How far do sources 2 and 3 support the idea in source 1 that as a political leader, Attlee was not very effective
Source 1 clear states that Attlee was not an effective leader. However it is ambiguous to whether or not the other 2 sources agree, the overall tones of the sources are negative.
Source 2 begins with listing Attlee's public qualities, his shyness and timidness. These characteristics immediately relate to source one which describes Atlee as a “small man”. Source 1 gives the impression that Attlee does eventually “restore order” but the tone in which Attlee is described gives a bad view of his characteristics. In relation, source 3 says that Attlee “kept order very well but did not really teach you very much”, this further adds to the idea that although Attlee may have been successful he was not effective, he changed nothing for the country, “his summing-up often blurred and incomplete”. Ultimately this gives the impression that Atlee preferred to take the back seat and let the others do the talking which is not a desired characteristic of a priminister. The boys that he discipline are “too big for him” this gives the image of Attlee being intimidated and mousy. Source 2 then mirrors the description of Attlee when he is said to “scuttle”. Combined, both sources create the impression that although Attlee gets the job done, as a public leader he is timid. Although they both have a shared opinion of Attlee source one was written by Attlee's opponent, therefore the reliability can be questioned. This then allows the idea of Attlee not being an effective leader to be a pretence this the evidence that the source has used is not reliable and may have other hidden agendas.
In contrast to the idea of intimidation, it also describes Attlee as giving them a “stern” talking to, this ultimately gives him authority. It is clear that source two agrees with this statement when it refers to this same idea. It says “tough astute politician” this therefore shows that Atlee was certainly a leader with great influence and power.
On the other hand, source 2 does not only
Source 2 begins with listing Attlee's public qualities, his shyness and timidness. These characteristics immediately relate to source one which describes Atlee as a “small man”. Source 1 gives the impression that Attlee does eventually “restore order” but the tone in which Attlee is described gives a bad view of his characteristics. In relation, source 3 says that Attlee “kept order very well but did not really teach you very much”, this further adds to the idea that although Attlee may have been successful he was not effective, he changed nothing for the country, “his summing-up often blurred and incomplete”. Ultimately this gives the impression that Atlee preferred to take the back seat and let the others do the talking which is not a desired characteristic of a priminister. The boys that he discipline are “too big for him” this gives the image of Attlee being intimidated and mousy. Source 2 then mirrors the description of Attlee when he is said to “scuttle”. Combined, both sources create the impression that although Attlee gets the job done, as a public leader he is timid. Although they both have a shared opinion of Attlee source one was written by Attlee's opponent, therefore the reliability can be questioned. This then allows the idea of Attlee not being an effective leader to be a pretence this the evidence that the source has used is not reliable and may have other hidden agendas.
In contrast to the idea of intimidation, it also describes Attlee as giving them a “stern” talking to, this ultimately gives him authority. It is clear that source two agrees with this statement when it refers to this same idea. It says “tough astute politician” this therefore shows that Atlee was certainly a leader with great influence and power.
On the other hand, source 2 does not only