicines, do some of the jobs that doctors or consultants have traditionally done. There are doctors already in this country today providing some of the minor surgery, consultants reorganising the entire way they work.

PAXMAN:
But when you talk about the spirit of entrepreneurship entering into the public services, does that indicate that you made a mistake in reversing many of the Conservatives' divisions between providers and purchasers, for example, or GP fund-holders?

BLAIR:
In the health service?

PAXMAN:
Yes.

BLAIR:
No, I don't think so. The trouble with the fund-holder system was you had a two-tier system.

PAXMAN:
How will it manifest itself then?

BLAIR:
That is a classic example of a change that's not to do with the private sector, but the primary care trusts which bring together groups of local GPs and others, they are able far more effectively to organise their system and get decent health care for people. By 2004 , they will handle something like 75% of the entire NHS budget. That is a hugely radical change, but it is not in fact dependent on the relationship with the private sector. Having said that, I see no reason why you shouldn't break down barriers between the public and private sector and the voluntary sector.

PAXMAN:
What is the model here, Railtrack? No, It's not. We opposed rail privatisation and we are not following that in any of the work with the private sector we are doing.

PAXMAN:
What is the model then?

BLAIR:
I have given you an example - the private finance initiative for schools and hospitals is an example of the private and public sector working together.

PAXMAN:
A lot of people who work in the public sector have asked me - will you ask the Prime Minister why he is so in love with the private sector?

BLAIR:
I am not in love with the private sector. I simply believe in getting the job done by the most appropriate means.

PAXMAN:
But don't you remember your remarks about scars on your back?

BLAIR:
That was about pushing through change in the public sector and of how difficult it is. But if you talk to a big private sector manager who pushed through change there, they would find it difficult there. What I was talking about was the nature of change. It is difficult. Let me give you an example. With when we started off with the literacy and numeracy strategy, we had a lot of opposition from teachers and others. The teachers have done brilliantly, we have put through that strategy and we have the best ever primary school results the country has seen. So change can be difficult. There are people - some of the complaints of doctors, for example, relate to NHS Direct or the walk-in centres, where people can come in and get immediate access to decent health care.

PAXMAN:
Let me ask you a question about

BLAIR:
And I'm not in love with the private sector, I just believe that where you can use the private sector, use it.

PAXMAN:
Do you think that a company can make too much in profits?

BLAIR:
In what sense do you mean?

PAXMAN:
Do you think profits can be ever unjustifiably large?

BLAIR:
I think they can be if they are monopoly profits, which is why we taxed the privatised utilities, got the exess profits and put that to work in the New Deal. But I don't believe that if you are acting in a competitive market, that it's the job of government to come along and tell a company - you are making too much profit.

PAXMAN:
Do you believe that an individual can earn too much money?

BLAIR:
I don't really - it is not - no, it's not a view I have. Do you mean that we should cap someone's income? Not really, no. Why? What is the point? You can spend ages trying to stop the highest paid earners earning the money but in an international market like today, you probably would drive them abroad. What does that matter? Surely the important thing is to level up those people that don't have opportunity in our society.

PAXMAN:
But where is the justice in taxing someone who earns £34,000 a year, which is about enough to cover a mortgage on a one-bedroom flat in outer London, at the same rate as someone who earns £34 million. Where is the justice?

BLAIR:
The person who earns £34 million, if they're paying the top rate of tax, will pay far more tax on the £34 million than the person on £34,000.

PAXMAN:
I am asking you about the rate of tax.

BLAIR:
I know and what I am saying to you is the rate is less important in this instance than the overall amount of tax that people would pay. You know what would happen, if you go back to the days of high top rates of tax. All that would happen is that those people, who are small in number actually, and you can spend a lot of time getting after the person earning millions of pound a year, and then what you don't do is apply the real energy where it's necessary on things like the children's tax credit, the Working Families Tax Credit, the minimum wage, the New Deal, all the things that have helped people on lower incomes.

PAXMAN:
But where is the justice in it?

BLAIR:
When you say where is the justice in that, the justice for me is concentrated on lifting incomes of those that don't have a decent income. It's not a burning ambition for me to make sure that David Beckham earns less money.

PAXMAN:
But Prime Minister, the gap between rich and poor has by widened while you have been in office.

BLAIR:
A lot of those figures are based on a couple of years ago before many of the measures we took came into effect. But the lowest income families in this country are benefiting from the government. Their incomes are rising. The fact that you have some people at the top end earning more¿

PAXMAN:
..Benefiting more!

BLAIR:
If they are earning more, fine, they pay their taxes.

PAXMAN:
But is it acceptable for gap between rich and poor to widen?

BLAIR:
It is acceptable for those people on lower incomes to have their incomes raised. It is unacceptable that they are not given the chances. To me, the key thing is not whether the gap between those who, between the person who earns the most in the country and the person that earns the least, whether that gap is¿

PAXMAN:
So it is acceptable for gap to widen between rich and poor?

BLAIR:
It is not acceptable for poor people not to be given the chances they need in life.

PAXMAN:
That is not my question.

BLAIR:
I know it's not your question but it's the way I choose to answer it. If you end up going after those people who are the most wealthy in society, what you actually end up doing is in fact not even helping those at the bottom end.

PAXMAN:
So the answer to the straight question is it acceptable for gap between rich and poor to get wider, the answer you are saying is yes.

BLAIR:
No, it's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that my task is¿

PAXMAN:
You are not saying no.

BLAIR:
But I don't think that is the issue¿

PAXMAN:
You may not think it is the issue, but it is the question. Is it OK for the gap to get wider?

BLAIR:
It may be the question. The way I choose to answer it is to say the job of government is make sure that those at the bottom get the chances.

PAXMAN:
With respect, people see you are asked a straightforward question and they see you not answering it.

BLAIR:
Because I choose to answer it in the way that I'm answering it.

PAXMAN:
But you are not answering it.

BLAIR:
I am answering it. What I am saying is the most important thing is to level up, not level down.

PAXMAN:
Is it acceptable for gap between rich and poor to get bigger?

BLAIR:
What I am saying is the issue isn't in fact whether the very richest person ends up becoming richer. The issue is whether the poorest person is given the chance that they don't otherwise have.

PAXMAN:
I understand what you are saying. The question is about the gap.

BLAIR:
Yes, I know what your question is. I am choosing to answer it in my way rather than yours.

PAXMAN:
But you're not answering it.

BLAIR:
I am.

PAXMAN:
You are answering another question.

BLAIR:
I am answering actually in the way that I want to answer it. I tell you why I want to answer it in this way. Because if you end up saying no, actually my task is to stop the person earning a lot of money earning a lot of money, you waste all your time and energy, taking money off the people who are very wealthy when in today's world, they probably would move elsewhere and make their money. What you are not asking me about, which would be a more fruitful line of endeavour, is what are you doing for the poorest people to give them a boost.

PAXMAN:
Let's talk about tax. You have promised¿

BLAIR:
Why don't we talk about the poorest of society and what we are doing for them.

PAXMAN:
I assume you want to be Prime Minister. I just want to be an interviewer. Can we stick to that arrangement?

BLAIR:
Fine.

PAXMAN:
You promised that you won't raise the basic level of income tax and won't raise the higher rate of income tax. You have conceded that national insurance is a tax based upon income. Why won't you¿

BLAIR:
So are a lot of things, so is capital gains tax

PAXMAN:
Why won't you give a guarantee about national insurance?

BLAIR:
Because I am not entering into a situation where we start writing a budget.

PAXMAN:
Why are you prepared to make a guarantee about income tax?

BLAIR:
Because the specific manifesto pledges we made last time on income tax we have repeated.

PAXMAN:
But you also gave an assurance on national insurance, not in the manifesto, but Gordon Brown gave it, that the ceiling wouldn't be raised

BLAIR:
Yes, but if we end up going through each of the reliefs¿

PAXMAN:
Why could you do it last time and not this time?

BLAIR:
We are. We are making precisely the same tax pledges in our manifesto as we did last time.

PAXMAN:
No you are not. With the greatest of respect, last time you promised the ceiling on national insurance would not be raised, or the Chancellor did.

BLAIR:
What Gordon Brown was asked was about the abolition of the national insurance ceiling in the context of the 1992 shadow budget. I have been asked this question ad nauseam in the campaign and what I have answered is that we have not clobbered higher tax earners, we have no intention of doing so. But if you start on national insurance, then you are on to inheritance tax¿

PAXMAN:
I'm only asking about national insurance.

BLAIR:
I know but that's where you would end up. What I can't do is sit here and write a budget, I am afraid.

PAXMAN:
I am merely asking you why you could give this guarantee last time but you can't give it this time and whether any reasonable person wouldn't suppose that you therefore propose to increase national insurance contributions.

BLAIR:
They shouldn't.

PAXMAN:
Why not?

BLAIR:
Because we are not writing a budget now. We have a record of four years to stand on where we haven't done any of these things. Indeed, we have been careful to make sure that the highest income earners are not put at risk or their incentives reduced. I have no intention of going back on that now.

PAXMAN:
Isn't it intellectually incoherent to say what you will do with one tax and not another tax, which is levied on almost the same basis?

BLAIR:
No, it's not intellectually incoherent, you are simply choosing what you will and won't say.

PAXMAN:
Wouldn't a reasonable person conclude that the reason you don't wish to say it is because you plan to raise it?

BLAIR:
No, they wouldn't, because you could go through 250 different reliefs and I can't sit here and write a budget.

PAXMAN:
I am not asking you to write a budget.

BLAIR:
You are.

PAXMAN:
I am asking about national insurance contributions.

BLAIR:
I know but if I give you answers on national insurance and write the budget on that, why not move on to capital gains tax, inheritance tax, corporation tax, another 250 different reliefs.

PAXMAN:
All right. Let's talk about the euro. Famously, there are five tests, which have to be met before we can join the euro. Gordon Brown has said the Treasury will be the custodians of those tests. Can you overrule the Treasury?

BLAIR:
You wouldn't overrule them, it would be a collective decision of government.

PAXMAN:
But the Treasury are the custodians of the test?

BLAIR:
Of course they are, cos they're the Treasury.

PAXMAN:
So Gordon Brown decides when they would be met?

BLAIR:
No, the Treasury¿ When they say they're the custodian of the test, obviously as the Treasury, they are going to decide - are those tests in a technical sense met, and the collective decision of the government will be whether they are met or not.

PAXMAN:
So Gordon Brown decides whether we have a referendum or not?

BLAIR:
No, Gordon Brown doesn't¿ Again, I have been over this. The whole of the government takes a collective decision. When we say the Treasury¿

PAXMAN:
The Treasury decides whether the tests are met?

BLAIR:
The Treasury are the custodians of the tests and it's obvious why they should be. In circumstances where there are economic conditions and economic tests, it's right that we make it clear to people that there is not going to be any political fiddling about with these tests, they have to be met in a genuine economic way.

PAXMAN:
And Gordon Brown is the man who will make that judgment?

BLAIR:
The judgment is made by the government as a whole but of course Gordon will make the judgment with me and make it on the basis of the government as a whole.

PAXMAN:
A re we to take it that the agriculture secretary, the culture secretary and so on will have a view on whether these tests have been met?

BLAIR:
No. What it means is what it says. The Treasury are the custodians of the tests and that is to make it clear to people that these are not going to be politically interfered with. They have to be economically sound. But the decision as to whether to recommend entry into the euro has obviously got to be taken by the Government as a whole. I was asked this question a couple of weeks ago - are you going to be involved? Well, of course.

PAXMAN:
But essentially you are rubber stamping Gordon Brown's decision?

BLAIR:
No. I am not saying that and neither is he.

PAXMAN:
But he decides whether the tests have been met or not?

BLAIR:
The Treasury, because they are economic tests, the Treasury are the custodians of these tests, obviously, to make sure that it's not simply done on a political basis but is a genuine economic decision. The decision then, the judgment as to whether we recommend entry into the euro, is taken by the government as a whole. Gordon, who has been a brilliant Chancellor, I have no doubt at all, will make sure those tests are properly adhered to.

PAXMAN:
You will rubber stamp it then?

BLAIR:
I haven't said that, Jeremy.

PAXMAN:
This takes us to the whole question of your judgment, Prime Minister.

BLAIR:
I have not made that judgment yet.

PAXMAN:
You haven't made that judgment and clearly you will exercise your judgment on that. Let's take a couple of examples of your judgment. Keith Vaz shouldn't be sacked from his job because he hasn't been guilty of anything. Why did you sack Peter Mandelson?

BLAIR:
For the reasons I gave at the time.

PAXMAN:
Which were?

BLAIR:
Which were that people had been misled and whether it was inadvertent or not, it was right, he felt and I felt, that he should go.

PAXMAN:
He didn't do anything wrong. The inquiry found he did nothing wrong.

BLAIR:
I said at the time that Peter went that I was sure that the inquiry would find that he had done absolutely nothing improper at all.

PAXMAN:
Do you still think he misled you?

BLAIR:
I don't think it was a case of him misleading me. As a result of answers that were given, people were misled. That chapter is closed.

PAXMAN:
It's not entirely closed. This is a man who is a close and trusted ally of yours. I suggest to you you panicked.

BLAIR:
Well, I am sorry but you are wrong. The reasons I gave are the reasons that are still valid.

PAXMAN:
But he didn't do anything wrong.

BLAIR:
I said at the time I believed he had done nothing improper.

PAXMAN:
So why did you sack him?

BLAIR:
For the reason I gave at the time - that people had been misled and it was right that, in those circumstances, he went. It was a tough decision and a harsh decision.

PAXMAN:
So why didn't you sack Keith Vaz?

BLAIR:
Because Keith Vaz didn't have anything to do with misleading people. The Hammond inquiry found he had acted, not merely had he not acted improperly, but he had acted entirely properly throughout. So it would have been grossly unjust to have dismissed him.

PAXMAN:
Keith Vaz is a good minister?

BLAIR:
He has been an excellent European minister, and it's sad that the moment the Hammond inquiry found those allegations were unproven, the media moved on to other allegations. It is difficult for him in circumstances where people aren't prepared to look at whether the allegations are proven or not. I believe that strongly.

PAXMAN:
You talked about him in the past tense "has been".

BLAIR:
He has been.

PAXMAN:
Is he in your next government?

BLAIR:
I am not reshuffling on any basis, Jeremy. The election has not happened.

PAXMAN:
When we look at some of these matters, particularly Mr Mandelson and Mr Vaz, essentially their mistake was to cosy up to the Hinduja brothers. Why should they be¿have anything done against them for that when you have done the same thing.

BLAIR:
I totally agree with you. That's why Keith Vaz is still a minister, or was still a minister until parliament was dissolved.

PAXMAN:
But Peter Mandelson isn't?

BLAIR:
Because I told you at the time it wasn't to do with the Hinduja passports. So when you say to me was there something corrupt in relation to the Hindujas? No, there was not.

PAXMAN:
Of course there was not. He was cleared in the inquiry. Yet you sacked him.

BLAIR:
I said at the time it was not in respect of that. I said at the time of the Hammond inquiry, that that indicated that no-one had acted improperly in relation to passports. Which is why the stuff about the Hindujas was all nonsense. They were given their passports properly and not even that quickly, and as the inquiry found, no-one did anything wrong.

PAXMAN:
But these letters from you to the Hinduja brothers, two men with something of a cloud over them in India, you are comfortable with all of those, are you, "yours ever, Tony"?

BLAIR:
I am comfortable with them. They are leading members of the Asian community, and you say "this cloud"¿

PAXMAN:
Would you take money from them again?

BLAIR:
I didn't take money from them at all. They did donate money, as the Hinduja Foundation has donated money to many causes in this country. I'll just say in relation to the so-called shadow hanging over them, that is in relation to allegations that, to the best of my recollection, are something like 20 years out of date.

PAXMAN:
Do you think it's appropriate your party takes money from people with a shadow over them like that in India?

BLAIR:
My party hasn't taken money from them.

PAXMAN:
Would you be happy if they did?

BLAIR:
I don't believe it would be right for us to take money from people except in circumstances where we are satisfied that that is appropriate. But, as a matter of fact, we haven't taken any money from them.

PAXMAN:
So the answer would be yes?

BLAIR:
No. We haven't taken any money from them.

PAXMAN:
Can we look at the campaign. When you look back to the launch of that campaign at St Olave's and St Xavier's school, how soon did you realise it was a mistake?

BLAIR:
I don't think it was a mistake to launch my first campaign in a school.

PAXMAN:
Come on! Seriously, there must have been a point where you are there in front of the stained glass windows and you thought you were the vicar of St Albions!

BLAIR:
I tell you what I thought. The thing I did think was - I hoped people would pay attention to what I was saying. That was a naive view because they didn't in the end.

PAXMAN:
No - it was an audience of teenage girls. What have they got to do with negative equity? It was a mistake, wasn't it?

BLAIR:
No, I don't believe it was a mistake to launch in a school. It was sensible and people should pay attention to what we said, rather than whether there was a stained glass window behind me or girls in the front row of the audience or not.

PAXMAN:
You don't regret it? You weren't embarrassed?

BLAIR:
No. There are far more important issues in the campaign than that.

PAXMAN:
You didn't see the comical side of it?

BLAIR:
I certainly saw the comical side in the newspapers the next day. But then you have to have a sense of humour in my business.

PAXMAN:
It's nice Gordon Brown to take the rap for it?

BLAIR:
I didn't know that he had done.

PAXMAN:
Yes, he has.

BLAIR:
It would be unjust if he did.

PAXMAN:
On the subject of Gordon Brown, is he your natural successor?

BLAIR:
I think that¿ How many days are we from the election? Three days from the election? It's unwise for me to speculate as to whether I will have this job after Thursday.

PAXMAN:
I assume you will be leader of the Labour Party.

BLAIR:
Well, and certainly not to start speculating who my successor may be. I have said on many occasions he is in my view one of the most brilliant people in British politics, he has done a fantastic job as Chancellor. It is not an ignoble ambition to be prime minister of this country. But as he says and I say, let's win the election.

PAXMAN:
You make him sound like the heir apparent.

BLAIR:
I don't make him sound like anything, I simply say what I've always said.

PAXMAN:
When you have been fighting this campaign, there hasn't been a point where you haven't been ahead. Have you ever felt the slightest twinge of sympathy for poor old William Hague?

BLAIR:
I don't feel any sympathy for what he is putting forward. The Conservatives basically learned nothing from the defeat in ¿97. They are putting forward policies for massive cuts in public investment, for return to¿ Hang on! You talk about sympathy¿ PAXMAN As leader of a party, presented as the underdog throughout the campaign.

BLAIR:
I sympathise with anyone who is leader of the Conservative Party. I don't sympathise with somebody putting forward policies that I believe¿

PAXMAN:
That you don't agree with!

BLAIR:
Not just that I don't agree with but that I genuinely think damage the country. Their policy on Europe, which hasn't received much scrutiny, is one that would have this country on the exit door for Europe. A policy of cutting a quarter¿

PAXMAN:
With the greatest of respect, we have spoken to him about Conservative policies, we don't need to talk to you about them.

BLAIR:
You are talking about the choices in the election. Just as you are the interviewer, I am supposed to give the answers. The answer is that it is actually important to defeat the Conservatives in this election because the policies they are standing for, like taking a quarter of university budget away, are policies worth defeating.

PAXMAN:
Could you ever have too big a majority?

BLAIR:
I haven't got any majority yet. I have not and will not speculate.

PAXMAN:
You have a majority of 179 in the last parliament.

BLAIR:
Not this election.

PAXMAN:
Could you have too big a majority after this election?

BLAIR:
I am not speculating on the majority because I don't have one. You guys in the media can speculate about it.

PAXMAN:
I am not asking you to speculate but this is a straightforward question. Could you have too big a majority?

BLAIR:
I know what you are asking me. I am not getting into the business of predicting majorities. Or saying whether I think this majority is right or that majority is wrong. Any politician in my position, going into an election campaign, is out and hungry for every piece of support. I am asking for the support because I believe in the policies I am putting forward. You people in the media can speculate on the size of the majority. The opinion polls can and the bookmakers can. But it's the public who is the boss. They will making the decision. We should leave it to them to make the decision on the basis of what they believe.

PAXMAN:
Could too many of them decide to vote for you?

BLAIR:
You are not putting that question forward seriously?

PAXMAN:
I am!

BLAIR:
That I should sit here...?

PAXMAN:
Is it a danger having too big a majority?

BLAIR:
We don't have any majority yet!

PAXMAN:
No, you haven't had the election yet!

BLAIR:
Exactly which is why let's talk about the issues instead of this stuff about - is the majority going to be this or that when we haven't got one.

PAXMAN:
I'm merely asking you, Prime Minister, whether you think there is any danger of having too big a majority.

BLAIR:
There is a danger if people don't come out and vote for what they believe in. I hope they vote for that.

PAXMAN:
For the health of democracy, you don't think there is a question at issue here about how big a majority is healthy?

BLAIR:
Surely the single biggest question in a democracy is to get people to vote for what they believe in. The idea the Conservative Party can come along, every strategy having failed in this campaign, their campaign useless because they have lost all the arguments on policy, and say to the public we can't think of a good reason for voting for us, but please Labour might win on Friday, so lend us your vote and give us a bit of a shot. It is unbelievable they should come forward with that. You asked me if I felt sorry for William Hague. I feel sorry for people leading the Conservative Party in its present state, but I don't feel sorry for people putting forward the policies they are putting forward. If the public want us to put that money into schools and hospitals, if they want us to strengthen the economy - come out and vote for it. Don't vote for the Conservative Party out of sympathy, when they are going to reverse the very policies people support.

PAXMAN:
Prime Minister, thank you very much.