None of the party leaders is offering us charisma

When Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair as Prime Minister and leader of the Labour party in 2007, there were many who welcomed the prospect of a "real" figure becoming PM, in contrast to what they saw as the artifice and charisma of the Blair years.

He did not put on a media face or appear to make false promises. It was Brown's 'realness', along with his Calvinist principles, that was meant to restore faith in the Labour party and accountability within government.

But a series of blunders - culminating in 'Bigot-gate' - and rumours about his character traits have tarnished Brown. He has become only too 'real', it seems, and while some may still regard him with sympathy, many are asking - as the opinion polls make clear - whether this is the kind of behaviour we want in a prime minister.

In other words, was the sort of charisma offered by Tony Blair such a bad thing after all?

In 1956, an American television show called To Tell the Truth made its debut and remained one of the most popular shows for more than a decade. Three panelists played the part of someone who had an extraordinary job or an unusual experience. Two panelists were imposters and the third was the real person.

Four celebrities were given the job of trying to catch out who were the imposters through a series of questions. The imposters were allowed to lie but the real person was sworn to tell the truth. At the end of the show, the real contestant was asked to stand up. Surprisingly, the contestant the celebrities voted for was more often than not one of the imposters. The clear message was that the power of illusion is stronger than reality.

The first of the recent televised leaders' debates set the tone for what was to bear a remarkable resemblance to To Tell the Truth. Being 'real' no longer matters: ­ what matters is how convincing the contestants are. What also matters is who performs best, who has the best rhetoric, and ultimately who presents the most optimistic view of the future.

Now that we have weathered the shock of the market collapse, Britain is only just beginning to feel its impact. This is a time when, logically, we need a strong father figure to secure greater monetary controls and to protect the poor and the unemployed while working out a realistic national budget for the future.

But a strong father would also point out that things are much more likely to get worse than better and that our economic and social reality may be changing in fundamental ways that it is hard for us to imagine. The strong father, like a competent manager, would do his best to get his family to face reality and its limitations.

This is never popular election talk. The French psychoanalyst, Didier Anzieu, claims that any group situation inevitably gives rise to hallucinatory wish-fulfilment.

Groups tend to regress psychologically and trigger off our earliest narcissistic desires. The group itself can also come to represent a place in which all wishes will be satisfied. The group looks for a leader who will not only stand for the 'ego ideal' - the ideal that most of us strive to be like - but who will promote the illusion that all will be well and that the paradise we have known in our past will be restored in a new form.

Typically, groups will favour illusion over reality. This also means that they will favour the visionary leader over the father figure. In fact, part of the appeal of the aspiring leader is that, like the hero he is meant to be, he has come to vanquish the old order, to vanquish the father, and to take his place.

So how do the contestants in this general election line up in the illusions they are offering?

Brown is certainly presenting a rosier future that will only require a temporary cinching in of our belts before prosperity returns. As the former Chancellor, he is trying to convince us that he has the best formula for recovery.

However, no degree of illusion can at this stage ameliorate his reputation - whether deserved or not - as a bully who has little empathy with others. Although his illusions may be appealing, his 'real' personality, along with the negatives of the last 13 years under Labour - the Iraq war, the expenses scandal, etc - undermines his appeal. He simple can't carry off the illusion.

David Cameron on the other hand is depicting a future largely in terms of restoring the past, focusing on its privileges and not its hardships. What has been lost under Labour can be regained, he says. Everything can be like it was - if not better.

But Cameron's illusion is flawed primarily because it harks back to the past and because he acknowledges the difficulties that lie ahead in achieving this. In short, his illusion is not visionary, it is retrospective, if not reactionary. The reason why Cameron is not seriously winning over the electorate - he is ahead in the polls, but only just - may well reflect this weakness. It is not an illusion that presents itself as a new solution.

Nick Clegg's rise to stardom as a result of the first leaders' debate most likely indicates the population's search for a charismatic leader who will offer them a convincing illusion that they can hold on to. However, the spotlight on Clegg has been relatively short-lived and this may also reflect the kind of vision he is promoting.

Clegg is advocating a much more inclusive world view than either of the other candidates. His emphasis on "fairness", as evident in his proposal to give amnesty to immigrants already living in this country, extends the limits of the group beyond our own immediate self-interests. While, as Clegg argues, we may have to "get real" and accept this, it does not speak to the narcissistic desires of the group who want, if anything, to be assured of their dominance.

From the polls, it is becoming increasingly evident that voters are no longer interested in politicians being 'real' people. Nor is there much appeal in presenting a 'real' prognosis of the future. Artifice and illusion seem to be what we want from our leaders, ­ especially in these difficult times.

None of the candidates is able to produce an illusion that is powerful enough to be convincing, which is why, with only days to go, this election remains such a close race.

As Bud Collyer, the host of To Tell the Truth would say, "And now will the real Prime Minister please stand up?" ·