Former Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill would not be electable today because of the prevalence of spin in modern-day politics, broadcaster Jeremy Paxman has said.
The 50th anniversary of the wartime leader's death, on January 24, 1965, will be marked later this month.
Paxman told Radio Times magazine: "Any rounded assessment of Winston Churchill's life has to acknowledge that he was a ruthless egotist, a chancer, and a charlatan at times.
"Would he be electable now? I fear not."
The former Newsnight host told the magazine: "He was a man of his time, a parliamentary one-off who'd be suffocated by the spinning and posturing that pass for politics today.
"Being both good and bad, adequate and inadequate, selfish and public-spirited is just being human."
Asked whether a Churchill was needed today, Jonathan Dimbleby, whose father Richard narrated the commentary on Churchill's state funeral for the BBC, told the magazine: "I'm not sure whether a Churchill would be appropriate for the complexities of peace-time politics.
"The greatness of Churchill was that he was, effectively, a democratic dictator. He ruled Britain.
"He had almost total power in the war. He was not only PM of a war cabinet that very rarely challenged him, he was also the defence minister, determining what the Army, navy and air force would do.
"That was an extraordinary power in the hands of one man. I don't think that would work very well today. The idea that a 'strong man' could wave a wand and everyone would automatically follow, and our problems would be over, seems to me to be an indulgence that should be left to the birds."
Dimbleby said that he did not think that there were any politicians today who could fill Churchill's shoes, but added: "In a way I rather hope that there aren't.
"Churchill is the greatest man of the last century, don't get me wrong. He was a very great leader with extraordinary energy, and he also had a much greater strategic sense than critics give him credit for.
"But I don't think people today would relish dictators, however democratically elected they might be."
ends
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article