John McTernan: Labour's Prince?

                                                                           

Librarian turned political strategist John McTernan did a short piece for the Daily Politics about a year ago. In it he talked of his admiration for Niccolò Machiavelli and the relevance of Machiavelli's philosophy today. 


Here's the video:

With that in mind I was interested when McTernan popped up on the Spectator podcast: The View from 22 to discuss the current UK Labour leadership contest. In the short interview McTernan suggested that if Jeremy Corbyn wins the leadership he should be removed "swiftly and quickly to restore the party to its senses." McTernan then went on, in rather Machiavellian fashion, to dismiss the Labour Party membership whilst bestowing the virtues of a strong leader in controlling party affairs. What's clear is that McTernan believes in the concentration of power in a leader, or group of leaders and that, that power should be used and maintained in a ruthless and deceitful manner, for the common good. Machiavelli himself believed that the priority of the power holder is to keep the security of the state, regardless of the morality of the means. He said that "In actions of men.. where their is no court of appeal one judges by the result."

All this really begs the question- Why is it that John McTernan and the Blairites more generally have next to no power at all within the Labour Party? During Blair's time in Number 10 it is widely known that most of the decisions were taken informally, by a small group of advisors- known as "sofa cabinet". Blair consolidated power to such an extent that his own Cabinet were often left completely out of the loop on important decisions. Therefore, it seems curious that power was not used to ensure that after Blair had departed his ideology (or lack of it) and methods were ingrained into the Labour Party. 

In his video for the Daily Politics McTernan cited Blair advisor Jonathan Powell, and Thatcher ally Lord McAlpine as practitioners of Machiavellian politics. It is striking that like Blair and the Labour Party, the legacy of Margaret Thatcher within her own party is the cause of deep internal division and strife. It could therefore be the case that the Blairite use of hard Machiavellian power to run both the country and the party has, in the long run completely and utterly alienated both. For all the emphasis on wielding power and winning it seems the right of the party has little prospects of doing either.