What do you think?
Rate this book
The Abuse of Power: Confronting Injustice in Public Life
As Prime Minister for three years and Home Secretary for six years, Theresa May confronted a series of issues in which the abuse of power led to devastating results for individuals and significantly damaged the reputation of, and trust in, public institutions and politicians. From the Hillsborough and Grenfell tragedies, to the Daniel Morgan case and parliamentary scandals, the powerful repeatedly chose to use their power not in the interests of the powerless but to serve themselves or to protect the organisation to which they belonged.
The Abuse of Power is a searing exposé of injustice and an impassioned call to exercise power for the greater good. Drawing on examples from domestic and international affairs she was personally involved in at the highest level, including Stop and Search and the Salisbury Poisonings, the former prime minister argues for a radical rethink in how we approach our politics and public life.
The Abuse of Power is a searing exposé of injustice and an impassioned call to exercise power for the greater good. Drawing on examples from domestic and international affairs she was personally involved in at the highest level, including Stop and Search and the Salisbury Poisonings, the former prime minister argues for a radical rethink in how we approach our politics and public life.
344 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 14, 2023
89 people are currently reading
523 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 85 reviews
August 19, 2024
Twenty-first Century British Politics. Ten minutes.
1. Read the following passage carefully. Which part do you think came from the final chapter of Theresa May's book The Abuse of Power, and which was added by the examiner?
Answers
1.
2.
_________________
But seriously...
I found this book exasperating. Theresa May had her heart in the right place, and she did some admirable things. It's worthwhile to read about them. But she completely failed to understand the central issues. She keeps talking about compromise and seeing the other side's point of view. But in the case of people like Trump, their point of view is that they want to abolish democracy. Compromising with such people is just weakness.
She says in so many words that that's the right way to deal with Putin. Somehow she fails to grasp that it's also the right way to deal with Putin's allies. She can't believe it's happening in so-called enlightened Western countries, despite the abundant evidence that it is. Hello? January 6? How can it get more obvious?
At the end of the day, she comes across as simply not very bright.
1. Read the following passage carefully. Which part do you think came from the final chapter of Theresa May's book The Abuse of Power, and which was added by the examiner?
The key for me is that the Prime Minister should still be able to decide who sits as a minister in their government. If they insist on continuing with a minister who has broken the code, of course it brings their own behaviour into question. More than that, it would not be forgotten by the opposition or the electorate. It is unfortunate that we have to look at changes like this, but the system was designed to be operated by people of good intent and integrity. If that comes into question, then change is the next step.2. Why?
Overall behaviour by MPs is governed by the Nolan Principles, which I referred to earlier. These are selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. While these are generally known, I don't think enough is done to ensure that everyone who is elected understands the importance of abiding by them. Speaking from my own experience, I bitterly regret appointing to my cabinet Boris Johnson, a sociopathic liar who flouted all seven of the Nolan Principles at every available opportunity and caused untold damage both to his party and to his country.
Answers
1.
2.
_________________
But seriously...
I found this book exasperating. Theresa May had her heart in the right place, and she did some admirable things. It's worthwhile to read about them. But she completely failed to understand the central issues. She keeps talking about compromise and seeing the other side's point of view. But in the case of people like Trump, their point of view is that they want to abolish democracy. Compromising with such people is just weakness.
She says in so many words that that's the right way to deal with Putin. Somehow she fails to grasp that it's also the right way to deal with Putin's allies. She can't believe it's happening in so-called enlightened Western countries, despite the abundant evidence that it is. Hello? January 6? How can it get more obvious?
At the end of the day, she comes across as simply not very bright.
September 22, 2023
Before this review is written off as one written by a hard-line leftie, let me be clear that that is absolutely not the case. I respect Theresa May and her public service and I do believe that she is worth listening to.
That being said, this is one of the worst and most pointless books I’ve ever read. This book genuinely makes me angry.
Now, I understand that the former PM did not wish to write a traditional memoir- I truly understand that. Despite that, I think she does herself and the public a disservice by not having this book be that.
Let me sum up my main problem in a few key sentences:
Theresa May has attempted to write a book detailing (detailing is a generous word- merely mentioning is more appropriate) various different scandals and events from her premiership in a way that is least controversial and damaging to her and instead feigns an interest in presenting these as wider abuses of power. By presenting these events as part of a wider theme, she simultaneously attempts to remove any real blame that she, her government and her party share whilst also forcing references to her valiant efforts to deal with said abuses of power… She is 100% attempting to have her cake and eat it whilst making it impossible to really scrutinise her work.
I genuinely believe Theresa May was treated unfairly in her premiership in certain instances but the failure of this book to genuinely address the ins and outs of her premiership- one of the most turbulent in modern history- is scandalous. One specific example that springs to mind is the references to the Manchester Arena Bombing. She only talks about this KEY moment in her premiership in reference to the failure of online companies to properly address terrorism on their platforms. I understand that she may feel reluctant to talk about her personal feelings however the sheer nonchalance in talking about these things does little to convey their seriousness and importance. There is no depth to this book; giving a mere 21 pages to Brexit is simply a pathetic way to address the defining event of her premiership. Her attempts to apologise across the book are so quick and forgettable they simply seem insincere. It feels like this book was just a cheap and easy way for her to “document” her premiership without ACTUALLY doing so.
The book makes me so incredibly frustrated and angry for this reasons, she had the opportunity to give her and her government’s side of the story, she had the opportunity to apologise properly for her mistakes and she had the opportunity to call out her successors and those who have contributed to the decline of British politics but she chose not to. By calling out injustice in the general approach she does, she’s merely acknowledging there is a problem rather than saying who or what the cause of that problem is other than supposed self-serving people. Her answer to how to fix it can be basically summed up as “serve the people better”- how incredibly generic.
Fundamentally, this book should not have been written in the way it has been. It’s too basic, it doesn’t cover topics with the depth they deserve and it does not provide an answer to why she did things the way she did. It’s simply a joke of a book. I hope that Theresa May reflects and reconsiders on her decision not to write a traditional memoir, I believe it would be beneficial for her and for us.
1/5*
That being said, this is one of the worst and most pointless books I’ve ever read. This book genuinely makes me angry.
Now, I understand that the former PM did not wish to write a traditional memoir- I truly understand that. Despite that, I think she does herself and the public a disservice by not having this book be that.
Let me sum up my main problem in a few key sentences:
Theresa May has attempted to write a book detailing (detailing is a generous word- merely mentioning is more appropriate) various different scandals and events from her premiership in a way that is least controversial and damaging to her and instead feigns an interest in presenting these as wider abuses of power. By presenting these events as part of a wider theme, she simultaneously attempts to remove any real blame that she, her government and her party share whilst also forcing references to her valiant efforts to deal with said abuses of power… She is 100% attempting to have her cake and eat it whilst making it impossible to really scrutinise her work.
I genuinely believe Theresa May was treated unfairly in her premiership in certain instances but the failure of this book to genuinely address the ins and outs of her premiership- one of the most turbulent in modern history- is scandalous. One specific example that springs to mind is the references to the Manchester Arena Bombing. She only talks about this KEY moment in her premiership in reference to the failure of online companies to properly address terrorism on their platforms. I understand that she may feel reluctant to talk about her personal feelings however the sheer nonchalance in talking about these things does little to convey their seriousness and importance. There is no depth to this book; giving a mere 21 pages to Brexit is simply a pathetic way to address the defining event of her premiership. Her attempts to apologise across the book are so quick and forgettable they simply seem insincere. It feels like this book was just a cheap and easy way for her to “document” her premiership without ACTUALLY doing so.
The book makes me so incredibly frustrated and angry for this reasons, she had the opportunity to give her and her government’s side of the story, she had the opportunity to apologise properly for her mistakes and she had the opportunity to call out her successors and those who have contributed to the decline of British politics but she chose not to. By calling out injustice in the general approach she does, she’s merely acknowledging there is a problem rather than saying who or what the cause of that problem is other than supposed self-serving people. Her answer to how to fix it can be basically summed up as “serve the people better”- how incredibly generic.
Fundamentally, this book should not have been written in the way it has been. It’s too basic, it doesn’t cover topics with the depth they deserve and it does not provide an answer to why she did things the way she did. It’s simply a joke of a book. I hope that Theresa May reflects and reconsiders on her decision not to write a traditional memoir, I believe it would be beneficial for her and for us.
1/5*
September 20, 2023
interesting and reasoned book looking at abuse of power through different case studies ranging from Hillsborough to Rotherham. may tries to give a balanced and reasoned discussion on each subject even on somethings would disagree though.
October 14, 2024
An abuse of power is when someone does something I don't like
1. The memoir that's not a memoir
One of the most notable aspects of this psuedo-memoir is its lack of detail. I love reading these kinds of political biographies from people I like, and massively dislike, because they give the deep insider information and an insight into the subject's psychology and ideology. They put you in the room where extremely powerful people make massive historical decisions. But there is little depth here. And there are few rooms.
Abuse of Power is half-memoir and half-philosophical look at the concept of abusing power and boy does May beat that dead horse. Be prepared to hear the phrase 'abuse of power' MANY times as May weaves it through everything she can think of.
What feels strange is May takes no time to point out that an abuse of power is inherently a subjective judgement. Most of the things she mentions aren't objective abuses of power at all—they break no real professional standards or laws.
This fact lends credence to what you might suspect about the unusual structure of this book: that its framing exists to dismiss her failings, her opponents, and the system as resulting from bad actors committing ‘abuse’. But not every person who did you wrong in the political arena was abusing their power. They were just using it in ways you didn't like, for reasons you didn’t like.
The most nauseating moments of this are when May moves seamlessly from riffing on BRINGING POWER TO THE POWERLESS! into (however briefly) defending or excusing the indefensible and the inexcusable on the Hostile Environment, Windrush, the British occupation of Afghanistan, Right to Buy, and Grenfell.
Another painful thing about this memoir is the silly idealism with which Theresa May looks at politics. When things go wrong she is frustrated that people aren't just better and less power hungry and more interested in THE PEOPLE! Instead of accepting the parameters of power, building and organising alliances within the capitalist state's many overlapping interests, and working to achieve her aims regardless, she dreams of a world where none of these things are a problem:
May discovers as Home Secretary that the London Metropolitan Police—one of the most notoriously corrupt police services—is actually very corrupt, racist and misogynistic.
May enters office as Prime Minister in a turbulent time and is dumbfounded by how political it is and the lack of interest from parliament to operate in the interest of a THE PEOPLE or THE GREATER GOOD. What happened to the love? To public service? To society? Where did all these politicians come from?
2. The Hostile Environment
Like most political memoirs, you leave with a sense of "she seems nice!" and "she was just trying to do the right thing!" which is all well and good if you know literally nothing about her or her life in politics.
It's laughable to have the woman responsible for the Hostile Environment—the policy brought in by May in 2012 aiming to create a 'hostile environment' for immigrants by denying them access to basic needs (healthcare, housing, employment), subjecting them to increased bureaucracy, waiting times and risks of criminalisation, and running racist, objectively neo-fascist campaigns aimed at threatening and demonising people of colour—rambling over and over about how she's just here to "SERVE THE GREATER GOOD!"
May's defence of the Hostile Environment and Windrush is conspicuously brief (like 10 pages). It amounts to a The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas defence where the audience is meant to feel sympathy when the wrong child gets killed, as opposed to the millions who were purposefully killed. Wait, I thought we were just subjecting immigrants to racism and psychological torture?! We accidentally did it to some normal people?!?!
May spills no ink on the likely millions of people who she personally put through the wringer via the Hostile Environment.
3. "They abused their power... because they could."
Oh boy you are going to hear the same words and phrases over and over again in this 300 page book!
To emphasise the repetitiveness, here are some statistics:
“Abuse” – 340 times
“Power” – 315 times
“The People” – 302 times
“Because they could” – 16 times
“The Greater Good” – 12 times
“Protect the institution” – 12 times
A substantial number of May's 'abuses of power' are far better explained through the lens of political, economic, and class interests.
With Brexit, it was in the political interests of the British Brexiteers and the DUP to work against May's objectives. They didn't see what they were doing as ‘abusing their power’, nor did their supporters.
With social media, it's in the economic interest of social media companies to race to the bottom and avoid any policing of their content that might impact their competitiveness.
With Hillsborough, it was in the class and political interest of the state and media to demonise the working class and defend the police.
With Primodos, it was in the economic interest of pharmaceutical companies to take advantage of institutionalised misogyny in the health system, to prioritise profits over human life, and to avoid, obfuscate, attack, downplay, and bury evidence that threatens those profits (as has been well documented throughout private health systems and with the industries like Tobacco and Energy).
(There are multiple moments in this book where May sounds genuinely shocked by pharmaceutical companies, or other multinationals, deliberately putting shareholder interests over human health and safety; but the most shocking thing is her shock. I'd say there are few normal people who will find these stories really that shocking.)
4. Grenfell
These same economic drivers were clearly present with the cladding companies that burned 72 people to death at Grenfell, coupled with the political and economic interests of the Tory housing agenda which has turned social housing into somewhere rats don't want to live. It's genuinely outrageous how much she attempts to point the finger solely at the Tory council and tenants management organisation for the Grenfell murders when at the time of writing there are over 4,500 UK buildings still with flammable cladding. (Unless it's a REALLY big council area I doubt those buildings are all in Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council.)
This is something May does throughout. She gives a seemingly complex view of a unique problem but particularises it and rarely gives us the root cause or a real theory to understand it (beyond saying “because they could”, which is not a motive by the way).
It is true that when a massive crisis takes place it usually is a failure of multiple actors, as the problem has failed to be flagged at multiple stages. But is there really no one primarily responsible? Is there no systemic issue or overriding theme driving companies that know their products are unsafe to sell them regardless? After all, in the case of Grenfell, we're talking about cladding that building company Kingspan tested 10 years prior and described as causing "a raging inferno." And I'm supposed to believe that the fault lies with the council for not being informed enough on cladding?
May takes time in this chapter to riff on council housing and how important it is to have high quality public accommodation for those living in poverty. This is despite the fact her party sold off more social houses than they built. Along with a pathetic (and obviously contradictory) defence of right to buy, she always conveniently ignores the fact that her party have been the government for 31 of the past 45 years. She talks a lot about the way things should be in her utopian world but less about what she actually did to change them and or how they could be achieved.
The big 'legacy' that she wants to hit home on Grenfell (p148) is that she's made it so that social housing managers will have to have housing management qualifications in the future. LOL
5. Global Politics
Her section on international politics, as with most western elites, is where the real ideology comes out, revealing a colonial mentality: European and European settler states are inherently the defenders of freedom and democracy despite being the countries primarily responsible for the colonisation, destruction, and exploitation of the entire globe from 1492 to the present.
Global South countries trying to exert power are bad. Russia and China are bad. China is trying to rule the world and if it tries to strike a trade deal with another country it is bad—inherently sneaky and suspicious one might say—and in contravention with the western-centric 'rules based order.' Notice they never say 'international law,' because this is not what they mean.
The rules-based order is the rule of the Godfather. The UK and the US invading, destroying and looting the world is fine. The UK occupying Afghanistan was fine. The Iraq War was fine. The destruction of Libya was fine. (In fact, the US cannot be prosecuted for war crimes because it has refused to sign up to the International Court of Justice.) This is the rules based order.
If a western-backed country (Israel) attempts to occupy and exterminate an estimated 180,000+ people that is fine. If China builds 3 military bases in countries off its coast that is bad. If the US builds 800 military bases in over 70 countries globally that is good. If Russia poisons a Russian spy turned defector in a foreign country it's a heinous crime, breaks international law (by violating Article 2 of the UN Charter) and is a semi-declaration of war. But if the US assassinates the head of the Iranian military in a foreign country or Israel assassinates the leader of Hamas in a foreign country it's fine.
The inconsistency is key and reveals which human lives are considered valuable and which aren't. Now let's play who said it, Vladimir Putin or Theresa May:
"In some ways it is easier to decide to take action and go into a country with a clear purpose and mandate than it is to decide to withdraw."
You guessed it! (p262) May speaks about invading countries like she’s choosing something for lunch; like it’s a normal day-to-day task of government and not something that has historically been confined to very, very few countries.
As a European official said to the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court earlier this year, the ICC wasn't built for westerners, it was "built for Africa and for thugs like Putin."
6. Afghanistan & Ukraine
May's shameless defence of the occupation of Afghanistan is laughable and she acts like turning a sovereign country into a US/UK colony for a hot minute before sending them hurtling back to the stone age is a major achievement. Like a true colonial official May describes pre-occupied Afghanistan as an "unenlightened society" (p268) and loves to mention how, since the west has left Afghanistan, it has fallen into "humanitarian crisis" (p262) and economic collapse with “people starving all over the country” (p268). There is no mention of the fact the west deliberately caused the humanitarian crisis and could end it whenever they want. Strange.
In the Ukraine War section, May does what the worst authors of popular biographies of historical figures do and she pretends to be a historian who understands what Putin thinks and how he views the world with no evidence to support any of these personality traits or attributes. I wish there were some actual tangible events in here linking her many years as a minister to the Russian government and what has happened in Ukraine (we do get some of that in the Salisbury section).
Instead, May just rhymes off a bunch of trite diatribes about how Putin is evil and wants to rule the world and is deeply insecure and never had a good relationship with his mother and (May actually says this) sees geopolitics through the lens of Judo.
The Ukraine chapter focusing on 'Russia invading sovereign nations' is hilarious considering it was preceded by the Afghanistan chapter where Britain merely 'goes into countries.' There is seemingly no contradiction in terms for May who continues to view the world as somewhere where occasionally civilizing the savages is a necessary evil—a taking up of the white man's burden.
7. Conclusion
May concludes the book by trying to make sense of the many clichés she's repeated throughout such as "They abused their power because they could" and "They chose to defend the interests of the institution instead of the people." She admits she's never had a real job apart from a couple years in the Bank of England—if she had, she might have known when you have a real job it is literally your job to defend the institution. Once again she ignores the realities of the economic and class incentives that drive the kinds of decision-making she's trying to grapple with.
Like most liberals, her solution is to demand that people be kinder, nicer, and, most importantly, better. The conclusion of books like these is always the some vague indication that the system is broken and we need to do better next time! How? And you were the government at the time? Why didn't you do anything?
May does indicate that modern individualism might be to blame for most abuses of power. She tiptoes around Thatcher maybe being the root cause of this shift to individualism, selfishness and consumerism, but it’s very obvious her class and party loyalties prevent her from being truly honest.
The book did make me think more deeply about the similarities between Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn. They were both idealistic politicians who were flanked by non-idealistic, power-hungry pragmatists (Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer) who were very willing to play the political game ruthlessly and sabotage their party leader's plans (Johnson in sinking May's soft-Brexit and pushing for hard-Brexit, Starmer in sinking Corbyn's soft-Brexit and pushing for hard-Remain) in pursuit of their political aims.
It feels difficult to learn lessons from May. There are few people who consider her three years as Prime Minister a success. She states multiple times in this book that politics is about meeting in the middle and making compromises with your opponents. But you really have to ask “And where did that get you?”
1. The memoir that's not a memoir
One of the most notable aspects of this psuedo-memoir is its lack of detail. I love reading these kinds of political biographies from people I like, and massively dislike, because they give the deep insider information and an insight into the subject's psychology and ideology. They put you in the room where extremely powerful people make massive historical decisions. But there is little depth here. And there are few rooms.
Abuse of Power is half-memoir and half-philosophical look at the concept of abusing power and boy does May beat that dead horse. Be prepared to hear the phrase 'abuse of power' MANY times as May weaves it through everything she can think of.
What feels strange is May takes no time to point out that an abuse of power is inherently a subjective judgement. Most of the things she mentions aren't objective abuses of power at all—they break no real professional standards or laws.
This fact lends credence to what you might suspect about the unusual structure of this book: that its framing exists to dismiss her failings, her opponents, and the system as resulting from bad actors committing ‘abuse’. But not every person who did you wrong in the political arena was abusing their power. They were just using it in ways you didn't like, for reasons you didn’t like.
The most nauseating moments of this are when May moves seamlessly from riffing on BRINGING POWER TO THE POWERLESS! into (however briefly) defending or excusing the indefensible and the inexcusable on the Hostile Environment, Windrush, the British occupation of Afghanistan, Right to Buy, and Grenfell.
Another painful thing about this memoir is the silly idealism with which Theresa May looks at politics. When things go wrong she is frustrated that people aren't just better and less power hungry and more interested in THE PEOPLE! Instead of accepting the parameters of power, building and organising alliances within the capitalist state's many overlapping interests, and working to achieve her aims regardless, she dreams of a world where none of these things are a problem:
May discovers as Home Secretary that the London Metropolitan Police—one of the most notoriously corrupt police services—is actually very corrupt, racist and misogynistic.
May enters office as Prime Minister in a turbulent time and is dumbfounded by how political it is and the lack of interest from parliament to operate in the interest of a THE PEOPLE or THE GREATER GOOD. What happened to the love? To public service? To society? Where did all these politicians come from?
2. The Hostile Environment
Like most political memoirs, you leave with a sense of "she seems nice!" and "she was just trying to do the right thing!" which is all well and good if you know literally nothing about her or her life in politics.
It's laughable to have the woman responsible for the Hostile Environment—the policy brought in by May in 2012 aiming to create a 'hostile environment' for immigrants by denying them access to basic needs (healthcare, housing, employment), subjecting them to increased bureaucracy, waiting times and risks of criminalisation, and running racist, objectively neo-fascist campaigns aimed at threatening and demonising people of colour—rambling over and over about how she's just here to "SERVE THE GREATER GOOD!"
May's defence of the Hostile Environment and Windrush is conspicuously brief (like 10 pages). It amounts to a The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas defence where the audience is meant to feel sympathy when the wrong child gets killed, as opposed to the millions who were purposefully killed. Wait, I thought we were just subjecting immigrants to racism and psychological torture?! We accidentally did it to some normal people?!?!
May spills no ink on the likely millions of people who she personally put through the wringer via the Hostile Environment.
3. "They abused their power... because they could."
Oh boy you are going to hear the same words and phrases over and over again in this 300 page book!
To emphasise the repetitiveness, here are some statistics:
“Abuse” – 340 times
“Power” – 315 times
“The People” – 302 times
“Because they could” – 16 times
“The Greater Good” – 12 times
“Protect the institution” – 12 times
A substantial number of May's 'abuses of power' are far better explained through the lens of political, economic, and class interests.
With Brexit, it was in the political interests of the British Brexiteers and the DUP to work against May's objectives. They didn't see what they were doing as ‘abusing their power’, nor did their supporters.
With social media, it's in the economic interest of social media companies to race to the bottom and avoid any policing of their content that might impact their competitiveness.
With Hillsborough, it was in the class and political interest of the state and media to demonise the working class and defend the police.
With Primodos, it was in the economic interest of pharmaceutical companies to take advantage of institutionalised misogyny in the health system, to prioritise profits over human life, and to avoid, obfuscate, attack, downplay, and bury evidence that threatens those profits (as has been well documented throughout private health systems and with the industries like Tobacco and Energy).
(There are multiple moments in this book where May sounds genuinely shocked by pharmaceutical companies, or other multinationals, deliberately putting shareholder interests over human health and safety; but the most shocking thing is her shock. I'd say there are few normal people who will find these stories really that shocking.)
4. Grenfell
These same economic drivers were clearly present with the cladding companies that burned 72 people to death at Grenfell, coupled with the political and economic interests of the Tory housing agenda which has turned social housing into somewhere rats don't want to live. It's genuinely outrageous how much she attempts to point the finger solely at the Tory council and tenants management organisation for the Grenfell murders when at the time of writing there are over 4,500 UK buildings still with flammable cladding. (Unless it's a REALLY big council area I doubt those buildings are all in Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council.)
This is something May does throughout. She gives a seemingly complex view of a unique problem but particularises it and rarely gives us the root cause or a real theory to understand it (beyond saying “because they could”, which is not a motive by the way).
It is true that when a massive crisis takes place it usually is a failure of multiple actors, as the problem has failed to be flagged at multiple stages. But is there really no one primarily responsible? Is there no systemic issue or overriding theme driving companies that know their products are unsafe to sell them regardless? After all, in the case of Grenfell, we're talking about cladding that building company Kingspan tested 10 years prior and described as causing "a raging inferno." And I'm supposed to believe that the fault lies with the council for not being informed enough on cladding?
May takes time in this chapter to riff on council housing and how important it is to have high quality public accommodation for those living in poverty. This is despite the fact her party sold off more social houses than they built. Along with a pathetic (and obviously contradictory) defence of right to buy, she always conveniently ignores the fact that her party have been the government for 31 of the past 45 years. She talks a lot about the way things should be in her utopian world but less about what she actually did to change them and or how they could be achieved.
The big 'legacy' that she wants to hit home on Grenfell (p148) is that she's made it so that social housing managers will have to have housing management qualifications in the future. LOL
5. Global Politics
Her section on international politics, as with most western elites, is where the real ideology comes out, revealing a colonial mentality: European and European settler states are inherently the defenders of freedom and democracy despite being the countries primarily responsible for the colonisation, destruction, and exploitation of the entire globe from 1492 to the present.
Global South countries trying to exert power are bad. Russia and China are bad. China is trying to rule the world and if it tries to strike a trade deal with another country it is bad—inherently sneaky and suspicious one might say—and in contravention with the western-centric 'rules based order.' Notice they never say 'international law,' because this is not what they mean.
The rules-based order is the rule of the Godfather. The UK and the US invading, destroying and looting the world is fine. The UK occupying Afghanistan was fine. The Iraq War was fine. The destruction of Libya was fine. (In fact, the US cannot be prosecuted for war crimes because it has refused to sign up to the International Court of Justice.) This is the rules based order.
If a western-backed country (Israel) attempts to occupy and exterminate an estimated 180,000+ people that is fine. If China builds 3 military bases in countries off its coast that is bad. If the US builds 800 military bases in over 70 countries globally that is good. If Russia poisons a Russian spy turned defector in a foreign country it's a heinous crime, breaks international law (by violating Article 2 of the UN Charter) and is a semi-declaration of war. But if the US assassinates the head of the Iranian military in a foreign country or Israel assassinates the leader of Hamas in a foreign country it's fine.
The inconsistency is key and reveals which human lives are considered valuable and which aren't. Now let's play who said it, Vladimir Putin or Theresa May:
"In some ways it is easier to decide to take action and go into a country with a clear purpose and mandate than it is to decide to withdraw."
You guessed it! (p262) May speaks about invading countries like she’s choosing something for lunch; like it’s a normal day-to-day task of government and not something that has historically been confined to very, very few countries.
As a European official said to the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court earlier this year, the ICC wasn't built for westerners, it was "built for Africa and for thugs like Putin."
6. Afghanistan & Ukraine
May's shameless defence of the occupation of Afghanistan is laughable and she acts like turning a sovereign country into a US/UK colony for a hot minute before sending them hurtling back to the stone age is a major achievement. Like a true colonial official May describes pre-occupied Afghanistan as an "unenlightened society" (p268) and loves to mention how, since the west has left Afghanistan, it has fallen into "humanitarian crisis" (p262) and economic collapse with “people starving all over the country” (p268). There is no mention of the fact the west deliberately caused the humanitarian crisis and could end it whenever they want. Strange.
In the Ukraine War section, May does what the worst authors of popular biographies of historical figures do and she pretends to be a historian who understands what Putin thinks and how he views the world with no evidence to support any of these personality traits or attributes. I wish there were some actual tangible events in here linking her many years as a minister to the Russian government and what has happened in Ukraine (we do get some of that in the Salisbury section).
Instead, May just rhymes off a bunch of trite diatribes about how Putin is evil and wants to rule the world and is deeply insecure and never had a good relationship with his mother and (May actually says this) sees geopolitics through the lens of Judo.
The Ukraine chapter focusing on 'Russia invading sovereign nations' is hilarious considering it was preceded by the Afghanistan chapter where Britain merely 'goes into countries.' There is seemingly no contradiction in terms for May who continues to view the world as somewhere where occasionally civilizing the savages is a necessary evil—a taking up of the white man's burden.
7. Conclusion
May concludes the book by trying to make sense of the many clichés she's repeated throughout such as "They abused their power because they could" and "They chose to defend the interests of the institution instead of the people." She admits she's never had a real job apart from a couple years in the Bank of England—if she had, she might have known when you have a real job it is literally your job to defend the institution. Once again she ignores the realities of the economic and class incentives that drive the kinds of decision-making she's trying to grapple with.
Like most liberals, her solution is to demand that people be kinder, nicer, and, most importantly, better. The conclusion of books like these is always the some vague indication that the system is broken and we need to do better next time! How? And you were the government at the time? Why didn't you do anything?
May does indicate that modern individualism might be to blame for most abuses of power. She tiptoes around Thatcher maybe being the root cause of this shift to individualism, selfishness and consumerism, but it’s very obvious her class and party loyalties prevent her from being truly honest.
The book did make me think more deeply about the similarities between Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn. They were both idealistic politicians who were flanked by non-idealistic, power-hungry pragmatists (Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer) who were very willing to play the political game ruthlessly and sabotage their party leader's plans (Johnson in sinking May's soft-Brexit and pushing for hard-Brexit, Starmer in sinking Corbyn's soft-Brexit and pushing for hard-Remain) in pursuit of their political aims.
It feels difficult to learn lessons from May. There are few people who consider her three years as Prime Minister a success. She states multiple times in this book that politics is about meeting in the middle and making compromises with your opponents. But you really have to ask “And where did that get you?”
September 30, 2023
Surprisingly good second chapter on social injustice.. "It was this desire to defend the institution by rejecting or hiding failings that is a form of institutional corruption. This desire to shield the institution at all costs corrupts the thinking inside the institution, its purpose and hence its actions"
August 17, 2025
This wasn't a very engaging book, it is sparse on content and has a questionable and uninspired thesis. May outlines various injustices throughout recent history, both domestically and on the international stage. She argues that in all of these instances were individuals or institutions abusing their power, serving their personal interest rather than the public good.
As stated by other reviewers, the structure of this book doesn't work well. May did not want to write a traditional political memoir, but what she offered in its place reads more like a very brief encyclopaedia of injustices and scandals rather than a detailed examination into the events that unfolded, lacking the analytical depth of discussion you may expect from a former Prime Minister. May rarely goes beyond a surface level retelling of history, which albeit accessible for those with no prior knowledge of the mentioned scandals, adds little substance to the discourse surrounding these injustices.
The thesis of the book is also a bit weak. At best, it suffers from a lack of nuance, and at worst it feels very forced. May uses the term 'abuse of power' very broadly. While many of the injustices talked about in the book, such as the examples of Parliamentary misconduct, very clearly boil down to abuses of power, other examples could have been more accurately described as institutions / individuals absolving their selves of power, refusing to act when they possibly could have, rather than abusing the power they have. Further labels of abuses of power are also very subjective. When discussing Brexit for example, May argues MP's not voting in favour of her Brexit deal was an example of an abuse of power, as MP's were putting their own interest (their vision of what Brexit should be), above the public interest of getting Brexit over the line. This exact accusation can very easily be directed back at May herself depending on your political persuasion. The lack of nuance is cemented by May's repeated usage of the phrase, 'they abused power - because they could'. While I'm assuming (or hoping) this was more of a rhetorical flourish than an argument, it has the reductive effect of simplifying complex events, thereby doing a disservice to those who suffered from them and leaving us no further forward in preventing future misconduct.
The last quarter of the book was infinitely more engaging than the bulk of it, though it felt very disconnected from the rest of the book. May discusses trends in politics that she believes are conducive to the deterioration we see. I particularly enjoyed her discussions on the increasing absolutism and polarisation in politics. She offers some solutions which, though they are not novel, at least offer some glimpses into May's political beliefs. I believe a fleshed out book about May's philosophy and political style would have been more interesting to read. Post premiership, she has often been at odds with her party. In her personality, she joins a list of introverted Prime Ministers, and has previously expressed her discomfort with the new 'spectacle' style of politics, with greater focus on social media presentation. I'd like to have heard more about what shaped her beliefs, her views of the current inception of Conservatives and the argument for her approach of politics, rather than it being confined to a single chapter at the end of an otherwise forgettable book.
As stated by other reviewers, the structure of this book doesn't work well. May did not want to write a traditional political memoir, but what she offered in its place reads more like a very brief encyclopaedia of injustices and scandals rather than a detailed examination into the events that unfolded, lacking the analytical depth of discussion you may expect from a former Prime Minister. May rarely goes beyond a surface level retelling of history, which albeit accessible for those with no prior knowledge of the mentioned scandals, adds little substance to the discourse surrounding these injustices.
The thesis of the book is also a bit weak. At best, it suffers from a lack of nuance, and at worst it feels very forced. May uses the term 'abuse of power' very broadly. While many of the injustices talked about in the book, such as the examples of Parliamentary misconduct, very clearly boil down to abuses of power, other examples could have been more accurately described as institutions / individuals absolving their selves of power, refusing to act when they possibly could have, rather than abusing the power they have. Further labels of abuses of power are also very subjective. When discussing Brexit for example, May argues MP's not voting in favour of her Brexit deal was an example of an abuse of power, as MP's were putting their own interest (their vision of what Brexit should be), above the public interest of getting Brexit over the line. This exact accusation can very easily be directed back at May herself depending on your political persuasion. The lack of nuance is cemented by May's repeated usage of the phrase, 'they abused power - because they could'. While I'm assuming (or hoping) this was more of a rhetorical flourish than an argument, it has the reductive effect of simplifying complex events, thereby doing a disservice to those who suffered from them and leaving us no further forward in preventing future misconduct.
The last quarter of the book was infinitely more engaging than the bulk of it, though it felt very disconnected from the rest of the book. May discusses trends in politics that she believes are conducive to the deterioration we see. I particularly enjoyed her discussions on the increasing absolutism and polarisation in politics. She offers some solutions which, though they are not novel, at least offer some glimpses into May's political beliefs. I believe a fleshed out book about May's philosophy and political style would have been more interesting to read. Post premiership, she has often been at odds with her party. In her personality, she joins a list of introverted Prime Ministers, and has previously expressed her discomfort with the new 'spectacle' style of politics, with greater focus on social media presentation. I'd like to have heard more about what shaped her beliefs, her views of the current inception of Conservatives and the argument for her approach of politics, rather than it being confined to a single chapter at the end of an otherwise forgettable book.
January 14, 2024
Първата ми политическа книга и определено много неща като ги обясняваше ми бяха много странни, но беше интересно да чуя нейното мнение за важни събития от UK и света.
Тереза Мей беше много добър министър председател за разлика от всички останали посредствени създания, които се появиха след нея и преди нея. Хората поради някаква причина не я харесваха, но още преди да прочета тази книга от поведението и действията ѝ, можех да кажа, че тя наистина приема работата си като министър председател като призвание да служи на страната си. Речта й, когато обяви, че се маха от поста, още стои с мен и не вярвам някога да си отиде.
За съжаление, много лошо ръка ѝ беше раздадена и отношението към жените в политиката, не се е променило, тоест беше обречена от самото начало. Никой не ѝ даде шанс. Как да е. Нямаше как, визирайки, че я харесвам като политик, да не прочета какво иска да сподели.
Макар книгата да не е точно това, което се надявах да бъде, всъщност се оказа много интересна и по много точки съм съгласна с нея, не само по отношение на живота в UK, но по отношение на световната обстановка. Чак леко се депресирах към края, защото е плашещо, когато страховете ти биват вадилизирани и анализирани от значима политическа фигура. Интересно четиво за всеки живеещ тук или интересуващ се от политическата световна обстановка като цяло. :)
Мей твърди, че примерите ѝ са примери на ситуации, в които различни фигури злоупотребяват със силата и правомощията, които имат, но за мен бяха случаи, в които просто хора гледат своя интерес или да им е по-лесно. Минава през примери, специфични за Великобритания, както и някои в световно отношение и говорейки за Русия, чак ме накара да пожелая да прочета малко повече за цялата политическа ситуация там.
Тереза Мей беше много добър министър председател за разлика от всички останали посредствени създания, които се появиха след нея и преди нея. Хората поради някаква причина не я харесваха, но още преди да прочета тази книга от поведението и действията ѝ, можех да кажа, че тя наистина приема работата си като министър председател като призвание да служи на страната си. Речта й, когато обяви, че се маха от поста, още стои с мен и не вярвам някога да си отиде.
За съжаление, много лошо ръка ѝ беше раздадена и отношението към жените в политиката, не се е променило, тоест беше обречена от самото начало. Никой не ѝ даде шанс. Как да е. Нямаше как, визирайки, че я харесвам като политик, да не прочета какво иска да сподели.
Макар книгата да не е точно това, което се надявах да бъде, всъщност се оказа много интересна и по много точки съм съгласна с нея, не само по отношение на живота в UK, но по отношение на световната обстановка. Чак леко се депресирах към края, защото е плашещо, когато страховете ти биват вадилизирани и анализирани от значима политическа фигура. Интересно четиво за всеки живеещ тук или интересуващ се от политическата световна обстановка като цяло. :)
Мей твърди, че примерите ѝ са примери на ситуации, в които различни фигури злоупотребяват със силата и правомощията, които имат, но за мен бяха случаи, в които просто хора гледат своя интерес или да им е по-лесно. Минава през примери, специфични за Великобритания, както и някои в световно отношение и говорейки за Русия, чак ме накара да пожелая да прочета малко повече за цялата политическа ситуация там.
September 16, 2023
I listened to this on Audible.
I can't get over how Theresa May wanted to consider the 48% one moment and then the 52% the next during the Brexit outcome. I was genuinely shocked about the extreme leave and extreme remain elements. Including the under hand work of the speaker. Yet Theresa still tried to please both sides and ended up pleasing no one. I can accept the dilemma of her situation. But then she kept talking about compromise here, there and everywhere, I suspect she did not want to implement the overall referendum result either. She was too focused on appeasing all sides. This part of her memoir came across as weak and ineffective.
There were many other topics of great interest that opened a listeners eyes. It was also read very well by Theresa May. I enjoyed much of this, but I still can't get over the Brexit part of here book. It is something that left me dumfounded. But then, let's be honest, it was never going to be easy for anyone. I can't help feeling she lost sight of the binary vote having one lot of winners and one lot of losers. It's as though she wanted to give everyone nothing. Nothing, except compromise. (I'm not going to make you vote again, but you can't really have what you voted for) So we should compromise. There can be no winners. Only losers, on each side.
I think she would have made for a good prime minister if there was no Brexit blot on the landscape. She was caught up in a horrendous two-way storm. This in or out vote was always going to bring about her downfall. Sadly, everything is overshadowed by her failure concerning Brexit.
I would recommend this book. It has many good topics of interest beyond what I'm banging on about.
I can't get over how Theresa May wanted to consider the 48% one moment and then the 52% the next during the Brexit outcome. I was genuinely shocked about the extreme leave and extreme remain elements. Including the under hand work of the speaker. Yet Theresa still tried to please both sides and ended up pleasing no one. I can accept the dilemma of her situation. But then she kept talking about compromise here, there and everywhere, I suspect she did not want to implement the overall referendum result either. She was too focused on appeasing all sides. This part of her memoir came across as weak and ineffective.
There were many other topics of great interest that opened a listeners eyes. It was also read very well by Theresa May. I enjoyed much of this, but I still can't get over the Brexit part of here book. It is something that left me dumfounded. But then, let's be honest, it was never going to be easy for anyone. I can't help feeling she lost sight of the binary vote having one lot of winners and one lot of losers. It's as though she wanted to give everyone nothing. Nothing, except compromise. (I'm not going to make you vote again, but you can't really have what you voted for) So we should compromise. There can be no winners. Only losers, on each side.
I think she would have made for a good prime minister if there was no Brexit blot on the landscape. She was caught up in a horrendous two-way storm. This in or out vote was always going to bring about her downfall. Sadly, everything is overshadowed by her failure concerning Brexit.
I would recommend this book. It has many good topics of interest beyond what I'm banging on about.
October 3, 2024
An interesting take on the usual Prime Ministerial memoir which focuses heavily on service rather than power, which is consistent with the general view of Theresa May since she left Downing Street.
That being said this felt like a halfway house which achieved neither aim fully. There were some huge issues covered in each chapter of this book which made it feel as though they weren’t getting enough in-depth attention.
Moreover, I felt that as a memoir of sorts there needed to be more direct focus on May’s roles in the specifics of the abuses. I’d have liked to see more internal discussions and an insight into how the government was facing these issues at the time, rather than just a summary of largely already-known facts.
Overall an important discussion of some major issues which stands May in good stead, but which felt a little underwhelming throughout.
That being said this felt like a halfway house which achieved neither aim fully. There were some huge issues covered in each chapter of this book which made it feel as though they weren’t getting enough in-depth attention.
Moreover, I felt that as a memoir of sorts there needed to be more direct focus on May’s roles in the specifics of the abuses. I’d have liked to see more internal discussions and an insight into how the government was facing these issues at the time, rather than just a summary of largely already-known facts.
Overall an important discussion of some major issues which stands May in good stead, but which felt a little underwhelming throughout.
March 27, 2024
As with any review of a political memoir it's healthy to take everything said with multiple pinches of salt, that said Theresa May has penned a clear and well balanced view of her political experiences.
Overall I found the entire book to be incredibly bleak as it seems that even when trusted with the highest office the UK is absolutely entrenched with red tape, legislation and decades old institutional corruption/ racism and tribalism across all sectors.
May's criticisms of Absolutism rife throughout the country are undeniably bang on target. Her crosshairs take aim not just politics and government but at the public sector too, an area in which I am currently employed as of writing and brought to light many cases and examples that my industry has buried in history.
Her philosophy and politics may not always perfectly align with my own but it is clear from this book that this is a lady who you want in politics regardless of which way you lean. This is someone whose career is devoted to service and not the party line or pursuit of status, sadly a dying breed of British politicians.
Regardless of alliances, political interest or bias I believe it's always interesting to hear the perspective of world leaders and this is no different.
Overall I found the entire book to be incredibly bleak as it seems that even when trusted with the highest office the UK is absolutely entrenched with red tape, legislation and decades old institutional corruption/ racism and tribalism across all sectors.
May's criticisms of Absolutism rife throughout the country are undeniably bang on target. Her crosshairs take aim not just politics and government but at the public sector too, an area in which I am currently employed as of writing and brought to light many cases and examples that my industry has buried in history.
Her philosophy and politics may not always perfectly align with my own but it is clear from this book that this is a lady who you want in politics regardless of which way you lean. This is someone whose career is devoted to service and not the party line or pursuit of status, sadly a dying breed of British politicians.
Regardless of alliances, political interest or bias I believe it's always interesting to hear the perspective of world leaders and this is no different.
January 17, 2024
A very interesting, honest and quite unusual book from an ex-Prime Minister.
Rather than producing the run-of -the-mill memoir, aimed at showing the writer in a positive light, Theresa May instead chooses to highlight case-studies from her personal experience, showing how power has been abused by organisations and/or politicians. By her own admission, most of the material comes from the public sector, as that is where the bulk of her experience lies. The examples range from Hillsborough, through Grenfell Tower to the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. One example of the abuse of power she fails to mention is that exercised by her own Special Advisors.
However, she is to be commended in producing a book that is honest and where she is not afraid to offer her own apologies at times.
Rather than producing the run-of -the-mill memoir, aimed at showing the writer in a positive light, Theresa May instead chooses to highlight case-studies from her personal experience, showing how power has been abused by organisations and/or politicians. By her own admission, most of the material comes from the public sector, as that is where the bulk of her experience lies. The examples range from Hillsborough, through Grenfell Tower to the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. One example of the abuse of power she fails to mention is that exercised by her own Special Advisors.
However, she is to be commended in producing a book that is honest and where she is not afraid to offer her own apologies at times.
November 2, 2023
A really interesting read for anyone interested in politics. Theresa May was a very flawed Home Secretary and Prime Minister who made some very bad decisions, yet should still be respected for the honour and dignity she brought to the offices and continues to provide. This book shows the importance of service and should be learnt from in spite of the mistakes made and the pieces left out.
September 25, 2023
I didn’t know if I was going to enjoy this book or not but it was a great read and was in parts big eye opener would recommend it to anyone it’s not about what party you vote for it’s about right from wrong
November 25, 2023
The last of dying breed of acceptable/good tories (in the opinion of a socialist). She turned “states witness”, a poignant explanation and analogous pointing at the flaws at past present events uk government. There are points we she does describe quandaries she faced when pick responsibilities.
October 29, 2023
I had high expectations, at the outset, but was rather disappointed. That being said, some of the chapters were very interesting and informative. However, I felt that the author had so much to say she lost her way at times.
Reading this book was a bit like listening to a school debate - she made a point strongly, then did an about turn and gave us an 'on the other hand' view.
Throughout the book she conveyed her strong sense of justice and I could feel her frustration at the way things are.
Unfortunately, I fear that to improve anything in society, or in the world, it's not just institutions that need to change, it's individual people themselves. And that's another day's work!
Reading this book was a bit like listening to a school debate - she made a point strongly, then did an about turn and gave us an 'on the other hand' view.
Throughout the book she conveyed her strong sense of justice and I could feel her frustration at the way things are.
Unfortunately, I fear that to improve anything in society, or in the world, it's not just institutions that need to change, it's individual people themselves. And that's another day's work!
May 8, 2025
What a deeply insightful, emotional, and informative book on the abuses of power that have lingered in civil society and its institutions. Baroness May highlights key injustices that have occurred both throughout her political and non political career, illuminating how these abuses of power have come to fruition and what our politicians, institutions, and governing bodies have done or not done to help prevent or enable such abuses. This book is deep, illuminating, and shocking at unraveling the scale of the abuses of power that have occurred in the UK and overseas.
October 23, 2023
Relatively interesting to read about such a wave of injustices and what we can take from them. I did find the chapters too brief so you never properly delved into them and would have been interested in hearing more about how May acted on them.
December 3, 2023
Found the whole book rather ironic really
December 23, 2023
It’s an interesting and very honest read on the abuse of power my main criticism is that it does nor give a very hopeful outlook on the future
November 14, 2023
This book has come in for some rather tough criticism. I found it clearly written and a very interesting collection of case studies. It doesn't dazzle with rhetorical flourishes, rather like its author, and is all the better for that. The most interesting thing about it is that it is what a former PM chose to write this rather than a straight forwardly self-serving - and more lucrative- memoir. It even contains an apology. I most certainly didn't agree with everything Theresa May did as Home Secretary and PM, but her work on women's rights and Modern Slavery were very important and she stands head and shoulders what came before and after from her party.
November 26, 2023
Instead of writing a biography, T. MAY has decided to write a kind of political essay which is quite interesting in itself. Very clear. Even if we are aware of the problems in politics, it is very different to verbalize them. For some, the book is empty but for some others, it is the contrary. And easy to read. The little flaw, she should have named some politicians to go as far as possible to denounce the abuse of power. I suppose then it would have been the end of her career.
December 1, 2023
Truly refreshing to have a senior politician hold their hands up, admit and own up to mistakes they’ve made. One fears a dying habit of today’s frontline politicians. But also in this book someone with a clear grasp of detail and great integrity emerges. While not exactly light reading it is insightful and in focusing on a clear passion project rather than straightforward memoir more insightful with it.
September 28, 2023
A good read but disappointing too!! no depth to any of the discussions including Brexit which defined her time as Prime Minister. The idea was good but she covered subjects of injustice only briefly without the detail required to enable us to see what she has achieved. A hint of self-righteousness figured throughout the book.
December 26, 2023
An interesting set of case studies, which attempts to address her legacy from being in office. Each section was a tad short, and therefore it felt more like an introduction to each of the cases of ‘abuses of power’ rather than in depth discussion.
August 2, 2024
A good book that explored lots of important issues. However, she failed to explain the role that she directly played in these abuses of power. Additionally, the book read a little dryly - a bit like a textbook.
December 10, 2023
Hindsight is a wonderful thing
December 24, 2023
Theresa May is a good MP, a competent minister and she was a terrible PM. She is well known for drilling down into the details of issues and this book is mainly about things that happened when she was either at the Home Office or the PM. She has linked all the cases in the book under the umbrella "Abuse of Power" by which she means institutions or individuals acting in their interest rather than for the common good. My problem with that though is I see it as largely human nature, and it's almost inevitable that once people have power they will sometimes abuse it. As would those who claim to be abused if they are given more power.
Anyone expecting to read about Brexit is going to be disappointed. That gets a short chapter and the chief culprit is speaker John Bercow. Granted, he abused his position a bit, but he wasn't the only one (in both camps) during that chaotic time. She was a rabbit in the headlights and tried to find a middle ground which satisfied nobody.
Otherwise, the examples are drawn mainly from social justice. There were examples I was quite familiar with like Hillsborough and Grenfell. One or two I had heard of, but never taken much interest in (Rotherham, Rochdale, Windrush) and some I have never come across. Theresa May has immersed herself in these cases and tried to fight for justice in each of them as she saw fit.
Social media companies protecting their commercial interests May sees as an Abuse of Power. Of course they will - they are publically listed companies which need to make a profit! MPs might be public servants as she puts it but Meta employees are not.
Unfortunately, the main weapons in May's armoury against abuse of power seem to be establishing grievance procedures (which are themselves open to abuse) and the dreaded Public Enquiry. We in the UK seem to love our Public Enquiries. There are around 50 going on at the moment, some of them stretching on for years and no doubt very lucrative for those running them. Usually, they report long after the minister who commissioned them has left office. May, to her credit, is thorough enough to keep track of "her" enquiries and a few she wrote about here eventually reported when she had returned to the back benches. But the general public often has long lost interest when the enquiries eventually report, and therefore not much seems to happen in many cases. If it does, there is another long wait for legislation or charges to be brought, which involves a whole different set of institutions scrutinising the report for another long period before acting. Quite often the perpetrators and victims have retired or died by the time something happens. The Lucy Letby inquiry, for example, not covered in this book (but could have done had it involved May), will take many years to report. The Covid enquiry happening at the moment I have already lost interest in.
So a detailed look at some of the battles Theresa May has fought, laudable as many of them are, but it didn't inspire me.
Anyone expecting to read about Brexit is going to be disappointed. That gets a short chapter and the chief culprit is speaker John Bercow. Granted, he abused his position a bit, but he wasn't the only one (in both camps) during that chaotic time. She was a rabbit in the headlights and tried to find a middle ground which satisfied nobody.
Otherwise, the examples are drawn mainly from social justice. There were examples I was quite familiar with like Hillsborough and Grenfell. One or two I had heard of, but never taken much interest in (Rotherham, Rochdale, Windrush) and some I have never come across. Theresa May has immersed herself in these cases and tried to fight for justice in each of them as she saw fit.
Social media companies protecting their commercial interests May sees as an Abuse of Power. Of course they will - they are publically listed companies which need to make a profit! MPs might be public servants as she puts it but Meta employees are not.
Unfortunately, the main weapons in May's armoury against abuse of power seem to be establishing grievance procedures (which are themselves open to abuse) and the dreaded Public Enquiry. We in the UK seem to love our Public Enquiries. There are around 50 going on at the moment, some of them stretching on for years and no doubt very lucrative for those running them. Usually, they report long after the minister who commissioned them has left office. May, to her credit, is thorough enough to keep track of "her" enquiries and a few she wrote about here eventually reported when she had returned to the back benches. But the general public often has long lost interest when the enquiries eventually report, and therefore not much seems to happen in many cases. If it does, there is another long wait for legislation or charges to be brought, which involves a whole different set of institutions scrutinising the report for another long period before acting. Quite often the perpetrators and victims have retired or died by the time something happens. The Lucy Letby inquiry, for example, not covered in this book (but could have done had it involved May), will take many years to report. The Covid enquiry happening at the moment I have already lost interest in.
So a detailed look at some of the battles Theresa May has fought, laudable as many of them are, but it didn't inspire me.
October 18, 2025
To be clear (as a politician may well say) my two star rating is not a judgement on May herself but on this book, however the character of the author seeps through into the work and does have a impact on it (naturally). The central issue is that I am sure Theresa May believes herself to be a good person , a principled one and to a degree she was, she was dealt a difficult hand over Brexit after David Cameron abandoned ship but then managed to throw away the Tory majority with an ill considered general election campaign and her work on the Modern Slavery Act was an honourable achievement.
What is difficult is that May come across as totally sanctimonious and her prejudices seep through. She cannot disguise her contempt for the police, lambasting them for veering from one extreme to another without any self reflection that maybe that was due to politicians demands and a sometimes healthy "sod you" approach many rank and file in any organisation adopt when met with another round of change and criticism which they know is a knee jerk reaction.
In discussing other issues she seems weirdly detached at times , as if she is discussing events someones lived through, the tortures she must have endured trying to push the EU Withdrawal Act through Parliament are skimmed over and when discussing the child abuse scandle and the role of the churches in it i`d have liked to know what she genuingly felt about priests who betrayed the trust placed in them, her own father was a vicar, has she reflected on what he would have felt about it all, she seems to be an observer saying over and over about people abusing their power and covering up (again without any serious understanding that one reason why agencies are so defensive is that any action or inaction they may take is subject to the whims of self serving politicians and the media and on many occasions public servants in a damned if you do , damned if you don`t situation knowing senior "leaders" will be all too ready to throw them under the bus seek to protect themselves.
I can`t recommend this oddly detached and odd book
What is difficult is that May come across as totally sanctimonious and her prejudices seep through. She cannot disguise her contempt for the police, lambasting them for veering from one extreme to another without any self reflection that maybe that was due to politicians demands and a sometimes healthy "sod you" approach many rank and file in any organisation adopt when met with another round of change and criticism which they know is a knee jerk reaction.
In discussing other issues she seems weirdly detached at times , as if she is discussing events someones lived through, the tortures she must have endured trying to push the EU Withdrawal Act through Parliament are skimmed over and when discussing the child abuse scandle and the role of the churches in it i`d have liked to know what she genuingly felt about priests who betrayed the trust placed in them, her own father was a vicar, has she reflected on what he would have felt about it all, she seems to be an observer saying over and over about people abusing their power and covering up (again without any serious understanding that one reason why agencies are so defensive is that any action or inaction they may take is subject to the whims of self serving politicians and the media and on many occasions public servants in a damned if you do , damned if you don`t situation knowing senior "leaders" will be all too ready to throw them under the bus seek to protect themselves.
I can`t recommend this oddly detached and odd book
September 26, 2023
I applaud Theresa May for trying to do something other than the usual political memoir. She has, as she says in her book, had time to reflect since stepping down as Prime Minister. In this work, she looks at what she sees as the abuse of power in public life, through looking back at major events during her time as Home Secretary and later PM.
Events are split into Power and Politics (including events such as the expenses scandal, Harvey Weinstein, Brexit), Social Injustice (Hillsborough, Primodus, Grenfell and Rotherham, among other isssues) and the International Scene (her meeting with the unpredictable President Trump, the Salisbury Poisoning, Afghanistan and Ukraine) and then she concludes with a section on Learning from the Past.
I think that she has tried to take into account her own failings, recognising she made mistakes in how she responded to certain events and it is clear that she has a keen view of how politicians and institutions, such as the police, need to be less defensive and accept criticism. However, much of this does read as though she knew what to do, but could not always follow it through due to other people - her inability to 'get Brexit done' being a good example. In politics, you are judged by your actions and, if you fail to deliver, then ultimately that goes back to the government or Prime Minister. Still, Theresa May makes a very important point about the importance of public service and values that she obviously feels strongly about as well as the challenges of putting those into practice when the balance of power is with those who are personally ambitious.
Events are split into Power and Politics (including events such as the expenses scandal, Harvey Weinstein, Brexit), Social Injustice (Hillsborough, Primodus, Grenfell and Rotherham, among other isssues) and the International Scene (her meeting with the unpredictable President Trump, the Salisbury Poisoning, Afghanistan and Ukraine) and then she concludes with a section on Learning from the Past.
I think that she has tried to take into account her own failings, recognising she made mistakes in how she responded to certain events and it is clear that she has a keen view of how politicians and institutions, such as the police, need to be less defensive and accept criticism. However, much of this does read as though she knew what to do, but could not always follow it through due to other people - her inability to 'get Brexit done' being a good example. In politics, you are judged by your actions and, if you fail to deliver, then ultimately that goes back to the government or Prime Minister. Still, Theresa May makes a very important point about the importance of public service and values that she obviously feels strongly about as well as the challenges of putting those into practice when the balance of power is with those who are personally ambitious.
November 23, 2025
The Abuse of Power is an insightful and often sobering look at how institutions respond when trust is tested. The book offers a clear, structured exploration of high-profile cases and the ways systems can fail the people they’re meant to protect. Its strength lies in its detailed examination of these events and the calm, measured tone used to unpack them.
However, the narrative can feel uneven. Some chapters are compelling and sharply observed, while others drift into repetition or feel more like summaries than deep analysis. The book occasionally keeps readers at arm’s length, offering reflection but not always the emotional or narrative depth that might have made the themes more resonant.
There are valuable moments—particularly when the author highlights overlooked perspectives or draws attention to the human cost behind institutional mistakes. These sections feel urgent and necessary.
Overall, The Abuse of Power is a thoughtful read with important insights, but its impact is somewhat diluted by inconsistent pacing and a tone that can be more informative than engaging. A solid three stars.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 85 reviews