Feb 19

Remembering Clement Attlee: a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

Clement Attlee (1883-1967)

Clement Attlee (1883-1967)

On this day in 1942 , Clement Attlee became Deputy Prime Minister. However, 19th February 1942 was just the beginning for this ambitious politician.

After being the first person to ever hold the office of Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Mr Attlee went on to become the first Labour Prime Minister ever to serve a full term.

Attlee is remembered today for many accomplishments, yet few people are aware that his policies laid the foundation for the godless society Britain has become.

Attlee was a wolf in sheep’s clothing whose every move was animated by his hatred of Christianity. Below is the little-known story of his life and legacy.



From Opposition Leader to Prime Minister

Attlee had been leader of the Labour party from 1935. The party remain on the verges of British politics until Churchill’s Conservatives needed a coalition government to run the country following the outbreak of World War II. Labour joined the conservatives, giving Mr Attlee the opportunity to work in the government during the critical period of the war.

Even while the war was going on, the people of Britain began to desire change. The Beveridge Report of 1942 captured the public mood when it argued for the elimination of want through the welfare state. Labour was able to capitalize on the public mood in arguing that it would be the best party to rebuild Britain following the war. No one seriously expected Labour to win, and so it came as a surprise to everyone, including Attlee himself, when his party won a landslide victory in the 1945 general election.

Making God Unnecessary

Clement Attlee embodied a type of functional atheism that had become commonplace in mid twentieth-century Britain.

Up to the middle of the 20th century, the foundations of British society still predominantly operated under a Judeo-Christian worldview. Although this foundation had been seriously shaken in the 18th century by the Enlightenment, and in the 19th century by the rise of Darwinism and various revolutionary movements, the cultural consensus remained broadly Christian.

Because religious values had been part of the “common sense” of Victorian Britain, it was easy to take Christian principles for granted without thoughtful reflection and Biblical defence. Since Christian categories had become second nature to the British, the supernatural justification for those values was increasingly de-emphasized even within the Christian communities. The Congregationalist R.W. Dale touched a raw nerve when he declared in 1880 that the impulse to live without God could grow within the religious culture because of a “religious sentiment of a kind which makes God unnecessary.”

Precisely because Christian values were “in the air”, so to speak, it was easy for secularists to appropriate religious categories into their thinking and then transfer those categories to the state. The result would be the growth of a Messianic view of Government that would gradually displace the church as being the voice of public conscience. Under the new view of the state, Christian values were reworked in man-centred terms, resulting in a new pseudo-morality that would eventually become hostile to traditional religion.

This shift came to be felt most strongly when the Labour Government achieved an unexpected victory in the 1945 general election under the leadership of Clement Attlee.

Towards ‘A New Social Order’

It has generally been understood that the Government cannot be everywhere, dictate anything and do everything. The myth of Attlee’s socialism, however, was that government could aspire to this type of omnipotence and omnipresence. Indeed, Attlee possessed a naïve and apparently unlimited faith in man’s ability to create the perfect world through the state.

Instead of downsizing Government to what it had been prior to the War, Attlee increased the role of the State, expanding its tentacles even further into private life. As Peter Hitchens put it in The Rage Against God,

rage-against-god“The Labour government elected in 1945, with a huge Parliamentary majority, had many of the characteristics of a revolution, nationalising private property and centralising state power, greatly increasing the direct role of government in the national life in a way never before attempted in peacetime (though familiar from the recent war).”

One of the first things Attlee’s Government did was to begin a complete overhaul of British society, implementing the principles Attlee had written about in his 1935 publication The Will and the Way to Socialism. In that work Attlee had stated that “The Labour Party exists to challenge the whole basis of society in this country and the world…to lay the foundations of a new social order.”

The new social order would be based on Marxist ideas, though Attlee downplayed his dependence on Marx. Nevertheless, in The Labour Party in Perspective, he gave as one of the Party Objectives a goal that could have been lifted straight out of the Communist Manifesto: “To secure for the workers…the common ownership of the means of production…”

Courting Christian Support

The Will and the Way to SocialismMr Attlee had grown up in a Christian home. One of his brothers became a clergyman and his sister became a missionary. Clement himself abandoned the faith, which he would always dismiss as “mumbo jumbo.”

Because of his upbringing, however, Attlee knew how “to talk the talk.” This was one of the reasons he was able to win the 1945 election. By employing a steady stream of Christian vocabulary and symbolism, he was able to give a Christian hue to his socialist agenda and thus court the Christian Vote. He even claimed explicitly that he was influenced by Christianity, asserting in a 1948 Oxford address that “Our British socialism – our Western European Socialism – has its roots in…Christianity…”

Because the new socialist Government appeared to champion spiritual principles, the church had great confidence in the Labour movement and even decided to turn their Christian schools over to the state. Peter Hitchens described this process in The Rage Against God:

“The wartime Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple, had considered himself a Christian Socialist, and much of the Church of England believed that in 1945 the Labour government was enacting Christian legislation and turning the country into an ideal Christian society. One effect of this was that the Church relinquished control of many of its secondary schools to the state (a mistake the Roman Catholics did not make), in return for the promise of a daily act of Christian worship in all schools, a promise that would be extensively broken within a few decades.”

If instead of jumping so quickly onto the Labour bandwagon, Attlee’s Christian supporters had paid more attention to what he actually meant when he used religious language, they would have seen that he was re-appropriating Christian categories and applying them to the state. In a feat of almost unimaginable idolatry, Attlee deified the state, taking what God said about His Kingdom and applying it to the British Government. The result was a Messianic view of government. Through the use of force, he believed that the state could literally create a paradise on earth. He described this statist utopia in spiritual terms, writing

“We are out to build a new society, a society of peace, freedom and social justice. We have to conquer material things, to preserve things of the spirit just as we had to conquer Hitler’s armed forces to preserve freedom and democracy in the world. But the conquest of the material is not an end in itself but only a means to achieve the spiritual. My appeal to you is to re-dedicate yourselves to the ideals of Socialism…”

Only afterwards did many of the Christians in Britain realise they had been deceived by Attlee. When he used Christian language, as in the following poem, he had not been referring to the kingdom of Christ, but to utopia that socialist ideology would bring to the earth.

“While gazing seawards to the West
I look for Islands of the Blest
And mindful of the teeming slum
Cry out ‘On earth thy kingdom come’,
For sure with beauty everywhere
The heart must needs breathe such a prayer.
Nor need we priest within the shrine
With broken bread and hallowed wine
To show that Love is all God’s plan
And teach the Fellowship of Man:
When man and earth and sky and sea
Are in such mighty harmony.”

Replacing the Church With The State

Clement-Attlee_2808853bIn his book The Labour Party in Perspective, Attlee wrote that “Socialism to me is not just a piece of machinery or an economic system, but a living faith translated into action.” Elsewhere he wrote that socialist economics was the key to a fulfilled life: “Socialists regard economic activities only as the foundation for a full life of the spirit.”

As a ‘living faith’ foundational for spiritual life, Attlee’s socialism was in direct competition with another living faith, namely Christianity. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that Attlee began handing over to the state many things that had previously rested with the church. For example, he argued against the church’s role in helping the poor. “Charity” he once remarked, “is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly…” He also believed that socialism, not the church, was the instrument for bringing civic regeneration. In fact, the very future of civilization depended on the British people accepting the solution of socialism. As he wrote, “In my view the future of civilisation hangs in the balance, and the people of this country have it in their power to play a decisive part.”

If socialist principles were embraced, not only would it save the human race, but it would allow future generations to participate in a society that Attlee described in almost euphoric terms:

“Socialists envisage human progress as continuous…. Socialism is not an end itself, but only the means of attaining conditions under which the fullest possible life will be available for the human race. Further developments which we cannot contemplate today will inevitably follow.”


During his first May Day rally as Prime Minister in 1947, Attlee told his hearers that Labour government was based on “the brotherhood of man.” Attlee believed that the way to achieve such brotherhood was to use force to remove the inequalities which existed in the social and the economic spheres. Naturally, he wanted to abolish the House of Lords, but that was just the beginning. Championing what he called “an equalitarian society”, Attlee would not rest content until everyone was equal with everyone else. He even advocated what he called an “equalitarian village” where every person’s house was the same size as that of every other person.

In order to achieve this equalitarian utopia, the Government would need to abolish all private property. He expressed his desire like this in The Labour Party in Perspective:

Land will be owned by the community, not by private individuals… All the major industries will be owned and controlled by the community…” And elsewhere: “As long as private ownership exists it is…impossible to plan the development of the country in the national interest…

How was property to be transferred from the individual to the state? For Attlee the answer was simple: Government should be able to just take the land it wants. As he wrote, “The Labour Government will, therefore, pass a measure giving power to purchase compulsorily whatever land it requires for whatever purpose….Confiscation is a form of taxation differing only from any other tax in the amount taken.”

In order to achieve a government with the powers of confiscation, Attlee hoped to bring to the UK the type of planned economy that the British had only witnessed from afar in such nations as Hitler’s Germany, where the national socialist party controlled all aspects of commerce. A big obstacle, of course, was that Britain had just fought a war to save themselves from that type of totalitarian regime. However, it was a credit to Attlee’s genius that he converted the anti-fascist mood into an argument for socialism, suggesting that “Fascism…is only a cloak for Capitalism.”

One-World Government

Attlee’s legacy has also been seminal in the internationalism that came to dominate the last half of the 20th century. Mr Attlee suggested that the notion of the sovereign states making its own decisions was “as out of date as would be the heptarchy in these islands.” Elsewhere he wrote, “The Labour Party does not regard the British Commonwealth as an end in itself, but only as a factor in the building up of a world federation.” He hoped the League of Nations would be transitional to a one-world government, describing it “as a beginning of the World Federation which it hopes to see established.”


By the time Attlee ceased being Prime Minister in 1951, the landscape of British society was permanently altered. One fifth of the economy had been nationalized and the division between government and private life had become tenuous.

History has looked about Clement Attlee as a hero of renown. This was reflected when he received knighthood in 1948. Those who sing his praises are right about one thing: he did play a seminal role in shaping the Britain we know today. Indeed, the Keynesian economic principles he followed set Britain on a trajectory that would come to result in the type of unprecedented public debt, deficit spending and inflation that have now become commonplace.

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.



Skip to comment form

  1. Davidw

    A good post!
    The wonderful post WWII new world further massively promoted by Tony Blair with the added factor of rampant gangster capitalism which is crushing ordinary people. But what happened to public ownership? ? And the people? Guess the socialists enjoy what capitalism offers. The whole system will come crashing down one day wait and see.

    1. stephen [ the other one ]

      were you aware Tony Blair is a Fabian ?
      the Fabian Society whose moto is ” moulding the world to our desire ” linked with the L S E [ London School of Economics ] [ Blair laid a foundation stone there ]
      Herbert George Wells [ yes the ” science fiction ” author ] wrote the manifesto and Bertrand Russell was one of the founders [ most of them were Freemasons ]

      1. Davidw

        I was not aware TB was a Fabian but it now makes sense about what he did to the UK during his PMship.
        Read “Abolition of Britain” by Peter Hitchin he catalogues how UK has become a wishy washy godless shadow of itself driven by Blair and others in Westminster!

  2. Rox

    This is an extremely interesting analysis of the changes wrought in Britain between the 1930s and the 1050s, which were certainly enormous.

    Some points are misleading, especially to anybody who is not familiar with what actually happened. For example, the Labour Party was not “on the verges of British politics”.
    It had overtaken the Liberals as the second party around 1922, and there had already been a Labour Prime Minister (1929-31). If it were otherwise, Attlee would not have been Leader of the Opposition.

    Unlike the president of the USA, the British Prime Minister does not normally have a deputy. This is a sort of courtesy measure to the leader of the smaller party on the rare occasions when, for the sake of the country, a coalition is agreed, thus Attlee; and at this very moment Nick Clegg is Deputy Prime Minister for a similar reason. Otherwise, it is a very minor post and often dispensed with entirely. But it is misleading to suggest to the unwary that “from Opposition Leader to Prime Minister” is at all unusual. Unlike the situation with presidents in the USA or Italy, British prime ministers do not come out of the blue, and most of them have time as Leader of the Opposition (for which the government pays them a salary, like a minister). Indeed, the salary for Atlee’s new position might have been arranged to compensate him for the loss of that salary.

    A wistful movement after the War towards more peace and unity in the world was by no means unique to Attlee. Churchill was also very much in favour of the United Nations (which had replaced the League of Nations when Attlee was prime minister), and Churchill was very much in favour of European unity (not necessarily including the UK), to the extent that his image has some prominence in EU premises.

    You could have mentioned that Attlee, materialist or not, knew very little Physics, and agreed to the Atom Bomb being dropped on Hiroshima, apparently quite unaware of the consequences.

    What I like most about this article is
    “Since Christian categories had become second nature to the British, the supernatural justification for those values was increasingly de-emphasized even within the Christian communities “ and also
    “Our British socialism – our Western European Socialism – has its roots in…Christianity…”

    Both are very true. In several European countries, the voters’ main choice nowadays is between Social Democrat and Christian Socialist, not so very different from each other. Willi Brandt and Gerhard Schöder were SPD, Kohl and Merkel CDU.

    The changes which Attlee’s government made, almost miraculously in such a short time in a country recovering from war, were largely undone by Margaret Thatcher, and are now regretted by very many people. Fortunately, she did not dare to abolish the extremely popular National Health Service, nor did she find it meet to denationalise the Bank of England. But she rather pointlessly devastated railways, electricity and gas, so that many of us look back on the old days with nostalgia. We don’t want to worry about who we buy identical gas and electricity from. The “competition” is artificial and unfair. When a train from company A crashes into a train from company B on track belonging to company C, we want to know quickly which company ought to pay compensation. It used to be British Rail .

    I never heard even the most ardent right-wing conservative praise Mrs Thatcher’s denationalisation programme as a return to Christian values.

    It is true that a different viewpoint on charity has grown up in Britain as opposed to America, but I know very well that “charity” was described as “cold” long before Attlee. Recently, there has been an outcry against the increasing charitable provision of foodbanks by various organisations, and this is seen by almost everybody as a regrettable sign that the welfare state is no longer operating properly. E.g.

    “THOUSANDS of people are relying on food banks to survive because of failings in the welfare system.” Daily Express (Conservative).

    I suspect that many right-wing American Christians would take a different attitude to how poor people should be fed.

  3. Phil Crouter

    In the absence of the Church then someone else has to care for the poor. That probably will be the state. I hope this doesnt become an unnecessarily political forum. I am in main a Labour supporter but certainly not a dyed in the wool socialist

    1. Rox

      Recently, it was a large number of prominent churchmen led by the RC Archbishop of Westminster who expressed their dismay at the need for charitable food banks, as they have become accustomed to a welfare state and outraged that is is now failing to be entirely adequate. What they would seem to want is Christian Socialism rather than the haphazard effort of individuals, probably an attitude quite foreign to most American Christians.

      After the dissolution of the monasteries, the government (such as it was in Tudor times) began to realise what they were missing, and how many services they would ideally need to replace, including education. This is the real reason that so many grammar schools for poor boys had to founded by Edward VI .

    2. Alex Price-Alexander

      “In the absence of the Church then someone else has to care for the poor.”
      1. The state does not (and can not) “care”. Witness the scandals of “care” that abound in the NHS; the corrupting of children’s morals through PSHE in schools; the wrecking of untold numbers of families by child-snatching “social workers” and the secretive family courts; the appalling toll of abuse of young people “in care” (ha! ha! — so ironic that they now call that form of state “care” “looked-after”). I could go on…
      2. “The poor” have been and could be looked after by churches, familes, or — gasp alert! — themselves.
      3. What is “caring” about the state forcibly (under threat of prison) extracting my resources, which I need to maintain my self, my family, my church and my needy neighbours, and lavishing them on (a) a top-heavy, professionalised, one-size-fits-all, and explicitly anti-Christian bureaucratic octopus; and (b) on the idle (not many of them), the feckless (not many of them), the criminal (not many of them); the fraudulent (not many of them)?
      Phil, you clearly do not see that the state today fulfills (or seeks to fulfill) all the offices of God. It is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnicompetent. And the more it does… the more it does (badly).

Leave a Reply