LIKE some undead Hammer Horror monster, the myth of Maggie returns to haunt us. The devoted disciples of the Thatcher cult want her back in power – in spirit if not in person.
A YouGov survey shows that in a general election held today, Mrs T at her peak would sweep to power, comfortably beating Churchill (in his second term of office), Blair and all others as "Britain's greatest post-war prime minister".
Utter hooey,
of course. The poll merely shows three things: a blinding ignorance of modern political history, that the public's memory is woefully short, and the dearth of "great" political leaders.
Since the Second World War there have been three notable PMs: Thatcher, Tony Blair and the oft- forgotten Clement Attlee. And if "greatness" means doing most for the people (and not to the people), Attlee wins hands down.
The most significant reforming administration of 20th-century Britain, Attlee's government created the National Health Service and the welfare state, nationalised one-fifth of the British economy, began the process of granting independence to former colonies, and negotiated the dangerous early years of the Cold War while rebuilding our war-ravaged country.
Thatcher certainly changed Britain, but does anyone dare say she changed it for the better? Socially and politically, she was our most divisive 20th-century figure. She shackled the trade unions, privatised the state-owned industries and reduced taxes, but at the expense of slashing social spending, giving more to the "haves" while driving down the "have-nots" and increasing the underclass.
There has been no greater political lie than the words spoken on the steps of 10 Downing Street: "Where there is discord, may we bring harmony…"
Yet, according to the poll, all other post-war PMs are pigmies in the shadow of Maggie. Blair only receives one-third of her total.
What made Attlee, Thatcher and Blair memorable was that they seized the mood of a moment in history. For Attlee, it took a leader with a social conscience to use the end-of-war togetherness to tackle "the five giant evils of want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness"; for Thatcher, it was pandering to the "greed is good" mentality of the 1980s; for Blair, it was the need for change and modernisation.
Here endeth the history lesson, because a more immediate question arises: has Gordon Brown got what it takes to become a great prime minister? Many believed so, because of his past performance, his political creed and his personal values; but now they are less confident.
The mood in the current economic climate is nervousness and uncertainty, but where the nation needs authority and assurance, it is getting a crisis of confidence in the Government and a less-than-sure touch on the most straightforward issues. This has communicated itself from the Cabinet room, where there have been reports of near punch-ups, to a loss of discipline among Labour backbenchers, who mutter about already having lost the next general election, to the country where support for the Government is draining away.
Polls come and go, but the more reliable "poll of polls" last week gave the Tories an 11-point lead over Labour, and Brown's stock would drop still further if Labour do poorly in the English local elections on May 1.
Aspiring to greatness in such circumstances seems irrational, and for many in Labour mere survival after the next UK general election would be enough. Yet Gordon Brown can still show he is potentially the prime minister his country needs at the start of the 21st century.
He could start by learning the lessons of Attlee, Thatcher and Blair, who were all conviction politicians and communicated confidence about what they were doing, right or wrong. The astonishing thing to those who know the Prime Minister's certitude is how hesitant he has been on key issues, from the election-that-wasn't to the Olympics.
The impression of a man at the mercy of events was never clearer than when we saw Chinese thugs in blue tracksuits pushing people around in Downing Street and dictating who got near the Olympic flame on our Prime Minister's own doorstep.
Brown has always been best when he reacted with his gut instincts or, as he would have it, his "moral compass". It is when he listens to partisan advisers, ministers defending their own patch or civil servants who always find a reason for doing nothing that he swithers and dithers on matters large and small. Allow a conscience vote on embryo research? Of course! Treat the Gurkhas decently? Certainly! Abolish the 10p tax rate? Okay, as long as you have a convincing explanation of how the whole tax and benefits package helps the vulnerable. So why all the confusion?
Once he regains control – and speaking out about patience with events in Zimbabwe "wearing thin" is a start – the Prime Minister can reconnect with the people and restate his long-term agenda. The nation needs reassurance and there is a growing feeling that our money-oriented materialistic society has taken a wrong turn.
Brown's basic values could give people what they want: more control over their own lives in a more equal and less-divided society, while doing more to combat poverty, hunger and disease around the world – but he has to communicate that vision more forcibly.
