# Talk:Aneurin Bevan

I happen to know, or at least have excellent evidence for believing, that rather late in his life Bevan enjoyed "the good things of life", eg wearing expensive clothes, and associating with old-fashioned noblemen, but I have no references for this. It seems to me an interesting, and to me attractive, facet of his character, and I wonder if anybody can document it? Sgd Seadowns (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

He made little secret of his association with the likes of Lord Beaverbrook, and hints of affairs with upper class women were sometimes floated in the tabloids (Bevan and Jennie Lee appear to have had an open marriage in later years). What you thought of all this depended on what you thought of Bevan. Somewhere I still have a little booklet published after his death describing him as "The Beloved Patrician" (given to me by an uncle in the late 80s). Others thought him an appalling hypocrite and gobshite - refusing to wear black tie but instead wearing expensive suits, (allegedly) driving to Chepstow in his Rolls (no Severn Bridge in those days) and then driving on to Ebbw Vale in an old banger.Paulturtle (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, Bracken didn't call him the 'Bollinger Bolshevik' for nothing. It's the phrase by which Bevan is remembered and it's odd that it doesn't appear in the article. Nor does Attlee's 1955 comment on the leadership contest, in light of Bevan's attack on Attlee and resulting near-expulsion in March: 'He's so unstable, all over the place, you never know where you are with him. Anyway, he's cooked his goose for the time being and the party would never stand for him.' (Leo McKinstry, Attlee and Churchill: Allies in War, Adversaries in Peace, London, Atlantic Books, 2019, ISBN 978-1-84887-661-3, p.618.) The article is also wrong to claim that Bevan got the whip restored 'due to his popularity.' In fact the NEC would have expelled him from the party, at the instance of Hugh Gaitskell and Arthur Deakin of the TGWU, but for Attlee's pro-unity motion that Bevan should instead be required to apologise and give assurances for future conduct, which won by just one vote. (Op. cit., p.610.) Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the reference to "David" Bevan.  Is it an error, or was that his dad's name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.47.40 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 4 March 2004

David Bevan was his Dad's name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.204.242 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 12 May 2007

The article claims Bevan quoted a comment made by Marx in 1885. If somebody would like to explain how a corpse can stress the benefits of war, now would be the time to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.254.252 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 6 June 2005

Do we have a picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.237.111 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 10 December 2005

If you are interested, there is a Statue of him by cardiff castle, if you think that will do ill try and nab a photo of it next time im about with my camera —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.248.217 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 16 March 2006

As I recall, Mosley attempted to form an independent political group in the aftermath of his resignation. It is true that Bevan was associated with that, but this group failed. When Mosley started to be influenced by Mussolini, Bevan clearly smelled a rat, and severed all contacts with him. Bevan was never a fascist. I will do some digging in Foot's biography. When I get a citation, I will change the entry. --Train guard 17:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoever changed the Mosley bit did a very poor job. Bevan never joined the New Party, nor did he consider it. This whole article is pretty poor. I've just finished a dissertation on Bevan and will change this article fully in the Summer when my exams are over. In the meantime I'd advise anyone researching Bevan to double check any "fact" they find on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.204.242 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 12 May 2007
Article is basically correct as it is. Bevan, who by all accounts was an engaging and convivial bloke off-duty, had friends amongst mavericks across the political spectrum, even Tories like Beaverbrook and Edward Marjoribanks before the latter's suicide. He was a supporter of the Mosley Memorandum in May 1930 and Mosley's Manifesto in December 1930 - the latter became the core of the New Party's programme. Mosley at this time was advocating public works, tariffs and capital to be invested at home rather than abroad. Bevan broke with Mosley not because he disagreed with him (he later claimed to have predicted that Mosley would end up as a fascist but it's unclear that he said so at the time) but because of his quasi-Marxist belief that only a party united and with a solid class base could achieve real change. His close friend John Strachey did join the New Party for a bit. Bevan was equally contemptuous of the ILP's secession from Labour in the early 1930s. See John Campbell 1987, pp.40 et ff.Paulturtle (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why there are two identical articles, one called Nye and one called Aneurin Rathfelder 22:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to note that In Place of Fear is a book and not a collection of essays. Bevan frequently refers to it as a book, to other "chapters" and so forth. Andysoh 09:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Surely it should have its own page? (I'm not knowledgeable enough to create this though) Gilgamesh4 (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

British, surely. 'Welsh' is not (yet) a nationality in the sense that is clearly intended in the box. Is George Bush, for example, a 'Texan'? I think not! 131.111.88.9 (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The part-privatization of the NHS in 1951 was to pay for the cost of Britain's involvement in the Korean War. (HymanFam (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC))

Which came on top of other financial pressures on the government and the numbers were pretty small anyway.   You are forming your own conclusion here. Its relevance in the lede is also questionable.  If supported then maybe in the body of the article but not here.   Please make the argument with supporting references and WAIT until you have agreement before changing the article itself.  I've tagged it for the moment but will revert tomorrow unless you come up with something and get agreement ----Snowded TALK 19:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I have a few books which refer to the need to pay for British involvement in the Korean War, which is why Labour had to abandon its plan for a fully-free NHS after less than three years. The Korean War should be mentioned to put the part-privatization in context. (HymanFam (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC))
(i) If you have a clear reference then provide it, but it will have to be explicit.  (ii) you then have to make a case for it to be in the lede which is not the same thing as the main article (iii) you have to WAIT until you get agreement on the talk page to make a contested change.   I'm going to formally warn you of that and then revert.  Please wait for agreement here before making a change ----Snowded TALK 17:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I admire Bevan's contribution to the creation of the welfare state as much as the next man, but we should not self-censor here.  Bevan's participation in the libel suit against The Spectator with Crossman and Phillips was no shining hour, but let's please treat our readers as adults and not try to whitewash the episode out of history.  Nandt1 (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure you have really made the case for its inclusion.   Yes there is a reference in a biography written much later, but its third party.  Assuming its true and fully referenced I'm not sure it is notable enough to include and certainly not at that length.   I have removing it for the moment and lets get some more involvement and discussion here if people think it is (i) adequately sourced for a serious accusation and (ii) relevant in the overall context of the article ----Snowded TALK 05:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I've now gone back over the history of the article.  The earlier discussion of the libel case, which stood for several years, was removed comparatively recently -- not for not being notable, but for being unsourced.  Notability is surely hard to dispute: the case is by now notorious as an example of leading British public figures (if one buys into what I take to be the now generally accepted view) perjuring themselves.  So, as to sourcing, I have so far provided three sources: one of Bevan's Labour Party colleagues and a famous political biographer, a leading journalist, and a historian.  Is this "adequate"?  It would not be hard to provide more.  It is evident that Crossman's diaries represent a crucial primary source (I believe he writes something like "we were pissed as newts").  But that would appear to be his backbench diaries, to which I do not currently have access, rather than the better-known Diaries of a Cabinet Minister.  Very well.  I have today ordered the backbench diaries, and will cite them once they arrive.  In the meanwhile, with respect, I propose to reinstate the entry. Nandt1 (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
You need to read WP:BRD.  You think its properly sourced, but there seems to be a bit of synthesis for me,   You think its it relevant but I am not sure it is per WP:WEIGHT.  All of that means that you get agreement here BEFORE you reinstate disputed material.  You say it is notorious?  Is it?  Show me something current that says it and I might buy in.  You don't have Bevan's responses.  So with respect get your sources and argue for relevance, get other editors involved.   You have not convinced me so I am reverting to the stable state UNTIL agreement is reached here.  You need a clear authoritative source as to its current relevance to Bevan's career as a whole ----Snowded TALK 14:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I accept the idea of reverting to a "stable version" of the text.  It strikes me, though, that the relevant "stable version" would be the one that stood unchallenged by any users from 5 August 2009 to 5 June 2014, until being challenged, not on grounds of noteworthiness or relevance or undue weight, but merely lack of sourcing.  So I propose that, for now, we revert to that text, with just the addition of the hitherto missing sourcing.
On the other issues you raise, I am willing to continue the discussion.  Some are easier to handle than others.  Given that Bevan died in 1960, he was obviously in no position to respond to later revelations such as Crossman's published diaries: I have to date seen nothing to suggest that he publicly retreated from his sworn testimony.  Relevance?  Clearly not challenged by anyone else here during 5 years.  If one accepts the charges, Bevan's integrity is impugned.  If one does not, then I suppose it's a Tory plot to bring down an icon of the Left.  Hardly "irrelevant" either way.  Notoriety?  Well, the pieces by Lawson and Bose are both essays on larger themes (misuse of the libel laws, and political risk-taking, respectively) that consider the B/C/P case sufficiently egregious to be worth singling out as an exceptional example.
How can one respond to a suggestion that the sources so far provided represent "a bit of synthesis"?  I suppose I could point out that Roy Jenkins knew all three plaintiffs personally (including serving in Cabinet with Crossman) -- it is also often forgotten that Jenkins's father was, like Bevan, a Welsh miner who became a Labour MP.  But in some ways more importantly Jenkins was also one of the pre-eminent political biographers of his generation (Dilke, Asquith, Gladstone, Churchill....) and understood the handling of evidence.  Beyond this, I have indicated that I plan to cite the Crossman diaries, an essential primary source, as soon as I can get my hands on them; I've now also ordered Campbell's biography to be able to quote it first-hand.  But I must also just point out that it can be abusive of the system to keep raising the bar for sourcing so high that no citations can ever be considered adequate....... Nandt1 (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
As a token of good faith I shall make the same reversion to the article on Crossman, although no one has objected there. Nandt1 (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
You are edit warring, making the change you want without agreement,  Sorry that is unacceptable.  If you edits are contested you do not simply reinstate them, you have to reach consensus.  I will tag the section you have changed and provide a formal warning.  You have not provided a single third party reference to establish that this is significant, you seem to think that is the case simply because some biographies mention it.  You are also synthesising primary sources to make a point.   ----Snowded TALK 16:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
This is an unfair and unwarranted allegation.  I have been engaged in substantive discussion here in good faith.  My recent revert was not, as you imply, to my own edits but to an earlier stable version of the text -- something you yourself suggested as an approach -- and now I am told that doing this constitutes edit-warring!! I have already pointed out that this earlier stable text was not objected to on grounds of significance over the course of five years.  I am willing to continue discussions here on the substance, and would be interested to hear what types of indications you would accept as evidence of significance.  However, I must point out immediately that jumping to a charge of edit-warring is not a constructive way of pursuing a serious substantive discussion. Nandt1 (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Let me just add for now, since you raise concern about my failure to provide "a single third party reference to establish that this is significant", that the work by Jenkins that I have already cited is an essay length piece in which be tried to summarize what he saw as the most important aspects of Bevan's life and career, and that within that brief compass he considered the libel action warranted two paragraphs, quite strongly worded at that. Nandt1 (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, one more point now that I've had a chance to look at Wikipedia's policy on synthesis, since I didn't at first know quite what the charge was.  I gather it involves drawing on multiple sources in a way that would give a conclusion that none of the individual sources would necessarily support.  I don't know whether you have read any of the sources cited for this section, but my reading of them is that any or all of them would fully support the storyline followed in the article. Nandt1 (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
You were bold, you were reverted you should discuss, not discuss and revert (hence the warning).  You went back to a version which was over a month old so it was not the prior state.  Whoever deleted the original reference did not have that deletion contested.   You currently have material from a biography which is not about Bevan directly.   It contains an allegation which has not been tested so we can't draw a conclusion as to fact.  I don't see anything in what you have said which establishes it as significant.   All you offer is that a former politician from a different party (and formerly a different wing of the same party) wrote two paragraphs in an essay which you consider were strongly worded.   That is not evidence that the material is significant to Bevan's life. ----Snowded TALK 20:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I repeat my question on what type of evidence of significance would satisfy your personal demands.  I am really too old to waste my time playing football and seeing the goalposts constantly moved.  Nandt1 (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I can't see any goal posts moving and you need to address arguments from other editors rather than assume they are simply "personal demands".  Age is not an excuse for simply assuming you can reinstate material on your own cognisance.  The Jenkins book you reference has no chapter on Bevan so I assume you are relying on a paragraph in a chapter about Crossman.  That cannot provide evidence that Jenkins thought this incident was significant in Bevan's life, it might possibly do so for Crossman but even then I would be dubious.   If it was in a biography or commentary on Bevan's life and more than just a minor reference you would have evidence.   Using primary sources is frowned on in Wikipedia and almost always ends up as a form of synthesis or original research when it is indirect or focused on another subject.  Adding another primary source (Crossman diaries) will not satisfy sourcing requirements.  I'll just leave it tagged for the moment but if you can't provide something I'll delete it      ----Snowded TALK 05:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Jenkins book does indeed include a chapter on Bevan.  It is in an expansion of his earlier collection, "Nine Men of Power", in which Bevan was not included.  The version of the book that I am looking at online has an introduction by Jenkins dated December 1992.  I came to this by typing Bevan Crossman Spectator into Google, and one of the earlier entries that came up seems to be those sections of the text that met some sort of search criterion, including, oddly, several pages of the chapter on R.A. Butler, and then significant chunks of the chapter on Bevan.  Let me know if you have difficulty finding it.  Nandt1 (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the link that is helpful, the version I found did not have a chapter but it was obviously different from the yours.  Helpful as it is I think it makes the point more strongly.   Jenkins makes the point that you should now view Bevan through Crossman's diaries as they were enemies.  Compounded by the fact that Jenkins himself was seen as Crossman's inheritor.   He also makes the point that Bevan could hold his alcohol so the pejorative description might not have applied to him.   Within the chapter Jenkins is saying that aspects of Bevan's later career were less glorious.  That as an assertion may be notable.  Something like "Jenkins asserts that the latter days of Bevan's career were less than glorious, citing the Spectator libel case and ......."  The examples can be referenced.   That is just about sustainable and I would support it.  The current contested text shows no third party evidence that would justify more than a casual reference.  I also took the liberty of putting your link into the text of your comment to make the page more readable.   I hope that is OK   ----Snowded TALK 12:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for incorporating the link -- good idea.  I have tried to understand the suggestion made here but am not sure I have done so. En route, though, here are some observations on your comments:
(a) I take Jenkins to be saying that, as a general rule, one needs to 'avoid' viewing Bevan through the perspective of the Crossman diaries -- perhaps you meant to type "not" rather than "now"?
(b) RJ does not say that Crossman and Bevan were enemies, but rather that "Crossman did not really like or admire Bevan, although he followed him for nearly five years".  Especially in political life, that is something quite different.
(c) I have never heard the suggestion that Jenkins was seen as "Crossman's inheritor."  This is implausible for many reasons, including, but not limited to: (i) Crossman was (with however many reservations) seen as a member of the Bevanite wing of the party, while Jenkins was a Gaitskellite (indeed, especially personally close to Gaitskell); (ii) Crossman was an individualistic, idiosyncratic figure, who just was not the sort of personality to really attract disciples; (iii) Crossman's diaries unwittingly show Jenkins cynically playing on Crossman's vanity in suggesting that Crossman was a plausible successor to Wilson (a ludicrous notion).
(d) The question of Bevan's ability to hold his liquor is really fundamental, and your comment strengthens my feeling me that the original Spectator text should appear in the article (though I think in a footnote would be preferable).  Many people believe that The Spectator wrote that the three men were drunk.  But if you read the actual quote it is far more subtle than that.  She says that they were able to consume a lot of whisky, that the Italians could not tell if they were sober or not, but they spoke of their political acumen admiringly.  These words would be entirely compatible with one or more of them being able to hold their liquor pretty well.
(e) I take RJ to be saying that not that "the latter days of Bevan's career were less than glorious" but that not all of it was.  His own next sentence is "But much of it was".  So I don't think the article should quote Jenkins as saying what is in the above quote.  More broadly, I don't think it is appropriate for the article to treat the matter simply as something that Jenkins brought up: the significance of the libel case clearly extends beyond Jenkins's personal views of Bevan.
(f) You and I are engaged in a serious discussion, and I treat it seriously, but there are also some genuinely humorous aspects to the affair.  One of the readings (I forget which) has the journalist interviewing members of the hotel staff.  A barman says to her, very likely admiringly, "If I had four [or perhaps it is five] clients like Mr. Bevan, I could start my own establishment".
The question remains, what to do.  And are we really discussing the substance of the charges of perjury (their truth or lack thereof) or their notability?  Or both?  If the substance, I would be very comfortable with (and, indeed, would positively suggest) adding in a footnote that Bevan's major biographers are divided over the charge of perjury.  On my count to date, we have Campbell accepting it (or so I believe based on the History Today quote: I have not yet received his book), Foot rejecting it, on the double grounds that, as noted, Bevan could hold his drink pretty well and was only rarely seen the worse for it, and that (rather endearingly) in Italy surely one would drink the local wine rather than whisky(!), and Thomas-Symonds on the face of it agnostic, if also apparently awkward about the subject -- reporting the bare facts and The Spectator's later claim of having been wronged rather tersely (I read a review of this book which argues that the author, while handling many aspects of Bevan's career well, is least comfortable with his "lifestyle").
If notability, two further possible tests occur to me.  First, how does Wikipedia handle credible charges of perjury over personal conduct against other public figures?  We could fan out and canvass such coverage.  Secondly, and stepping a short distance away from political life for a moment, to look at this as in part a legal matter.  In my (so far brief) look at the literature on UK libel law, I have the impression that this case is cited fairly frequently as an example of the potential for abuse of these laws.  But, if you agree, a further search could be done to see if it is indeed as "notable" in this context as it so far appears to me.  Nandt1 (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
You can't add a footnote to say that an encyclopaedia entry is controversial   It is obvious it is far from clear that he is guilty as charged and there is no evidence whatsover from a third party source that this is notable.  Look through your comments above, you are discussing what primary sources mean.  That is not what we do on wikipedia, its called synthesis or original research.  I've suggested a compromise which is to report what Jenkins says (as his commentary from the right of party is significant) in a sentence or two at most.   ----Snowded TALK 14:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh dear, oh dear, here we go again.  AAA.  The big question I still don't see addressed is what would constitute "evidence from a third party source" [satisfactory to you] that the story [of a leading public figure being credibly accused of perjury!] is notable.  Earlier you stated that "If it was in a biography or commentary on Bevan's life and more than just a minor reference you would have evidence".  But now that I've jumped that hurdle, it seems, the goalpost moves and "there is no evidence whatsoever from a third party source that this is notable"!!  I have further adduced that the case features in various commentaries on the law, as for example the Bose reference, which incidentally could be multiplied over and over...  No acknowledgement of this at all!  One really has to ask: when is enough enough?  And that is not intended as a rhetorical question: I am (still) hoping for an answer.
BBB. "You can't add a footnote to say that an encyclopedia entry is controversial".  Actually, if you think about it for a moment, this is merely a challenge of drafting the entry and the footnote.  One could, for example (and this is just one way of doing it), draft the main entry in such a way as to suggest that such-and-such evidence (e.g., Crossman's posthumously published diaries and his oral comments witnessed by Wheatcroft and others) "led many to conclude" that the three had perjured themselves, and then in the footnote one could cite examples of those on ether side of the argument (including Foot, for example, as opposed)  Not an insuperable problem at all.
I reiterate that the story is not just one of what Jenkins thought.  To present it that way is to seek (whether consciously or subconsciously) to minimize its significance (and make it seem like a subjective view of one other individual), and is, I am afraid, not a reasonable compromise at all.  Let's try to make progress on this.  I have made several practical suggestions on ways to handle this issue.
I will just add one further point.  My largest single project on Wikipedia has involved the biography of an important 20th century US progressive politician, Senator Robert Latham Owen, whom I admire.  He worked on many worthy causes -- establishment of the Federal Reserve, the fight against child labour, etc., etc.  A fine public servant.  Yet I have not flinched from incorporating material that many would consider unflattering -- controversial land deals, typically involving Indian land; a secret deal with the German government of the day to subsidize his book about responsibility for the First World War; the fact that a leading historian of the day dismissed the book as worthless; and so on. Bevan like Owen was a fine and important progressive leader.  But I do not believe that those of us on the Left (as I consider myself) should be in the business of covering up the human frailties of our leaders, and that goes for Bevan just as it goes for Owen. Nandt1 (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Your further point is irrelevant unless you are suggesting I am motivated by covering up something about Bevan.  If you are please stop and address the content issues.  Equally this constant harping on about moving goal posts when you do not deal with questions is not helpful.  Your own evidence shows that the accusation against Bevan is not accepted by all who were there at the time so relying on limited sources from those who were hostile to him in a polemical piece (I just read it again and it is) by a contemporary politician in a different wing of the party is not on.   I've offered you a compromise of a couple of sentences that record the accusation referencing the accuser and the fact it is controversial.   That seems reasonable and is supported by the sources. ----Snowded TALK 07:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


### Proposed compromise
Roy Jenkins argues that Bevan was one of the few political "stars" of the 20th Century, and with Churchill the last great politicians "never to adapt to television", great orators who needed an audience.  However he also considers Bevans cynical support of Morrison against Gaitskell in 1955 and the Spectator Libel trial (where Bevan has been accused by Crossman of perjury) as the "two really despicable performances" of Bevan's life.

I think the above is supported and more balanced.   I think we probably need to note that Jenkins came from the opposing wing of the Labour Party and/or that his criticisms are disputed by Foot.  Something along those lines is OK.  But the extended and elaborate discussion taking one political perspective is not on.   You might want to consider a sourced article on the libel trial that could be linked from the above.  ----Snowded TALK 07:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Your proposal rests on the assumption that there are limited sources and that the accusation rests on Roy Jenkins's "polemical piece".  I am not convinced that this is factually the case, but I suffer from some constraints on my ability to round up additional sources if they are not online.  I propose, however, to do my best to do so.  This will take me a little time, but rest assured that I will be back before long.  Please note that I had already proposed citing the fact that Foot contested the truth of The Spectator's charge, so I was not suggesting to take "one political perspective". Nandt1 (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I have no problem with properly sourced material as to relevance and notability.   Pending you finding sourced material I am reverting the insert.  No one contested its original removal so that is the default position.  Happy to talk more when you have material.  I'd also repeat my suggestion that you create a separate article on the libel case which can be referenced here.   ----Snowded TALK 19:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Noted.Nandt1 (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


### Fuller account
If anybody is interested, the fullest account I've ever read of this disreputable incident is in Brian Brivati's 1999 biog of Arnold Goodman, solicitor to the rich and famous. The truth of the matter appears to be that it was Morgan Phillips, who notoriously could not hold his drink, who made a fool of himself. However Bevan, who resented press criticism which he had received in the past, saw it as a chance to score off the press (in the full knowledge that he was committing perjury). I do have some notes kicking around somewhere but I'm not making any promises as to when I'll ever get round to posting them.Paulturtle (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Aneurin Bevan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newstatesman.com/200505300005
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Aneurin Bevan is virtually unknown here in America, yet I am surprised his most famous quote, circa 1945, is nowhere to be found in either the article or the Talk page: "This island is made mainly of coal and surrounded by fish.  Only an organising genius could produce a shortage of coal and fish at the same time."  I have not been able to find the context from which this quote came.  Was Clement Attlee the organizing genius?  Not much online, but perhaps a dusty biography on the shelf of some British library could put these ironic words into context.  British political scholars, you have your assignment! His Manliness (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Ref 1 G.F. Will, "To Commemorate the Paris Climate Conference, Let's Celebrate Coal," National Review Online, 16 Dec 2015.
Ref 2 D. Craig, "Where's Our Coal, Where Are Our Fish?," Snouts in the Trough, 29 May 2013.
This link gives the source as a speech at Blackpool, 24 May 1945 [1] Gilgamesh4 (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The speech was made at the Labour Party's annual conference, immediately after the dissolution of Parliament but before the General Election. Bevan meant that the country could afford the socialist programme proposed by Labour, despite Conservative claims that it would all cost too much. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the following material - "In 1947, Bevan stated: "All I am doing is extending to the entire population of Britain the benefits we had in Tredegar for a generation or more. We are going to Tredegar-ise you." There is no contemporary evidence for him saying this, and there is also a Swindon version, with similarly nebulous origins. DuncanHill (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

The lead is quite long, especially for an article of this short length. This should be trimmed.
The article overrelies upon quotes and block quotes. This creates copyright concerns and also might not be the most effective way to give information to the reader.
There are some uncited statements, including entire paragraphs.
Is anyone interested in fixing up this article, or should it go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)


### Aneurin Bevan
The article promotes the Bevan myth in that it fails to make clear that the first politician to mention a National Health Service was Churchill, in his 'After the War' broadcast in March 1943 ('We must establish on broad and solid foundations a National Health Service' -- https://www.cvce.eu/content/publication/2003/3/17/831b4069-27e5-4cd7-a607-57d31278584d/publishable_en.pdf), that the White Paper of 1944 called for an NHS free at the point of use and funded from general taxation (abbreviated version here:-- https://memoriesofnursing.uk/wp-content/uploads/A-National-Health-Service.pdf), or that the Churchill government promised a 'comprehensive health service', 'arising out of the proposals already made public', meaning the White Paper, in the King's Speech in November 1944. (https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1944/nov/29/the-kings-speech) The NHS was thus a bipartisan policy in the election of 1945. Conservative Parliamentary votes against Labour's model were in line with the BMA, and were thus against Bevan's Stalinist scheme whereby all doctors would become state employees answerable personally to him. Bevan claimed he stopped the doctors' mouths with gold, but actually the NHS we have, apart from the issue of state ownership of hospitals, which went in the Labour government's favour, is nearer the Conservative model, with private GP surgeries under national contract and self-governing hospital trusts. Consultants also retain considerably more freedom than Bevan originally proposed.  Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Bevan's (serious) biographer John Campbell agrees that some kind of "national health service" (Willink's phrase) would have been set up if the Tories had won in 1945, as promised in Henry Willink's wartime broadcast ("you will no longer have to pay to go to the doctor or the hospital") and the Tory manifesto. Both available online last time I looked. And yes, his arguments with the doctors were very unpopular at the time, some of it rather exaggerated, eg. that it risked the sacred doctor-patient relationship.Paulturtle (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC) Thomas-Symons (p134) broadly concurs that setting up "a national health service" (the title of Willink's White Paper) was a cross-party commitment, one that was simply assumed by the Beveridge Report, and that the disputes were over the form that it would take. Which considering that Thomas-Symons is a frontbench Labour politician is very honest of him, considering the silly point-scoring rubbish that Labour politicians often come out with on this topic ("the Tories voted against setting up the NHS"). He also mentions that there had been major Acts of Parliament about midwifery/maternity in 1918 and the mid 1930s, although he chooses not to dwell on the fact that these were both passed by Tory-dominated coalitions - I remember when I read the 1945 manifesto ("Mr Churchill's Address to the Electors") mentioned above that I was struck by how much stress it put on midwifery/maternity, because in those days women were disproportionately much more likely to vote Tory so that Tories put great stress on their role as the women's party. Thomas-Symons also has some good material (pp.78 et ff) on Bevan and Jennie Lee's open marriage, including an occasion on which Bevan was fined extra for driving away from an accident which he had caused, according to rumour because he was driving with the "titled lady" whom he was seeing at the time.Paulturtle (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@Mark and inwardly digest Aneurin Bevan was Welsh, true, but he was also from Tredegar, and we don't refer to him as a Tredegarian politician. If Bevan had served primarily in the Senedd or represented the Welsh national team in rugby or association football, I would understand his Welshness being prioritized, but he was a member of the British cabinet. We refer to people by the demonym of their country, and you can argue all you want about the home nations technically being countries or not, but the fact is that he was British and is exclusively known for his role in shaping Britain nationwide as a government minister. Saitzken (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Reverted your edit that was contested. Any evidence of that? Did Bevan prefer to describe himself as British not Welsh? and do most sources use "British" more? If there is no evidence of the contrary, Welsh can stay. It is a valid identity is not exclusive to specific contexts as you describe. We are not here to decide what nationality is right or wrong, but what is used most for or by him not his job. DankJae 22:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
A huge part of George W. Bush's identity is the fact that he is a Texan, but we don't refer to him as a Texan politician. Bevan should be no different, and his purported self identity has no say in the matter. Saitzken (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
The MOS:ETHNICITY note applies, so yes Bevan's self-preference and/or common use applies, not merely because he held a role at UK-level. The UK and Spain have overlapping identities, it is more clear-cut elsewhere, so not the same situation compared to Bush. DankJae 09:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Spain has nothing to do with this, and if anything the articles of Spanish individuals correctly identify its subjects as being Spanish, not Galician or Canarian or whatever else. Purported self-identity does not matter, so at most it's about whether or not Bevan is more often labelled a Welsh or a British politician. It makes zero sense to call Bevan Welsh but, say, Boris Johnson British. It's inconsistent and puts too much emphasis on the smaller home nations. Wales is part of the United Kingdom, so all Welsh people are British. Bevan, especially as a member of the national British government, was British first, Welsh second, Tredegarian third, and whichever hospital or log cabin he was born in fourth. Saitzken (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Stop edit warring, there has been no support for your argument, and you've been reverted by multiple editors. The long-standing consensus therefore stands. DankJae 20:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
There is no long standing consensus, and no editor has come forward to support your non-argument either. Bevan was a British citizen with a British passport who served in the British government and is famous for the NHS in Britain nationally. Your insistence on prioritizing one aspect of his heritage defies reason. Why stop at Welsh? Why not call him a politician from the town he was born in? Saitzken (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
@Mark and inwardly digest, has also reverted your edits so there's two opposing your edit. Obviously no one is commonly described by the identity of their town, but Welsh and British are both valid national identities to choose, and this has long had Welsh. Show evidence that he is described British more or self-preferred such. I am only currently upholding the existing status quo, happy to consider any argument you present with evidence not opinions. Stop edit warring. DankJae 20:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Stop misrepresenting me. These are not opinions, they are facts. Bevan was a British citizen. He had a British passport. He was in the British government. He spearheaded reforms that affected Britain. Him being Welsh is merely a detail. Saitzken (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2025 (UTC)etaild