The greatest accolade that can be granted to a public figure is not a knighthood, an OA or any such other title; it’s an ‘ism’. Margaret Thatcher will always be remembered for Thatcherism rather than for being a lady and a baroness. The reason is simple. Thatcherism was a philosophy that explained why her fiscally conservative policies were so important to her country at that point in time. An outstanding politician, Thatcher laid the groundwork for critical political and economic changes in ways that the everyday taxpayer could understand.

‘My policies are based not on some economics theory,’ she told the News of the World — Britain’s most popular, down-market, working-class newspaper — in 1981, ‘but on things I and millions like me were brought up with: an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay; live within your means; put by a nest egg for a rainy day; pay your bills on time; support the police.’

To a small business conference three years later she added: ‘I came to office with one deliberate intent: to change Britain from a dependent to a self-reliant society — from a give-it-to-me, to a do-it-yourself nation. A get-up-and-go, instead of a sit-back-and-wait-for-it Britain.’ Or: ‘Pennies do not come from heaven. They have to be earned here on earth.’ Or: ‘There is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation.’

If you’re stuck with the awkward task of slashing a nation’s expenditure, as Joe Hockey is, it first helps to have a Thatcher-esque way with words. Indeed, the ability of a politician to choose the right words is every bit as important in the long run as their ability to pick the right numbers.

Ultimately, it’s irrelevant how your figures stack up if your argument fails to. Which is why it is so crucial in these coming weeks that Mr Hockey clearly and concisely spells out the philosophy and the thinking behind his upcoming first Budget.

Mr Hockey’s curse is also, in one tiny way, a blessing; he succeeds Wayne Swan. Inarguably the worst and most damaging federal treasurer in living memory, Mr Swan not only failed to deliver anything approaching a coherent set of figures, he equally failed over six long, miserable, profligate, wasteful years to flesh out any kind of coherent vision for the economic well-being of our nation. Mrs Thatcher could easily have been speaking of the Rudd-Gillard-Swan fiasco when she said: ‘Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them.’

Mr Hockey is already proving himself adept at coming up with words the nation needs to hear. His Thatcheresque ‘End of Entitlements’ speech, delivered in London in 2012, laid out the beginnings of an argument that is already resonating with the public. It’s one he is wise to keep repeating, as indeed he does: ‘The age of entitlement is over, and the age of personal responsibility has begun,’ he reiterated last month. And last week: ‘If we want to maintain and improve our quality of life, then all of us, without exclusion, all of us need to help do the heavy lifting.’ Even his ‘If the burden falls on a few, the weight of that burden will crush them’ has a touch of the Maggies about it. But he also needs to find the right rhetoric to explain how he will cut short-term spending by taking the scalpel to many of Labor’s ill-thought-out long-term flights of fancy

Andrew Neil, the publisher of this magazine, was intimately familiar with Margaret Thatcher both in word and deed throughout the turbulent 1980s and early 1990s, when he was editor of the prestigious Sunday Times. Now he is coming to Australia. At a unique event for The Spectator Australia, Mr Neil will be live in conversation with the Treasurer. Our event will mark Mr Hockey’s last chance to address the subject in the nation’s financial capital before his first Budget on 13 May.

Along with Andrew Neil, we can’t wait to hear his words as well as his numbers on 23 April. We hope you can join us over a few drinks and nibblies.