Winston Churchill, 1945–51

Abstract

Even though there is no single historical pattern to which a Leader of the Opposition has been expected to conform, Winston Churchill was an unusual Leader of the Opposition for the six years he held that position, 1945--51. He did not enjoy opposition very much (Gilbert, 1988: 163), and he found it difficult to adapt himself to his new role (Macmillan, 1969: 41), which he performed in a distinctive, not to say idiosyncratic, way. Although the Conservatives subsequently returned to office, most accounts of their time in Opposition suggest that their recovery occurred despite Churchill rather than because of him (Ramsden, 1995b: 117). Churchill's performance, approach and leadership style as Leader of the Opposition has been criticised as ineffective (Rhodes James, quoted in Mayer, 1992: 1) and variously described as: `olympian' (Ramsden, 1995a: 179), `semi-detached' (Addison, 2005: 217), `relaxed' (Robbins, 1992: 158), `absentee' (Ball, 2001: 326), `erratic' (K. Morgan, 1984: 286), `loose-rein' (Ramsden, 1995a: 182), as a `figurehead role' (Ramsden, 1995b: 109) and as `negligent and often inept' (Carlton, 1981: 293). Only Mayer (1992: 162) and Ball (2001: 326, 330) really give him credit for the contribution he made to the party during the Opposition years and rate him as an effective Leader of the Opposition.