On 25 September 2010 the Labour party will elect a new leader. Notwithstanding the significant policy challenges and the opposing of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition hell-bent on a rightwing ideological attack on the state, the new leader will face the question of the leadership style he or she intends to adopt.

It is often forgotten that the Attlee government’s great achievements, the welfare state, the National Health Service, the rebuilding of Britain’s industries after the war, and granting independence for India – to name but a few – were brought about by a politician who saw himself as the chairman of the cabinet. Attlee’s conception of how leaders should be was that of the team captain. For him, the essential quality of a prime minister is that he should be a good chairman able to get others to work. The decision he must take is not that a certain course should be followed but that a decision must be come to. Debate was allowed but always with a purpose: Democracy means government by discussion but is only effective if you can stop people talking. Once the decision was reached, the role of the leader was to speak for the agreed line.

When Attlee appointed people to his cabinet he did not give them pages and pages of advice, something the new leader may bear in mind when assigning those elected to the new shadow cabinet to their roles. James Callaghan, later prime minister, said that when he was given his first ministerial job he went in to find Attlee smoking a pipe between the table in number 10. He merely said: ‘remember you are playing for the first 11 now and not the second 11. If you are going to be negotiating with someone tomorrow don’t insult him today. Goodbye.’

This is not to say that he did not expect the very highest standards from his colleagues. In 1948 he circulated a note to every single one of his ministers saying that he was impatient with them reading speeches. He said that one of the reasons that Winston Churchill’s oratory was so effective was because he did not use any notes. His ministers should try to learn their speeches because over-reliance on notes detracted from delivery. Attlee was also a fine butcher, totally ruthless in dismissing or moving colleagues. One of his parliamentary private secretaries, Arthur Moyle, reported that when one unnamed minister came to see Attlee and asked why he should resign Attlee said: ‘well nothing lad except you don’t measure up to the job.’

That is not to say that Attlee did not depart from his central idea of being a cabinet’s chairman and was happy to take on a great deal of responsibility in certain important areas, not least in the case of independence for India. Here, the setting of a clear deadline for withdrawal and the appointment of Lord Mountbatten as viceroy in March 1947 brought about an exit from India with honour.

Whilst the media world in which we live is very different from the one that Attlee existed in 60 years ago, the central tenets of Attlee’s leadership – that having a number of colleagues of great ability able to carry out their jobs without undue interference, and that constructive achievement is ultimately more important than presentation, are lessons that in 2010 we forget at our peril.