Martin Kettle rightly says Aneurin Bevan is the one politician other than Clement Attlee whom Labour leaders regularly invoke (Critics say Starmer is no Attlee – and they’re right. Labour must look to the future, not the past, 31 July). Keir Starmer has drawn on Harold Wilson for inspiration, but more pertinent to Kettle’s argument is David Lammy claiming a role model in Ernest Bevin. Made minister of labour in 1940 and foreign secretary in 1945, Ernie Bevin dominated the decade. Bevin sought a continued US military presence in Europe but had no illusions about the “special relationship”. The 1956 Suez crisis was a calamitous reality check, confirming the White House’s prioritising of US self-interest above any presumed obligation to an ally, however close.
Larry Elliott’s pessimism over Trump’s trade deal with Europe is understandable (This trade deal is the EU’s Suez moment – its subservience to Trump is on show for all to see, 31 July), but the EU can take heart from how France responded to the United States torpedoing its joint effort with the UK to regain control of the Suez canal: a renewed commitment to pan-European economic collaboration saw the swift confirmation of a six-nation common market, and a determination that French foreign policy would never again be subject to transatlantic pressure saw the Fourth and then the Fifth Republic develop its own advanced weaponry, both conventional and nuclear. Had Attlee, not Eden, been prime minister in 1956, we can be certain that he would never have sanctioned collusion with France and Israel to invade Egypt, and then repeatedly denied having done so. Attlee’s greatest quality wasn’t succinctness – it was integrity.
Adrian Smith
Emeritus professor of modern history, University of Southampton
I do not feel Martin Kettle is entirely fair or correct to say that Clement Attlee, on becoming prime minister, “pulled Britain out of India as fast as he could”.
Attlee had been closely involved in India for more than 20 years, going back to the Simon commission, which had been established in 1927, specifically to consider the possibility of Indian independence and self-rule. As an MP and a member of the commission, Attlee visited India several times before the war (no mean feat in those days), understood the issues and knew the leaders of the political parties and factions.
He did not underestimate the problems that independence might bring (although certainly not the violence and bloodshed), noting that partition would “necessarily leave minorities in both states” but emphasising that his Labour government was “in earnest in seeking to implement the promises made by Britain”.
Eighty years on, another Labour prime minister now faces similar challenges over Palestine. I am sure Keir Starmer, like his distinguished predecessor, will rise to the occasion.
Robert Evans
Former chair of the south Asia delegation, European parliament
Martin Kettle’s interesting article on Clement Attlee referred to his wife driving him to Buckingham Palace to meet King George VI on his historic 1945 victory over Churchill. Mrs Attlee was apparently a notoriously bad driver. My late father told me Mrs Attlee once collided with his car when driving the prime minister on a foggy night in London. Fortunately, no one was injured.
Robin Arnfield
Vancouver, Canada
