A man who becomes ruler through popular favour, then, must keep the people well disposed towards him. This will be easy, since they only want not to be oppressed.

If… a ruler… builds his power upon the people, and if he knows how to command and if he is courageous, does not despair in difficult times, and maintains the morale of his people by his spiritedness and the measures that he takes, he will never find himself let down by them, and he will realise he had laid sound foundations for his power.

For a while, a good while at that, Tony was getting by swimmingly on this account. He wasn’t oppressing the people for a start; he was keeping up morale wonderfully well; people were optimistic even when things looked a bit sluggish, and everybody, as they say, was happy.

However...

These civil principalities tend to encounter grave difficulties if an attempt is made to transform them into absolute regimes.

Britain is obviously not an absolute regime, nor will it ever likely become one. However, it’s more of an absolute regime than it used to be, so in that respect some attempt has been made in this direction. Bad Tony.

You would think, therefore, that the people would have chucked him out. Well, perhaps they would’ve, but unfortunately there wasn’t really anywhere else to run.

A shrewd ruler… must try to ensure that his citizens, whatever the situation may be, will always be dependent on the government and on him; and then they will always be loyal to him.

Therein lies the rub: the people were dependent on Tony to stop them being ruled by Michael, who some suspected wasn’t entirely human.

This is further dealt with by Machiavelli in the next chapter:

A strong and spirited ruler will always overcome such problems, by encouraging his subjects to believe that these evils will not last long, by warning them of the enemy’s cruelty, and by dealing adroitly with those men who seem to him too outspoken.

It must be said that he dealt with his detractors very astutely. Those in the blue corner were irrevocably shaken by Tony’s commandeering of some of their main ideas and those making up the yellowy-orange Commons Pollyfilla were simply laughed away. Within his own party, whip-defying dissenters were denied certain privileges, new MPs were made well aware that they owed their status to His Tonyness, and, and this is where he was really clever, those that disliked Him the most were made to not only dislike him, but really loathe him, so much so that they were forced to leave, or at least slink off into the shadows, of their own volition. Top marks.

A ruler, then, should have no other objective and no other concern, nor occupy himself with anything else except war and its methods and practices, for this pertains only to those who rule…It is evident that if rulers concern themselves more with the refinements of life than with military matters, they lose power. The main reason why they lose it is their neglect of the art of war; and being proficient in this art is what enables one to gain power.

This famous passage is a bit tougher to apply to the machinations of the modern political world; war just isn’t what it used to be. Under the new rules of ‘only pick on people with vastly more oil reserves than military resources’, actual capability and competence in the finer arts of battle isn’t all that important. There are no two more contrasting things anywhere in the world than Sun Tzu’s ‘The Art of War’ and the story of the American invasion of Iraq. One day I may post up ‘Bush: The Sun Tzu test’ if I can find where I hid it on my hard-drive. Needless to say he'd fail even under modern GCSE mark schemes.

Nevertheless, Blair has had a lot of experience in wars, more than most in fact, and we haven’t exactly ‘lost’ any yet, although the last one did lose him a chunk of power. What is perhaps of more importance is the time spent on war matters – and if we’re talking in terms of Commons debating hours, it's not a patch on fox-hunting. So not great, but he has at least been paying some attention.

How men live is so different from how they should live that a ruler who does not do what is generally done, but persists in doing what ought to be done, will undermine his power rather than maintain it. If a ruler who wants always to act honourably is surrounded by many unscrupulous men his downfall is inevitable. Therefore, a ruler who wishes to maintain his power must be prepared to act immorally when this becomes necessary.

Because circumstances do not permit living a completely virtuous life, one must be sufficiently prudent to know how to avoid becoming notorious for those vices that would destroy one’s power and seek to avoid those vices that are not politically dangerous… Yet one should not be troubled about becoming notorious for those vices without which it is difficult to preserve one’s power, because if one considers everything carefully, doing some things that seem virtuous may result in one’s ruin, whereas doing other things that seem vicious may strengthen one’s position and cause one to flourish.

This is clearly quite obviously summed up in Blair’s famous ‘Third-Way’ doctrine: “whatever works”. As Francis Wheen eloquently chirped: "What was the Third Way? No one ever knew, but it was somewhere between the Second Coming and the Fourth Dimension". And if it wasn’t for those bothersome election things, the ‘necessary immoralities’ might well have been even more marked.

I maintain that it would be desirable to be called generous; nevertheless, if generosity is practised in such a way that you will be considered generous, it will harm you. If it is practised virtuously, and as it should be, it will not be known about, and you will not avoid acquiring a bad reputation for the opposite vice. Therefore, if one wants to keep up a reputation for being generous, one must spend lavishly and ostentatiously. The inevitable outcome of acting in such ways is that the ruler will consume all his resources in sumptuous display; and if he wants to continue to be thought generous, he will eventually be compelled to become rapacious, to tax the people very heavily, and raise money by all possible means. Thus, he will begin to be hated by his subjects and, because he is impoverished, he will be held in little regard.

Therefore, since a ruler cannot both practise this virtue of generosity and be known to do so without harming himself, he would do well not to worry about being called miserly. For eventually he will come to be considered more generous, when it is realised that, because of his parsimony, his revenues are sufficient to defend himself against any enemies that attack him, and to undertake campaigns without imposing special taxes on the people.

But above all, he must not touch the property of others, because men forget sooner the killing of a father than the loss of their patrimony.

What will make him hated, above all else… is being rapacious and seizing the property or womenfolk of his subjects: he must avoid doing these things.

Given that Mr Gordon is in charge of the money, it’s hard to know how to judge Mr Tony in this area. There’s the patronage, of course, but there’s a better place for that later, and when Machiavelli was talking about generosity, he was mainly talking about money and the general populace, not ermine and inhabitants of Mayfair. Taxes have gone up under Labour, and, such is the way with these things, it’s hard to spot the effects just yet. But, while the womenfolk remain untouced, this property-seizing has arguably broached its acceptable limits. Tony does, however, look like getting out before the shit hits the fan, the old shrewdie.

I maintain that every ruler should want to be thought merciful, not cruel; nevertheless, one should take care not to be merciful in an inappropriate way. Cesare Borgia was considered cruel, yet his harsh measures restored order to the Romagna, unifying it and rendering it peaceful and loyal. If his conduct is properly considered, he will be judged to have been much more merciful than the Florentine people, who let Pistoia be torn apart, in order to avoid acquiring a reputation for cruelty.

Aha! It’s 16th Century Thatcherism! Which differs not a lot from the 20th-21st Century variety. Well done Tony.

My view is that it is better to be both loved and feared; but it is difficult to achieve both and, if one of them has to be lacking, it is much safer to be feared than loved… Nevertheless, a ruler must make himself feared in such a way that, even if he does not become loved, he does not become hated. For it is perfectly possible to be feared without incurring hatred.

Loved? Feared? Tony’s not really either. He’s just sort of there. And he is drifting towards hatred – but then everyone does when they’ve been in power for a while. And while the continuing erosion of free speech and random executions on public transport could inspire fear, it more just inspires annoyance. Must try harder.

Speaking of executions...

If it is necessary to execute anyone, this should be done only if there is a proper justification and obvious reason.

As we now know, ‘ineptitude’ is not a justification and there was bugger all obvious reason to spend 30 seconds putting bullets into the back of an innocent man’s head. Blair (T) might not have been in charge per se, but he acts like a supreme ruler, so the buck can stop with him on this one too.

Everyone knows how praiseworthy it is for a ruler to keep his promises, and live uprightly and not by trickery. Nevertheless, experience shows that in our times the rulers who have done great things are those who have set little store by keeping their word, being skilful rather in cunningly deceiving men; they have got the better of those who have relied on being trustworthy.

Therefore, a prudent ruler cannot keep his word, nor should he, when such fidelity would damage him, and when reasons that made him promise are no longer relevant. This advice would not be sound if all men were upright; but because they are treacherous and would not keep their promises to you, you should not consider yourself bound to keep your promises to them.

Me, the prime minister? A liar? With my reputation? Never!

A ruler, then, need not actually possess all the [traditional virtues], but he must certainly seem to. Indeed, I shall be so bold as to say that having and always cultivating them is harmful, whereas seeming to have them is useful.

This is where Blair really starts to shine: the marketing. All botox, no trousers it may be, but it wins over those floating voters and keeps him in power. He plays the game better than anyone – Niccolo would be proud.

A ruler, then, should be very careful that everything he says is replete with the five above-named qualities: to those who see and hear him, he should seem to be exceptionally merciful, trustworthy, upright, humane and devout. And it is most necessary of all to seem devout. In these matters, most men judge more by their eyes than by their hands. For everyone is capable of seeing you, but few can touch you. Everyone can see what you appear to be, whereas few have direct experience of what you really are.

What will make him despised is being considered inconstant, frivolous, effeminate, pusillanimous and irresolute: a ruler must avoid contempt as if it were a reef.

Communication in Machiavelli’s time wasn’t great. A bit like Norfolk today. Amid the intense media scrutiny that hounds the top politicians like a toff hounds foxes, Mr Blair’s handling of his public image has been, if not exemplary, then extremely estimable.

His handling of the major issues has put the other global leaders in the shade. Fair enough, the competition isn’t great – outscoring Bush, Chirac and Berlusconi when it comes to speaking in public pretty much defines ‘simple’, but even so, the boy’s done well.

Since this matter is important, I do not want to fail to remind any ruler who has recently gained power through being favoured by the inhabitants that he should be well aware of the reasons why those who helped him to gain power acted as they did. If it was not from natural affection for him, but only because they were discontented with the previous government, it will be very difficult and troublesome to keep them friendly, because he will not be able to satisfy them.

Where politics is involved, no one can get no satisfaction. Apart from Stalin, he had 120% satisfaction. On the whole, we expect too much and are delivered too little and are thus mildly discontent. However, Tony was delivered into power because people were bored with the Tories and Tony looked like he was ‘down with the kids’. So a little affection there, but as Machiavelli said,

Love is sustained by a bond of gratitude which, because men are excessively self-interested, is broken whenever they see a chance to benefit themselves.

A ruler must contrive to achieve through all his actions the reputation of being a great man of outstanding intelligence.

People maybe don’t rate Blair as an outstanding intellectual, but intelligent types these days are more distrusted than revered, so it probably doesn’t matter.

Victories are never so decisive that the victor does not need to be careful, and especially about acting justly.

Would Mr Tony have done better for himself to speak out a bit more against the injustices at, for example, Abu Ghraib? I think so, but then most people who read The Sun probably don’t, and there’s more of them than there are of me.

A ruler should also show himself a love of talent, and honour those who excel in any art. Moreover, he should encourage the citizens to follow quietly their ordinary occupations, both in trade and agriculture and every other kind, so that one man is not afraid to improve or increase his possessions for fear that they will be taken from him, and another does not hesitate to begin to trade for fear of the taxes that will be levied. Rather he should offer rewards to anyone who wants to do such things, and to anyone who seeks in any way to improve his city or country.

And we’re back to Thatcherism again. The first sentence can also be used to justify Blair’s outrageous profligacy of appointments to the Lords. The line between talent and unprofessional favours is perhaps not that easy to define, but I would argue that things have gone a bit far, thus progress on this score has to be checked.

The choosing of ministers is a very important matter for a ruler: whether or not they are good depends on whether he is shrewd. The first indications of the intelligence of a ruler are given by the quality of the men around him.

Prescott, Straw, Hoon... he lost Cook as well. So just like in the last election, Brown looks like saving his boss’ behind.

A wise ruler will… choose shrewd men for his service, permitting them alone to speak frankly, but only when he asks them and not otherwise. But he should ask them about everything, listen carefully to their views, and then make his own decisions… Apart from those he has chosen, he should refuse to listen to anyone, but pursue his aims steadfastly and not waver about decisions he has taken. Any ruler who does not act in this way either comes to grief among flatterers or changes his decisions often because of the conflicting advice he receives; as a result, he will be held in little esteem.

Here we see an early blueprint for ‘sofa governance’ and generally not listening to people, because well, Tony knows best. It’s a method that’s been widely criticised, but the general idea comes with good authority, and for the purposes of this test, it’s an almost faultless performance.

Tony Blair has often been thought of as ‘a lucky PM’. And whereas luck obviously plays an important role in politics, one should not overestimate its standing.

I am disposed to hold that fortune is the arbiter of half our actions, but that it lets us control roughly the other half.

I compare fortune to one of those dangerous rivers that, when they become enraged, flood the plains, destroy trees and buildings, move earth from one place and deposit it in another. Everyone flees before it, everyone gives way to its thrust, without being able to halt it in any way. But this does not mean that, when the river is not in flood, men are unable to take precautions, by means of dykes and dams.

It’s another tough position to call, but Tony done a lot to make his own luck. He’s been helped by the incompetence of the opposition and the "fortuitous arithmetic" of the electoral system – although, once again, he’s played it for all it’s worth.

I certainly think that it is better to be impetuous than cautious, because fortune is a woman, and if you want to control her, it is necessary to treat her roughly. And it is clear that she is more inclined to yield to men who are impetuous than to those who are calculating.

Is Blair impetuous? He’s certainly been willing to take on the odd thing that seems a little rash, but these things often seem rash because they are born out of idiocy. But then we have the manifestos. Erring on the side of caution in little book form.

And finally, the Machiavellian mantra:

[Men] are successful if their methods match the circumstances and unsuccessful if they do not.

Enough of the people happy enough of the time and the exercising of complete control over his political environment. From the most distorted majorities in history, to weakening the power of the opposition, the Lords and even his own backbenchers and cabinet. When it comes to power, despite a few wobbles along the way, Mr Blair has had a remarkable career. He will even get to bring it to an end himself, rather than falling victim to the whims of fortune. He may not be a prince among men, but he can claim to be a genuine success in a sea of mediocrity.