Can there be a Prime Minister who has endured such a battering in the first 12 months of office? Long gone are the glory days of the first period of Labour in power after 1997. Then, Labour ministers walked on water. Now, even on concrete, they look as if they descending into political quicksand.

For Brown, it was not meant to be like this. He was the co-founder of New Labour with Tony Blair. The product and the project had done better than Labour had ever managed in its history. But politics is always about tomorrow. Legacy is for history books. Voters are not interested in what Brown did two or five or 10 years ago. What has he done since he became Prime Minister is the only question.

And here Brown faced the question Napoleon asked of his generals. Not is he good, but is he lucky? Brown, in any world ranking of contemporary politicians, is the best finance and economic minister this century. But, as Prime Minister, his luck ran out. Brown's favourite after-dinner joke before June 2007 went: "There are two types of Chancellor. Those that failed. And those that got out in time."

It is clear that Tony Blair got out in time. The premature putsch against him by over-eager Brownites anxious to install their man in No 10 hastened Blair's departure. But it may have turned out to be a blessing in disguise for Blair as the moment he stepped out of Downing Street for the last time, 12 months ago, was the moment the world's long run of growth came to a shuddering end.

The triple tsunami of rapidly rising prices for fuel, food and credit is making every voter mad with anger at those in charge in every country in the world. Brown has been accused of being a ditherer, and the favourite epithet thrown at his 12 months of leadership is lack of decisive leadership. Mistakes were made. I canvassed the opinions of 70 or so Labour MPs at the Labour Party conference last September as speculation built up on whether or not to hold an early election.

By a majority of two to one, they said "No". I wrote a letter to Brown setting out their views. Sadly, and foolishly, he allowed the eager beavers around him, none of whom have known what it is to lose elections, to nag away for an early poll.

The Tories exploited this indecision with tax pledges that made no economic sense, like imposing swingeing taxes on foreign investors and high-worth foreign professionals. But bashing Johnny Foreigner and pretending there is a secret pot of tax gold is populist politics which panicked Labour.

It was Brown's wobble moment and the memory cost him dear, as did the disaster of the 10p tax issue.

However, if one examines his record more closely since then, what is striking is not how weak and wet his decisions have been, but how rigid and unbending, almost to the point of political recklessness, Brown has been willing to be.

Leaving to one side the well-rehearsed arguments for and against Europe and the Lisbon Treaty, Brown rejected Blair's slippery opportunism over an EU referendum for a clear commitment to uphold parliamentary sovereignty.

For three months last summer and autumn, the anti-European Press in London ran front-page stories scorning Brown and organising reader petitions for a referendum.

The Sun, a core paper for Labour voters, devoted seven pages during the Labour Party conference to denouncing Brown's "betrayal" of Britain on account of his refusal to give in to anti-EU forces and hold a referendum.

Gordon Brown calmly and confidently stood his ground against the EU plebiscite call. He won his votes in the Commons and the Lords despite Europhobe Labour MPs and Tory Lords claiming mass support for anti-Brown rebellions.

Or take the question of 42 days. For Brown it would have been more comfortable to give in to the Left-liberal establishment grouped around former Labour lawyer-ministers of the stature of Lord Goldsmith and Lord Falconer. But Brown waved away the comfort of pleasing the Notting Hill-Islington liberati to do what he thinks is right for the national security of our islands.

Similarly, on nuclear power, or ordering new aircraft carriers, or reinforcing our troops in Afghanistan, and coming out for the Euroatlantic alliance with the United States, Brown has almost wilfully defied the conventional wisdom of the old Labour Left who thought that they would have the Prime Minister of their dreams by removing Blair.

While David Cameron surrendered to the anti-abortion tirades of the populist tabloid editors in London by voting to reduce women's rights to determine their own fertility, Brown, the son of the manse, published a forceful article in defence of women and scientific research.

A more cautious Prime Minister, conscious of the need to keep the religious vote happy, would have dodged the issue and tried to keep a low profile. Not Brown. Like a latter-day Luther, he takes out his theses about stem-cell research, or Europe, or nuclear power, or 42 days, and nails them to the front of the nation's door, saying: "This is right for my country. I can do no other."

So far this unyielding firmness is not paying off in terms of personal popularity or Labour's standing in the polls. David Cameron's easy charm and his chameleon ability to be
all things to all voters is lifting the Tories high above Labour. But will this last?

The big Prime Ministers Britain has had in peacetime were not Notting Hill charmers but rather stern, hard-working obsessives like Margaret Thatcher, Clem Attlee or, in earlier times, William Gladstone. They defied public and party opinion to do what was right for the nation.

The last year has been the most miserable in Brown's political career. And not much fun for Labour MPs either. Time will decide if things get better.

But whatever the future holds, Brown has already taken big decisions that matter for Britain's future.