Skip to content

Response to Review of Leadership and the Labour Party: Narrative and Performance

I have just a couple of points but not really worth an official 'response' status.

1. On Attlee as 'weak', I did not mean that that was my view but the view of those who elected him party leader in 1935, which they did to block the 'strong' (fears of another Ramsay MacDonald) Herbert Morrison.

2. The reference to Ed Miliband losing the election because lacking 'charisma' (Oxford conference 2015) was me referring to the commentators at the conference using the term without reflection. I don't use the term as it is very misleading (and meaningless, as I argue in Chapter One). And for academics to use the term as if it were a social science 'truth' is dismaying.

So, on both of the points I actually agree with Christopher. Doubtless I expressed the two points above unclearly in the text.