Churchill's insight into what really mattered Perhaps the most useful thing in this book, though, is the first chapter, which takes as its epigraph Lord Beaverbrook's words: "There are two Churchills: Churchill up and Churchill down." Over fewer than 80 pages, this is an account of the character of the man who succeeded, and failed, more strikingly than almost anyone else. People are often looking for such an account, I find, and usually end up having to derive it from much longer works. Prof Dilks's version is fair, entertaining and succinct. Reading this book, especially this opening chapter, I found myself constantly noting instances of Churchill's leadership and finding models (and cautionary tales) for leadership in general. Some of these are obvious virtues. Stalin, for instance, admiringly attributed to Churchill the quality of "desperation" - "an untameable resolve to fight the war to a victorious finish no matter what the odds or the cost." But there are less obvious ones, too. His insistence on setting down all his decisions on paper was not only wonderful for posterity, it was also the mark of self-confidence and clarity of mind. Churchill often rambled in conversation, and wrote at too great length in some of his books, but the memos he dictated as prime minister were concise and exact. They show a leader governing, and thinking as he does so. He also had a gift for what Prof Dilks calls the "unheralded and penetrating remark." "Do you realise," he exclaimed one day, "that from the time the Romans left Britain until the arrival of the American heiresses, this country was completely without central heating?" Such interruptions are an odd aspect of good leadership. It is something to do with the need for perspective, for individuality and for surprise. Whitehall tends to lack all three. Then there were attributes of Churchill which were positively bad - his frequent refusal to listen to wise advice, his inattention to those around him, and his habit, particularly when tired, of chasing hares in the conversation. He could be, as LS Amery, the Secretary of State for India, put it, "at the same moment dictatorial, eloquent and muddle-headed." These were all faults, obviously, but one of the odd things about leadership is that it requires faults. Which leader is praised for doing everything perfectly? People prefer their leaders to be unreasonable from time to time, because it is part of the special contribution they can make. It is the task of officials and ministers to work out what is possible. It is the role of leaders to demand the impossible. I remember the relief in Cabinet and government when John Major became prime minister in 1990. He was mild-mannered, collegiate and keen on the orderly despatch of business. He came as a huge relief after 11 and a half years of Margaret Thatcher. But she had led, and he did not. And so, after a bit, others did not follow him. Prof Dilks reminds us that, when he became prime minister in May 1940, Churchill did not immediately become leader of the Conservative Party. This happened later, when Chamberlain fell mortally ill. Churchill wondered whether, with his history of shifting party allegiance, he was suitable. But he concluded that, amid his "very varying opinions," he had stuck by "two public causes which I think stand supreme - the maintenance of the enduring greatness of Britain and her Empire and the historical continuity of her island life." He was surely right that this qualified him for leadership - he had a dogged understanding of the difference between what doesn't matter and what does.