Reading through the comments it's interesting that in any discussion on Churchill, WW2 and his leadership throughout, is the main topic of discussion. Obviously that's his legacy and no suprise what he will be most remembered for.

But Wartime and the events during are very exceptional and I wonder if you took WW2 out of the picture, how would you appraise Churchill then?

From the little I have read about him, his time in politics seemed generally unremarkable and it was quite likely that he was racsit and had no time for the working/poorer classes. Happy for people to correct me on this.

What I find interesting is that despite leading Great Britain to victory in the War, the people of the time removed him as prime minister by voting Atlee and his labour goverment into power, straight after. That labour governemt ushered in transformative social legislation to rebuild the nation, something that would not have happened under Churchill I assume (I'm not a labour voter BTW).

He's a complex and devisive figure, easy to see why he triggers a lot of debate.