Was Attlee Truly Effective

How far do sources suggest that, as a political leader, Attlee was not very effective.

After World War II in 1945, the Labour Party got elected and as leader, Clement Attlee (1945-55) was voted Prime Minister. After the hard times during the war, people did not think Winston Churchill was able to run a safe, stable and peaceful government. This led to the public voting for Attlee, a more peaceful person for a more peaceful time. However, this inevitably led everyone to judge his ability as leader and how effective he was at running a country in a post world war climate.

All sources portray a negative aspect of Attlee whether it be his personality or his work ethic. However, all these aspects have an effect on his ability to run the country properly. In Source 1, he is portrayed as generally ineffective as he is unable to solve minor matters without difficulty. This makes you wonder whether he had any chance of solving national and international matters that were much more complex. He was considered a small man suggesting he was not a grown, respectable and competent leader. In addition,
He claimed, on first hand experience making it relatively reliable, depending on his view of Attlee, that Attlee was not able to “teach” you anything and was unable to sum up what happened in a meeting. In addition, he was unable to provide any constructive ideas to the cabinet which as prime minister, is very worrying. This source backs up Source 1 by stating that he could, in the end, control some people or a minor problem but was unable to “teach” them and make sure it never happened again. Both source 2 and 3 claim that he doodles “incessantly” suggesting that he did not pay enough attention or was unable to concentrate in important meetings or even public speeches which is a strong sign of an ineffective