Attlee

Blair has a hard act to follow, according to Robert Pearce's assessment of the architect of the previous Labour landslide in 1945.

Labour's victory in this year's general election inevitably brought about comparisons with the similar 'landslide' of 1945. (The present government won an overall majority of 179 seats, while in 1945 the margin of victory stood at 146. A 10 per cent swing to Labour in 1997 was exceeded by a 12 per cent swing, while Labour's total of 44 per cent of all votes cast compares with almost 48 per cent in 1945. The honours are about even, and the parallels endless.) Yet no one bothered to compare the party's leaders, Tony Blair and Clement Attlee. Two more dissimilar characters, it seemed, would be hard to imagine. Whereas the 1997 result is perceived as a personal victory for Blair, many in 1945 believed that Labour had won in spite of Attlee. Blair is said to have a presidential style of rule, whereas Attlee seemed to have no style at all. Some thought him a nonentity. There was even a last-minute move to replace him as leader, before he could be appointed prime minister, by a bigger, more charismatic personality.

To continue reading this article you will need to purchase access to the online archive.

Buy Online Access  Buy Print & Archive Subscription

If you have already purchased access, or are a print & archive subscriber, please ensure you are logged in.

Please email digital@historytoday.com if you have any problems.