How far do you agree the sources suggest that Attlee was not a very effective political leader?
To a certain extent Sources 1, 2 and 3 all show evidence that would agree with the statement that Attlee was not a very effective political leader. For example all 3 sources suggest that he lacked authority and power, some of the qualities that would produce a great leader. Both sources 1 and 2 describe Attlee as a ‘small’, ‘shy’ man, giving off the impression that Attlee was a very timid character, not capable of running a country and unable to hold a position of power. Source 1 was written by a supporter of Attlee opponents, so may be untrustworthy, as Kingsley Martin opposed Attlee. Although source 2 was written by a left-of-centre newspaper, adding credibility to the source as the criticisms where from a supporter of Attlee. Meaning that the evidence was not be over exaggerated. However the source was written the day after Attlee resigned meaning that the source could be seen as over-generous, as it is looking back over Attlee’s ruling. Both sources 1 and 3 describe Attlee as a school master who is able to ‘restore order’, but ‘did not teach very much’ this displays that Attlee was unable to change or offer opinion. This reinforces the statement that Attlee was not an effective leader. Source 3 also states that Attlee’s summing-up in meetings was often incomplete and he barely produced constructive ideas. This further suggests that Attlee was there to listen, but not to give his own input and when he did it wasn’t seen as useful. This demonstrates that Attlee lacks the qualities of a powerful political leader, giving us the impression of a small, mouse-like man. The fact that source 3 was written by a senior civil servant, who attended cabinet meetings, makes source 3 very defendable as we are giving evidence from first hand and a man who witnessed Attlee during his work. It is also very accurate because it gives a very balanced argument of good and bad.
On the other hand, all 3 sources suggest that he possessed some important features of an effective leader. For example source 1 resembles source 3 in the way that it implies, although Attlee was a shy man, he was able to ‘restore order’ in his cabinet and was ‘attentive to his work’. The fact that source was written by a secretary who worked for Attlee adds to its reliability as George Mallaby opinion was not influenced and is taken from first-hand opinion. This contrasts with source 1, as the editor’s judgement may be seen as prejudice, as Martin was a supporter of Attlee’s opponent. Both sources 2 and 3 describe Attlee as a clever and effective politician, describing him as ‘tough’ and gave a ‘powerful lead’. Source 2 indicates that there are two sides to Attlee and he was able to change depending on the situation he was put in. This gives us a different image of Attlee, conveying him as a more effective leader, who is able to deal with all situations. It is debatable whether source 2 is completely accurate, as it was written by a supporter of Attlee.
In conclusion both sources 1 and 3 agree with the statement that Attlee was not a very effective political leader. They both indicate that Attlee lacks control and does not demonstrate change. However source 1 would disagree with the statement, implying that Attlee exercised control and was able to change his position depending on the situation. Although unlike sources 1 and 3, source 2 may be seen to be unreliable due to the fact that it was written by a supporter of Attlee and never witnessed him personally during his work, Source 2 may be seen as over-generous. Overall the sources give the impression that Attlee was able to restore order to his cabinet, but lacked the authority that was needed to be an effective leader.