Is Theresa May the new Machiavelli?

First topic message reminder :

It was enjoyable to see the humiliation of Osborne and Gove, when they were summarily dismissed from the government, but what followed seemed bizarre. Theresa May’s first cabinet appointments saw the thoroughly undiplomatic Boris Johnson (who doesn’t seem to know the difference between Egypt and Turkey) become foreign secretary, and fellow Leave supporter David Davis, who thinks the border between the north and south of Ireland is ‘internal’, become the secretary of state for Brexit. ‘The three Brexiteers’ were completed with the recall of the disgraced Liam Fox to the post of trade secretary. So has Theresa May lost the plot already, or was she being Machiavellian?

Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527) was an Italian politician and diplomat who is best known for writing ‘The Prince’. He has occasionally been called the founder of modern political science, but he is infamous for describing immoral behaviour as being normal and effective in politics. As a result, the term ‘Machiavellian’ is often associated with political deceit and deviousness. Some have argued that it’s because of Machiavelli that ‘Old Nick’ became an English expression for the devil.

Machiavelli’s idea was that a prince needs to please both sides, the rich and the poor, even if that means telling them what they want to hear and lying. Theresa May’s speech when she first arrived in Downing Street contained promises to fight injustice and to help those who are “just managing”, comments which most us will take with a pinch of salt when uttered by a Tory. We know from bitter experience that Tories always feed the rich first and foremost and that everyone else ends up with little more than the crumbs.

In the EU referendum campaign, May came out for Remain, although she was invisible most of the time. Several of us remarked on Twitter that she was keeping a low profile so as not to offend anyone on either side, and thereby put herself in a strong position should a vacancy for Tory leader and PM occur. I’m sure Machiavelli would have approved of that tactic. Now, after a campaign of lies, xenophobia and promises that are impossible to square (such as ending free movement of people while still having full access to the single market), the country has narrowly voted for Brexit, Cameron has run away and May is expected to implement the decision.

So those three stooges have been handed the poisoned chalice of unravelling 43 years of British membership of the EU. David Davis is so thick that he told Dermot Murnaghan that Britain will get “a very, very large trade area, much bigger than the European Union, probably ten times the size”. A trade area that large would be twice the size of the global economy! Davis is so out of his depth that he thinks Britain can negotiate trade deals with EU countries separately, when they only negotiate as the EU. So has May set these clowns up to fail? After all, what makes ‘a good prince’ in the eyes of Machiavelli is one who figures out how to not take much blame when things go wrong……

Some of her other appointments can be seen in a similar light. Her opponent and Brexit supporter Andrea Leadsom, who tried to make capital out of May’s inability to have children, has been given the job of environment secretary, despite being a climate change denier, an opponent of wind farms and a supporter of foxhunting. It will be her job to explain to farmers what will happen when they stop receiving EU subsidies. And then we have the Brexit supporter Priti Patel, who in 2013 called for the abolition of the international development department, saying: “It is possible to bring more prosperity to the developing world and enable greater wealth transfers to be made from the UK by fostering greater trade and private sector investment opportunities”. Guess what? May has put her in charge of the very department she wanted to abolish!

Machiavelli’s ‘The Prince’ is a manual on acquiring and keeping political power. Is May seeing off any potential rivals (some of whom demanded that a Brexit supporter should be PM because of the referendum result) by giving them impossible roles, or ones with which they have no empathy? Only time will tell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli

Far from being a sensible strategy, PM May's strategy is antagonistic, unfriendly, paranoid, and childish.

Certainly is


Which is surely good news for any supporter of a Socialist Labour Party.

We shall see - it seems to me they're trying to throw all the socialists out of the Labour party

I think PM May is right in keeping her hand close to her chest. Not to keep her tactics from the EU, but because she knows she is unlikely to get all that Brexiters want - namely the Earth and all that is in it. With Merkel unpopular in Germany, leading a coalition and due an election next year, what will happen. Even if she won, would she still have the authority she seems to have now. France is due an election and the likely next leader will do away with the border controls on French soil. Which will be supported by Marie Le Penn presumably. That will lead to an influx of 'war weary' migrants on English shores. And what will be the reaction of the nations who have agreed free migration in return for free trade.

Ah well, I never get involved in discussing politics. Ooops

trevor - you need to contribute more often - such an interesting analysis.

I tend to upset people too much. Particularly old people.

Talking to a group last night I asked them why they had voted Brexit (I knew most had). Two reasons came out. The main one being that they wanted the 'good old days' back. 'We ruled ourselves and things were good'.
It didn't go down well when I pointed out it was really all a temporary illusion on their parts. They felt better in the late 50'/60s because their parents had just come out of unusually depressing decades of the 30's depression, the World War and the slow recovery of missing luxuries. This affected their daily lives in many ways. It's simply like recovering from a long illness. Of course things feel better.
But long 'illnesses' can leave lasting effects, and in the case of Britain is was fast ailing economy which neither Labour or Conservatives could get hold of.
Try telling them that it was joining the EU that eventually saved us.

The other was migrants. I tried to explain my previous post but I think I confused them too much.

Anyway, I'm recovering from the bruises.

Phil's right - lets hear more from you - I promise no bruises

The interesting aspect for me is who the people with all the 'good old days' expectations will blame when their dream is not delivered - and it won't be.

It could well be the Labour Party for 'saddling us with so many immigrants' or 'the media' for reporting the uncomfortable facts ( or, at least those elements of it which do!) , or the perceived fifth-columnists of the 'liberal elite'( whoever they are) who are seen to be responsible for the continuing opposition to Brexit - or they could simply take the easy option so beloved of many who fall back on Tony Blair as the author of all the nation's ills!

I suspect that public opinion will not blame the flawed promises and grotesquely misleading assertions ( ie lies) of either UKIP or the Tories, who seem to be comfortably immune from chastisement , not least because of their wholehearted support and protection from the likes of the Daily Mail and The Sun.

The public at large - even the more rational elements of it - are not disposed to believe that Labour are the solution to any of our problems, and given the ineffectiveness and incoherence of them in opposition, why should they...?

Given that the Daily Mail and The Sun sell a total of only 3.5m copies between them, out of a total population of 64m - or 54m if you exclude Scotland and Wales - how much influence do you think they really have? No-one knows how many buy them because 'I prefer this one' or 'I have always bought it'. I seriously think that too much emphasis is put on the influence of papers today. Plummeting advertising revenue surely shows the decreasing influence of newspapers while people switch to TV and other forms of devices like smartphones.

I've never voted Labour. I've never understood their dislike of capitalism. It's been with us since Eve had an apple and shared it with Adam for a share in his immortality. Unfortunately the venture failed. Hey Ho. For me the easiest answer is for Labour to go into partnership with Capitalism and improve the infrastructure of the country to the advantage of ALL. Would that be acceptable? I don't care who improves my life, just get it done. But then I'm only a simple person.

I would suggest that some of you are 'capitalists' when you invest your money in a bank, insurance company or stock market. You grow richer (well, hopefully), the bank etc. then lend the money - often to government - in the form of Government Bonds, and they gain interest. You may not be rich , but you capitalise on your wealth.

And that's why I seldom talk politics.

And that's why I seldom talk politics.

I would stick with that, trevorw2539....because you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

sickchip wrote:And that's why I seldom talk politics.

I would stick with that, trevorw2539....because you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

I am not sure I can see any compelling evidence for that assertion. Is there any...?

Indeed, though this tends to have little to do with Theresa May. We'll see whether she only speaks in platitudes about "JAM people who are just about managing" when her Chancellor produces his autumn budget shortly. The general consensus in the New Tory Party seems now to be that Gideon's gleeful austerity programme did very little for the Nation but a lot of harm to the nation's poor.

sickchip wrote: would stick with that, trevorw2539....because you haven't got a clue what you're talking about

The sort of comment I would expect from you.

If you think papers have much effect on a small minority who bother to read them, your problem. If you hate capitalism you ignore the fact that it has been with us throughout history. Try studying ancient cultures. The rich have always been there. Look at archaeological excavations of ancient cities and see the differences between the rich and poor in the different homes. Look at ancient writings. For me, it's just the reluctance to accept the situation - obnoxious as it may be - and agree between left and right for the use of money. Too much hostility has been built up between the have's and have not's.
How about a form of  'Welfare Capitalism' as practised in Japan and other nations.
This countries government system - 5 year period - does not allow for any system to really take effect when governments can change so often.

Anyway, I'm seen to many decades to be bothered for myself, just for my grandchildren and great grandchildren.

trev,

- the point is your argument exists in a vacuum you have invented. Your notion that Labour hates 'capitalism' is non-existent and a silly idea that exists in your own mind. The Labour party support capitalism.

Tell me - who hates capitalism? Who here? Who in the Labour party?

sickchip wrote: Capitalism. an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state

Then why the cry for nationalisation of certain parts of our economy. Railways and energy for two, according to Corbyn.

trevorw2539. Forums like this not only give us the opportunity to let off steam about unfairness and the many injustices in the world, but also to learn from each other occasionally. I’ve been very impressed by some of your thoughtful and well-researched comments on the religion board, and also by your analysis of why so many people voted for Brexit, something which previously has made no sense to me. I hope you also might gain something from those of us who study politics in some depth.

You are right to question how much influence the press has on people, especially with dwindling circulations and the fact that most of the American papers were hostile to Donald Trump. The former Greek finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis, has made a similar point, and I mentioned it on another thread. I also asked if the tabloid owners didn’t believe that their propaganda had an effect, would they bother to keep spewing it out? It’s also worth remembering that when a revolution occurs, one of the first things that the revolutionaries do is to take control of the media….

https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t1106p880-what-now-for-labour-part-2

I think you’re wrong to say that capitalism “has been with us throughout history”. It’s a relatively new social system which gradually replaced feudalism after the end of the Middle Ages. And although many Labour members dislike capitalism because it places the means for producing and distributing goods in the hands of a small minority of people, the party has always had to work with it. Trotskyists will tell you that like capitalism, socialism is a global system of society which, realistically, can’t exist in one country alone, more so than ever now that countries are much more interdependent. What the old Soviet Union had was a form of state capitalism. Other attempts at socialism in one country have usually turned into personality-cult dictatorships. Labour has always been a coalition of social democrats and democratic socialists who have tried to make capitalism fairer. Even the much-maligned and ‘extreme’ Jeremy Corbyn would be seen as a social democrat in Scandinavia.

During the post-war consensus from 1945 to 1979, we had a mixed economy in the UK, when it was largely agreed by both the Tories and Labour that the railways, utilities and some industries – and of course the NHS – should be run in the public interest by the state. Corbyn does indeed want to renationalise the railways and the utilities (policies which, according to polls, are popular), but that’s hardly the same as advocating something akin to the command economies of the old Soviet bloc.

We seem to have strayed a long way from Theresa May who, instead of dismissing the referendum result as not only advisory but also inconclusive, is in a quandary because she knows she cannot please all sections of her party. Staying in the single market, as the Tories promised to do in their 2015 manifesto, means contributing to the EU budget and allowing free movement of people. According to the leaks, she doesn’t have a plan, and repeating “Brexit means Brexit” and trying to avoid parliamentary consent for triggering Article 50 (when ‘sovereignty’ played such an important part in the referendum debate) looks like desperation.

Capitalism. It may be a relatively new system by name, but many aspects of capitalism were in older civilisations. Roman civilisation, for instance, contained many aspects in simpler terms. We may have had a feudal system in many countries like ours but other more advanced civilizations had aspects of today's capitalism. Private enterprise, banking, credit system,global markets (trading as far away as China), labour market, industry, contracts.

The difference between capitalism today and that of Rome? It never became a political ideology. Caesar remained supreme.

Some aspects are also found in Ancient Greece.

Theresa May's quandary is in the fact that she knows she cannot please the Brexiteers or all sections of her party. The Brexiteer's voted for what I believe is the impossible. Most people have clutched at migration and EU rules, without considering the alternatives. Neither has any thought been given to the situation in European Politics. Several EU countries go to the polls next year. Only 2 of the main countries have majority governments - the others coalitions. Given the state of unease several of these governments could fall - including Germany's.

Still, I've said all that before. I voted remain for my descendant's sake as I do not believe England can make it alone. If it does survive it will be as a small country with a shrunken economy and ditto living standards. Ooo. I am a pessimist. And if Trump pursues his protectionist policies - heaven help us all.

Theresa May reminds me very strongly of girls I knew at school - nice girls from good families who therefore were the natural candidates for becoming prefects and heads of house in our rather traditional and snobbish Grammar School.

They were on the whole girls of average intelligence and attainment, good team players on the whole, with very little imagination and no creativity and as such were able to perform more or less adequately within the strict framework provided by School rules - after school, they went on to get good degrees or teaching qualifications, married well and had nice careers.

I would trust any of them to organise a Church social or cricket tea - running the country - not so much.

It strikes me that May is completely out of her depth - she has allowed herself to be dazzled by the spectacle of herself as political leader, when in fact she is no more than another piece of Tory totty, wheeled out to make excuses after the boys have trashed everything - again

boatlady wrote:Theresa May reminds me very strongly of girls I knew at school - nice girls from good families who therefore were the natural candidates for becoming prefects and heads of house in our rather traditional and snobbish Grammar School.

They were on the whole girls of average intelligence and attainment, good team players on the whole, with very little imagination and no creativity and as such were able to perform more or less adequately within the strict framework provided by School rules - after school, they went on to get good degrees or teaching qualifications, married well and had nice careers.

That seems to me right on the ball.   I have known a lot of such persons.   They are decent enough if you don't demand too much intelligence, or any deep moral awareness.    The other thing is that they cannot be doing with new ideas, and find them deeply threatening.   Very long ago, long before it was fashionable, 'I talked shaky Shavian feminism round the local hops/ and bright girls without their glasses saw no sense in what I said.'   In the girls' equivalent of the ghastly boys' grammar school I was then attending, I soon acquired a reputation as homosexual (which I was far from being!) and, if you will believe me, a satanist!   They had misheard 'socialist', I suppose.

The above, incidentally, happened when my father suddenly decided he wanted more money, and moved us back two hundred years into Shropshire - a place that convinced me totally of my early socialism, from which I have never since wavered.

Theresa May is the latest political scoundrel to claim that she is a Christian. Presumably this is her ‘gospel’:-

And the Lord said: "Behold, though art a scrounger. Be thee sanctioned for thy transgressions".


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CybQEW2WEAAxDyK.jpg

Ivan wrote:Theresa May is the latest political scoundrel to claim that she is a Christian.

Well, I suppose that if the American extremist nutters can get away with it when never, apparently, having read the New Testament, anyone can, except people into the recommended forms of action rather than gods.

Vicar's daughter, and Christian, Theresa May enjoys a scone at the village fete.


Source: YouTube

Is PMQ's a farce, overdue for retirement?

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/pmqs-what-happened-jeremy-corbyn-theresa-may-labour-conservative-government-social-care-a7474291.html

It is an embarrassment - it is just a ritual humiliation for Corbyn and not much better for a permanently lacklustre May.

Emily Thornberry did a much better job last week, but even that did not make the spectacle bearable...

The spectacle is designed for hacks to lie about to mugs. What exactly is seen as the point of it? It suits rogues like Blair and Cameron, not decent people.

Machiavelli? No way, not after reading the astonishing article below. Two points struck me:-
1. Is Mrs May cracking up already, after just five months as PM?
2. She correctly points out that she is a representative, not a delegate. So are all MPs and, like her, they are not obliged to be the voice of their constituents. At least 450 of them believe that the UK would be better off staying in the EU; they should therefore do what they think is best for the country and scrap Brexit.

My brawl over Brexit with Theresa May

Louise Trethowan complained about Brexit to her local MP – Theresa May – and received an invitation to discuss the policy. But the subsequent encounter did not go quite as she expected.

I was shown into a room at her Maidenhead constituency office where she was already seated behind a small table. She did not smile or say “hello” - it felt like she was holding court. We did not even shake hands and the whole thing was a bit awkward.

She emphasised, not just strongly but crossly, that “the British people have voted for Brexit and the government is committed to making it happen”. Then she started pointing at my face across the narrow desk. I moved backwards slightly and to be honest, I was shocked. I had set out to tackle the PM but I hadn’t expected she would lose her temper and jab her finger at me.

Although taken aback I calmly asked her to stop pointing at my face because I considered it rude. I didn’t feel threatened. I was just astonished that she got so rattled, so quickly. She was very defensive. She then told me “people point at me all the time”, which is hardly an excuse. I asked her again to stop and after that she put her hands beneath the desk – maybe to stop her from pointing again.

Enjoy the rest here:-
http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/my_brawl_over_brexit_with_prime_minister_theresa_may_1_4807899

That is an interesting and revealing article. I read it a couple of days ago, and it does read as if Mrs May is properly out of her depth with the whole business of being Prime Minister.
This reinforces my impression that she is not acting independently, but is carrying out the orders of some individual or interest group - she appears to struggle to provide a sensible rationale for any of her pronouncements or decisions - to my mind an indication that these are not her own decisions.
Far from being the new Machiavelli, I suspect Mrs May is nothing more than a powerless mouthpiece

Something which we already knew about the weather-vane Cameron of course. He was only there as a pretty face fronting for some very unattractive people, so it comes as little surprise that Mrs May should try to follow suit, albeit relatively handicapped in one important aspect.

So in the spirit of Christmas perhaps we should allow the lady a little freedom to be nervous about the corner she painted herself into with that absurd "Brexit means (whatever I want it to mean)". Who wouldn't be?

OW - you are a true Christian

The question is : can the Opposition do some real opposing and seek to magnify her problems by probing her effectively at every opportunity and by maximising opportunities to encourage those on the Tory benches who might be happy to add to her discomfort.

And if that Opposition can do those things, will they?

Phil - perhaps you should stand for Parliament - everyone else seems to be making such a mess of it, surely you can do better

As, indeed, you could yourself, boatlady, given that the existing government attracts your criticism... or is it only reservations expressed about Labour which bring you to your conclusion?  

But for the treachery of the careerists, obviously, Mrs May would be toast. Looking to them is like expecting Quisling to start a War of Liberation against Hitler, no?

No Phil - I do see that the existing Labour leadership could if properly supported by Labour MP's begin to change the narrative and put forward a socialist agenda - to me that's quite an important thing for it to do - saying anything just to get into power, which is what many seem to be recommending, seems to me the route to another Tory government - we have before us always now the spectre of the Lib Dems who did just that and were not able to effect any amelioration of the Tory agenda and almost destroyed themselves into the bargain.

At the risk of sounding hysterical I would argue that at this point there is more at stake than just political power, however attractive and useful that may be, but also the moral stature of Britain - any party that condones bombing of civilians, drastic cuts to social services, social security and essential infrastructure is not a party that has the interests of the country at heart - we need a party that challenges the neo-liberal consensus and gets people thinking along different lines - that goes beyond point-scoring in parliament.

I've laid out in other threads my current discomfort with the way Labour is going - I'm not one bit happy with my party at present, but I don't think bringing back the Blair years will address the deep needs of the country and I do think we need radical change.

I won't be standing for parliament because I haven't a hope of being elected - but I'm really pleased that someone who HAS been elected (repeatedly) seems to share my views

Being a Member of Parliament is a difficult and really-full-time job, and to be a decent one even harder. Some blokes from the local Party wanted to put me up once, for an unwinnable seat, but my father didn't even bother to pass on the message. The man who got it increased the vote at a by-election (it would have been difficult to do otherwise) and was later offered a much more winnable one. He ended up in the Cabinet, briefly, and then got his own TV programme. I think that, electorally, I'd have done better, being local, but when I look back, I am grateful to the Old Man. I once attended a meeting at which George Brown was sober and I was drunk - probably it should be in the history books, that one - and I think he was a lesson to us all. To be a good MP takes a combination of qualities that are rare, of which honesty is central but even rarer, and though I possess the latter, I'd have lasted very little time in that exhibitionist hothouse. That is why I admire Mr Corbyn so much.

I'm with you, Penderyn - those of us not cut out for political power can often be effective in the background - I find that giving benefit and employment advice is potentially quite influential and can make the socialist case as well as anything - always better to light a candle than curse the dark, but candles come in all shapes and sizes

"The onlooker sees most of the game"

Discuss.

Appropriately, it looks for all the world like a police 'mug shot'...

KEN CLARKE described Theresa May as a "bloody difficult woman"

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/686487/Ken-clarke-theresa-May-sky-news

The description however doesn't really do justice in some published photos.