Blair institute for global change working with over a0 countries, the former prime minister is still searching for answers to the great challenges of our time. Labour's back in power after 14 years. Very, very few people know what it feels like to actually be the prime minister of a new government, to be a country's leader. What does. . . What did it feel like as you walked through that door and into power in 1997? well, for me, the feelings were less those of elation. I mean, everyone around me was. . . . . Was, you know, celebrating, but i was very conscious of the fact, first of all, i'd never been a minister, let alone a prime minister, and secondly, there is an awesome sense of responsibility. So you realise you're going to be taking decisions, you know you're on the start of a journey, you know the journey is going to be really difficult, you know there's going to be a whole lot of events and circumstances you can't predict. And you're acutely conscious of the fact that there is this immense burden of responsibility that comes with power, or should do. One of the fundamental challenges that notjust britain but lots of western democracies face today is populism. And i would say — tell me if you think differently — i would say populism is broadly that mode of politics in which charismatic leaders claim to represent the will of the people against a ruling elite. In your view, should populism be, as george orwell said of saints, always considered guilty until proven innocent? first of all, you've got to distinguish between wanting to do things that are popular, which most politicians do, and populism. I define populism as exploiting a grievance rather than solving it, as riding the anger rather than providing the answer. That's how i define it. But, you know, other people can define it differently. So i don't think that every politician that people talk about as a populist, necessarily all the things they say are wrong, and if they've got solutions to the grievances, they may be right. The populist, though, will often. . . They exploit the grievance rather than try and deal with it, because the grievance is what gives them traction on the political system. And in my view, you know, i feel this very, very strongly today, the challenge of democracy and the answer to populism is efficacy. It's effective delivery of change. And in the end, whether you're a populist or you're not a populist, if you've got an issue that is troubling for people, the question is, what's the solution? and the people that have the solution will, in the end, succeed. In terms of the theories as to why populism seems in the ascendant, one of the theories is, in a sense, a direct challenge to you and your mode of politics. And it's that people like you didn't fully understand, at the time, how globalisation would create losers. So you said in 2005 of globalisation, i think it was in your conference speech, i hear people say we have to stop and debate globalisation. . . You might as well debate whether autumn should follow summer. They're not debating it in china and india. They are seizing its possibilities in a way that will transform their lives and ours. But isn't the truth that the globalisation which you championed, for understandable reasons in a very different era, but that globalisation robbed millions of people of their agency and it changed their communities in ways they don't like? did it? what, globalisation did that? a lot of people might think that. Globalisation. . . First of all, people like myself have never argued for a single moment that you're just to let globalisation happen. I mean, we introduced a minimum wage, made massive investment in public services, reformed our public services. We kept our economy strong. We dealt with issues that were a real difficulty for the public, and we invested in the public infrastructure to do that. We didn'tjust let globalisation happen, but globalisation as a force, let's be very clear, globally, it's lifted more people out of poverty than ever before in human history. Ever before. The reason why life expectancy today is way above what it was 50 years ago is as a result of globalisation. If we end up, by the way, backtracking on globalisation, putting up barriers to trade, ending up making it harder for people to trade and interact with each other, we're going to slow growth, we're going to slow those things that have actually kept inflation low until very recently, and we're going to do ourselves a lot of damage. So globalisation, let's not misunderstand this, it's driven by people in the end, and it's driven by technology. But have you been sufficiently sensitive to the fact that what might excite you, might excite me, frankly, about disruption, about technology, about movement of people, some people don't want that. Some people want the world to slow down. Some people. . . And you might not be one of them, but there are some people. . . Exactly. Some people do, but, amol, they're not going to. . . The world's not going to slow down. Isn't that rather insensitive to the fact that millions of people want the world to slow down. . . Maybe they do. . . And they vote accordingly? maybe they do. And they prefer the past to what their communities look like today? sure. And in the 19th century, by the way, there were lots of people that didn't want the industrial revolution. They thought it was wrong, they thought that as a result of that, people were going to be leaving the countryside, going into towns, they were going to be in factories where there were no proper protection for people. All of these problems, in the end, had to be sorted out in the industrial revolution. But you were never going to stop it. It's like today with technology, you're not going to stop this technology revolution. That doesn't mean to say you say, well, just let it happen, then. No, of course not. You need regulation, you need to reskill people, you need to help people, you need to invest in things like education. It's. . . |t's the difference between saying something is inevitable and letting it happen, and saying it's inevitable, and we're going to guide you and help you through it. Some people might listen to you and say, you know what, tony? we've lost out. We've lost out in the last 20 years. Our communities have been changed, ourjobs have gone overseas, and it's all well and good for you and this bbc journalist to say globalisation is real, the technology revolution is coming, but i think you need to be a bit more sensitive to the fact that we don't like how the world is changing, we want it to slow down, and what might excite you horrifies us. Yeah, but i'm completely sensitive to it. So if you take immigration, one of the extraordinary ways that my time in government has been rewritten is people say, 0h, he had an open door policy for immigration. No, we absolutely didn't. But the numbers surged. The numbers of people that came in, although they are way, way below what they are today. . . But it's true, as we. . . And people often, by the way, do net migration cos fewer people were leaving the country, but it's true, the numbers of people coming in rose somewhat during my time of office, but the economy was booming. A lot of those people were europeans, single people that came and worked in our hospitality sector. Was that wrong? it actually helped our economy. And what, of course, you need to do is to provide control and order on immigration. This is why we reduced, for example, the numbers of asylum seekers dramatically. But i can deal with the problems arising out of immigration. What is completely dishonest for me to do, if i'm a leader today, is to say to you, i can stop yourjob, for which there is now a technology solution, i can stop yourjob from being lost, because i can't. I can stop all migration into this country, because i can't. There's no way that's going to happen, there's no modern developed country in which that is happening. And, by the way, if you do end up trying to do this, what we've done with brexit, what's the result? we've now got higher levels of immigration than ever before, and we've swapped out usually single people coming from europe, as i say, to work in things like the hospitality sector, forfamilies from asia and africa. I mean, how has this. . . ? how has this helped us? so when you say to me, you've got to be more sensitive to people's anxieties, i was always and am super sensitive to the anxieties, but i'm not going to sit here and tell you there's a simple solution, which is i can protect you from the way the world is changing, because i can't. Of course. And that's the honest truth. And if we had more honesty on that and politicians said, look, ourjob is to help you through this process of change, not to tell you something that we know is not true, which is we can stop it. . . Sure. By the age of 43, blair was prime minister and leading a new labour, but by the time he left office ten years later, it was under the cloud of the iraq war. The decision to invade — based largely on the supposed threat of weapons of mass destruction — came to dominate and define his legacy. Millions marched in protest before the war. Thousands died during it. No weapons of mass destruction were ever found. Many will never forgive blair, and his critics say the fallout of the war continues today. To what extent do you accept that what happened with iraq and the fallout from iraq did erode trust in our democracy? yeah, look, there were people who passionately disagreed. And obviously, as a result of the discovery that some, at least, a substantial part of the intelligence around weapons of mass destruction were. . . Was. . . Was wrong, of course. But here's the thing that we did. Because of my anxiety about that, we held the longest and most detailed inquiry any government's ever held. . . Actually, we held several inquiries. Well, there were six. And all of them came to the same conclusion, which is that no—one had deceived anyone, because it would be deceit that undermined trust in democracy. And the truth is, i'm afraid, that some people just won't accept the results of those inquiries. Although nowadays, as i always say to people, you can go and read the intelligence online, and you can see exactly what we were told at the time. What's the biggest lesson that you took from the iraq experience? that you've got to know much more deeply the terrain into which you're going, if you're going to take, um, foreign military action. Now, the truth is, what i would say is you can disagree powerfully with what we did in iraq or afghanistan, but having done it, in my view, we should have held our position. You know, in afghanistan, i really don't think we ever needed to withdraw in the way that we did. And i do think that our. . . Our failure, having done what we did to hold with it has. . . Has had also repercussions that have been very difficult for western policy. Well, let's take that thought and apply it to the international context today. Around the world today, as you've often written about, spoken about, we have many strongman or autocratic leaders. One of those is vladimir putin, and you've said in the past, one thing is clear — vladimir putin cannot be allowed to win. Based on current evidence — and given what you say about having the will to stick it out in iraq and afghanistan — based on current evidence, does the west have the will to face down president putin? i think so, yes. I think it does, and i think it will. And so, you know, at some point there will be a political settlement of this. But in the meantime, it's absolutely essential, in my view, that we do everything we can to support ukraine. And if there is a political settlement, why should ukraine give up an inch of land to someone who's taken it by violence? yeah, that's a very good question, and you'll have to negotiate all the details of that. But the most essential thing for the ukrainians will be that, whatever agreement, whatever precise agreement is reached, it will be reached on a basis which means that neither putin nor any succeeding russian president ever tries to do something similar again. And when you talk to the countries in eastern europe — who, by the way, thank goodness we did bring in to the european union and did bring in to nato — their anxiety is that russian aggression must not be rewarded, in the sense that it must be clear to any russian president that a military adventure of this nature again, to topple a democratically elected president, will never succeed. You spent a lot of time with putin. Senatorjohn mccain, the late, great republican, a giant of american politics, a great leader, said that when he looked in putin's eyes, he saw three letters — ak,ag,andab. When you looked in putin's eyes, what did you see? well, i can't say i spent a lot of time looking in his eyes, frankly, but the putin i originally came across, he was at that time a member of the g7, so it was the g8. At that time, we would invite russia to nato conferences. You know, it was a very different situation than the putin that he became. Now, maybe he was always like that and we didn't spot it, but i don't think so, i think he changed over time and then changed again in recent years. Because the putin that i knew would never have engaged in such a folly as ukraine, you know, he would have understood that there was no way he was going to invade a neighbouring country and topple its democratically elected president, and, you know, turn it into a fiefdom of russia. Maybe there's a sense in which he was exploiting grievances and responding to something. Let's put this in the context of iraq. For the reasons you outlined, i don't think now�*s the time to relitigate the case for iraq. People can watch the footage of those public inquiries if they want, it's all available online. But what do you say to the argument, not that the fallout from iraq caused putin to invade ukraine, that's. . . That's implausible, but rather that the iraq war and that experience left the west morally and militarily exhausted and weak, and that putin, if he's about one thing, it's about exploiting weakness. Yeah, but i think the more dangerous lesson that putin drew from western policy in the last years has been that we don't have staying power. I mean, i think. . . . You said a moment ago, you think the west does have the staying power to see him off. I do in respect of ukraine, i do think that, but i can see why he would think that's not true. And you can see from some of the debates that have been happening in the us, for example, how he might draw that conclusion still. Now, i happen to think he's wrong because i think this is happening in europe's, you know, at europe's back door, so i think the europeans will hold firm on ukraine, but i think, for example, in respect of syria, i think in respect of the withdrawal from afghanistan, no, i think that's. . . His. . . His. . . What he thinks is that the west doesn't have staying power, and that's why it's necessary to prove you do. And there's no engagement you will ever make militarily, that doesn't take its toll. Yeah. But having done it, you've got to stick with it, otherwise the conclusion that other people draw is you're going to walk away. But you did it in sierra leone. You did it in kosovo. You committed 50,000 troops, i think, british troops. I mean, keir starmer couldn't do that. That's two thirds of the modern british army. And you say you need to have the staying power and the will to stick it out. Does that mean and is your sense, looking around the world, that we as a country need to spend more on defence? well, we're going to have to rebuild our defence capabilities, for sure. And we're going to have to recognise two things. One, we will be doing that in cooperation with other countries because we don't have everything we need as a military on our own, and it's not realistic to think we can get it in the same way that maybe 30, a0 years ago we could have. But secondly, warfare itself is changing dramatically. I mean, if you want to look at an area where people don't often think about technology, look at defence and the way the whole nature of warfare is. . . Has changed. Of course, but. . . And ukraine is a fascinating example from the military perspective. So, i mean, yes, we're going to have to do a lot more to prepare ourselves. I don't need to tell you that there are a lot of demands on the public purse at the moment. Yeah. And when someone says to rachel reeves, chancellor, we need to spend more on defence, we need to rebuild our defences, and she faces tough choices, and keir starmer faces tough choices as a leader, they might say, well, we can't afford it. Yeah, absolutely. So this is a big challenge. And that brings you back to the central challenge that our government has, and any government in the developed world has today, which is how do you avoid a situation where you're spending more money than ever before, taxing people heavily, with poor outcomes? and my answer to that is technology. That is the only way through that. And that's why i say to people now, the big question for any political leader in modern politics is, how do i understand, master and harness the technology revolution? all modern democracies face the same challenge. And, by the way, all modern developing nations face the same opportunity, which is — and some of them, the smart ones, are doing this — if they can embrace this technology, they don't need to create a health care system like ours, they don't need to create an education system like ours. They can leapfrog, if they use the technology properly, and that's part of the work we do with countries all around the world. How would you describe britain's standing in the world compared to 20 years ago? let me put it this way. When i was prime minister. . . . . My foreign policy was based on three pillars. One, america's strongest ally. Two, key players in europe. Three, the department for international development, which was, in my view, the best soft power arm of any government in the world. And the truth of the matter is we are weaker on all three now. I mean, department for international development is gone, its budget�*s been cut. Um. . . We're out of europe, obviously, so we are no longer key players there. Are we america's strongest ally? well, that's a question today. I mean, i—i think that our security and military still have a very, very close relationship, but. . . . . Politically. . . . . Uh, a lot more open to question. I think what is implicit rather than explicit in what you're saying is that britain is smaller and less influential in a more dangerous world. Yeah. But, i mean, it's a consequence of decisions that we've taken. You've said about the gaza situation, it's become clear that decades of conventional western diplomacy around the israeli—palestinian issue will need to be fundamentally rethought. Can you just spell out what that means? the only sustainable solution remains that the palestinians have the dignity of statehood and the israelis have the necessity of security. That doesn't sound like a rethinking, so what's the rethinking that needs to happen? the rethinking is that you're not going to get that unless you have a. . . . . Um, a palestinian politics that is unified, but on the basis of promoting peace, and you have an israeli politics that is satisfied that its basic security is going to be protected, which is one of the reasons why i argued for and then was part of the work to get the abraham accords between israel and the uae, because i think the arab—israeli relationship has to be normalised if you want. . . If you want peace. Whereas the conventional way of thinking is, no, you make a deal between the israelis and palestinians over statehood, and then you normalise with the arab countries. I have always thought — or, put it like this, over the last ten years have strongly argued for — the fact that you need to normalise in order to provide the environment in which israel feels comfortable with the concept of a palestinian state, provided palestinian politics is also reformed and changed in the way i've described. Is what you've described within reach? yeah, it's. . . It's doable. I always say to people that the thing that's most frustrating about the israeli—palestinian issue is not that there isn't a solution, but that there is. I mean, the problem we had in northern ireland was that we managed to create a peace agreement where there was no agreement as to the ultimate outcome. You know, the unionists still believed northern ireland should remain part of the uk, the nationalists still believed there should be a united ireland. We never resolved that issue. Whereas, with the middle east, with the israeli—palestinian issue, traditionally, at least, there's been an agreement for a two—state solution. Since blair left power, he's continued to make headlines and, now in his 70s, is farfrom finished with politics. There's this very, very powerful section in the new book, this chapter, ambition. And i think this is the most important paragraph in the whole book, and maybe that it helps us understand you in a way that we haven't before. The moment. . . — this is what you write. . . I shouldn't have to remind you of this, but i will! the moment i saw what power was and what it could do, i wanted it. I wanted it for the usual mix of motives — to change the world, to put principle into practice, to be respected and recognised as a person with power, and to feel that power, to feel how it could shape my world around me as well as the world of others. So, sirtony blair, do you miss being prime minister? well. . . . . What my wife always says to me is, you miss it until you remember it properly. But of course. . . Of course, in one sense you do. Although i, you know, i've been really lucky in the sense that i've built an organisation in which, you know, we do a lot of really interesting things in the world, so i feel an enormous sense of purpose. So i'm not. . . I'm not sort of longing for it in that way. But if you. . . If you say to me, do i miss it? of course at points you miss it. But do you see why some people might. . . Some people. Others would read that, hear it and be in awe and respect it, but some people might regard it with great suspicion. They might say, what do you want with all this power? you know, that's a sort of megalomaniac attack. Why do you want to be powerful in the world? yeah. But, you know, ithink. . . . . People always say they want politicians to be honest, and then when you are honest, they go, oh, my goodness! but. . . Maybe there are exceptions to this, but i don't know any. . . . . Politicians that's reached the top that. . . . . That hasn't got that strong, striving and ambition — alongside, of course, the desire to do good. And it can be in in the order i'vejust described it or the other way around, and hopefully it's the other way around — it's the principle first and the power second, but you've got to be honest about it. Of course you're. . . You know, power is a motivator. Top advice to young people thinking about a career in politics? don't do it unless, one, you've learnt about the world first before you go into politics, so get a lot of experience outside of politics. And, two, don't do it unless you really, really, really believe in it. Because it's not a job, it's a vocation. You wrote in ajourney about asking your mum whether, if she could be young and have her time again, she would indeed do it all again? and she said no. Would you? um. . . . . There's lots of things i would do differently. But i think what she meant, what always worries you, is if you have all yourtime again. . . . . You know you're just going to make different mistakes. So. . . So that's the balance. Sir tony blair, thank you very much indeed for your time. Thanks, amol. All the best. Appreciate it. Hello there. The month of september can often be quite a turbulent one. The transition from summer into autumn and the final full week of september has been just that. Look at thursday's rain. A lot of heavy rain drifting out of northern england and northern ireland. This darker blue here, a line of torrential thundery showers with some hail in there as well. Already still with days to spare, woburn in bedfordshire has had its wettest september on record, but it's also had its wettest month ever on record, and we've got an amber weather warning which will remain in force for the next few hours. And so we are just going to continue to add to those rainfall totals. So a line of heavy rain will move its way south out of the midlands, down into southern england and south—east england. Behind it, the wind direction swinging around to a northerly. A few scattered showers with elevation could turn a little wintry as well, as it turns colder from the north, so this weather front slowly eases away during the day this friday and then behind it, that colder air starts to tuck in. A real noticeable difference to the feel of our weather story. So yes, it will be a wet start across east anglia, south—east england. For a time that rain clearing perhaps away from the kent coast by lunchtime and then quite an improvement, actually. Some sunshine coming through. A few scattered showers, but a brisk northerly wind making it feel quite cool out there. Eight to 14 degrees below par for this stage of the month. Now, as we move out of friday into the weekend, we start with this ridge of high pressure. A quiet start to the weekend, but there's more wet weather to come as we move into sunday. But with that high pressure, well, that means we could have quite a chilly start first thing on saturday morning. Temperatures and sheltered glens of scotland and northeast england down below freezing, so a frost is not out of the question here. We will continue to see the wind direction swinging around to more of a north westerly that will drive in showers on saturday across exposed west coast, and one or two running down through the cheshire gap as well. Top temperatures on sunday at around 15 degrees, the best of the sunshine in sheltered southern and eastern areas. Then, as we move out of saturday into sunday, here's that rain. And it means an unsettled start into next week slowly improving. Live from washington, this is bbc news. Israeli air strikes in lebanon continue, despite international calls for a cease—fire. Us president biden pledges an additional $8 billion in military aid for ukraine. Warnings of a potentially catastrophic storm surge as hurricane helene bears down on low—lying coastal areas of florida. Hello. Israel has carried out more aerial raids on lebanon on thursday, rejecting calls from the international community for a three—week cease—fire with hezbollah. The israeli army says it continues to fight hezbollah with full force, hitting 220 hezbollah targets in 2a hours. This is footage released by the israel defense forces, showing a strike in southern beirut that killed the head of hezbollah's drone unit. Lebanon's health ministry said the latest israeli strikes killed at least 92 people, bringing the death toll from israeli raids this week to more than 600. This week marked the deadliest period between the two sides since 2006.