First, a confession: I have never been a slave owner. The thought never even occurred to me. As a schoolboy I fantasised about becoming a novelist, then a journalist. In early adulthood, the prospect of going into politics one day seemed attractive.
But slavery? Not my bag. So why does our Foreign Secretary believe that I should contribute, through my taxes, to compensating people for the slavery imposed on their ancestors?
Six years ago David Lammy fell victim to the temptation that bedevils many opposition politicians – namely, to tell their audiences not the truth, but whatever they wish to hear.
In 2018 Mr Lammy told his Twitter followers: “As Caribbean people enslaved, colonised and invited to Britain… we remember our history. We don’t just want an apology, we want reparations and compensation.”
Here we come to the nub of the problem: “We want reparations and compensation.”
The idea of reparations has been a divisive one for obvious reasons. Is it only wealthy Western countries that should pay out for the historical injustice inflicted on long-dead individuals, or should the descendants of black Africans who profited enormously from selling their fellow Africans into bondage also cough up?
The whole campaign smacks of one of those fashionable crusades that is so complex – not to mention counter-logical – that it was never meant to be resolved; rather its aim is more likely to provide perpetual employment for social justice activists.
But back to the Foreign Secretary. When he made his injudicious remarks, he was a humble backbencher, so perhaps he has grown out of his crowd-pleasing tendencies.
Unfortunately, Sir Hilary Beckles, the chairman of the Caribbean Community (Caricom) reparations commission, doesn’t seem to think so.
He considers that Mr Lammy still sticks to his previously stated views. So Sir Hilary argues that Mr Lammy should have a “free hand” in deciding whether reparations should be paid.
It turned out that the Government didn’t need me to warn them that allowing the Foreign Secretary to allocate hundreds of billions of pounds (various estimates have calculated that the final bill “owed” by Britain to the descendants of slaves could be anywhere between £200 billion and £18 trillion) might not be the most effective way of convincing the electorate that they didn’t make a colossal mistake on July 4. Even this administration, which has spent so much time on the back foot when it comes to sensitive political matters, saw the sense in nipping this one in the bud.
But now that the Government has decisively ruled out reparations, will the Foreign Secretary feel forced to consider his position and do the honourable thing? Or is he capable of arguing the opposite case from the one he made with his customary zeal?
Surely even he can recognise the political risk in Britain sending many more billions overseas at a time when UK pensioners are being told to scrape together more of their own money to pay for their winter heating bills.
The imminent Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Samoa might now prove a frosty affair, with Mr Lammy having raised expectations of a lottery-level win for our former colonies, only for the Prime Minister to dash them.
Opposition is easy, government hard. Perhaps too hard for Mr Lammy.
The world was agog at the weekend at news footage of the SpaceX Starship returning to earth by successfully completing a vertical landing on to the launchpad where a pair of giant mechanical arms safely caught it – known as the “chopsticks manoeuvre”.
What a pity that the genius entrepreneur behind SpaceX, Elon Musk, is persona non grata with the current government, otherwise he might well have been invited to share some of his ideas at yesterday’s much-trumpeted inward investment jamboree at London’s Guildhall.
The Government does – but also does not – know why Mr Musk was not invited to attend the event, aimed at showcasing Britain’s attractiveness to international investors. This Schrodinger’s Invitation was illuminated by Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds, who point blank refused to get into it when challenged in the TV studios on Sunday, while the next day the Science Secretary Peter Kyle was happy to explain that the X owner wasn’t invited because he tends not to attend such events.
But as well as sending rockets into space and winding up the Left on X with his support for Donald Trump and his warnings that Britain is about to descend into civil war (which many suspect is the real reason for his snubbing), Mr Musk is also the owner of Tesla, the world’s most valuable car maker. And according to the former chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, the firm is currently considering a new European manufacturing base, with Britain one of the possible candidates.
Perhaps ensuring that Mr Musk was invited and made something of a fuss of by ministers could have been more of a priority? Even if he could not be persuaded to invest, might it not have been a better idea to play nice with the richest man in the world than to be seen to freeze him out just because he has said some mean things about the Government?
Is this Government being led by grown-up politicians or by student activists who want to “stick it to The Man”, even at the expense of crucial inward investment?
Today’s taxpayers do not deserve to be punished for crimes committed long ago
First, a confession: I have never been a slave owner. The thought never even occurred to me. As a schoolboy I fantasised about becoming a novelist, then a journalist. In early adulthood, the prospect of going into politics one day seemed attractive.
But slavery? Not my bag. So why does our Foreign Secretary believe that I should contribute, through my taxes, to compensating people for the slavery imposed on their ancestors?
Six years ago David Lammy fell victim to the temptation that bedevils many opposition politicians – namely, to tell their audiences not the truth, but whatever they wish to hear.
In 2018 Mr Lammy told his Twitter followers: “As Caribbean people enslaved, colonised and invited to Britain… we remember our history. We don’t just want an apology, we want reparations and compensation.”
Here we come to the nub of the problem: “We want reparations and compensation.”
The idea of reparations has been a divisive one for obvious reasons. Is it only wealthy Western countries that should pay out for the historical injustice inflicted on long-dead individuals, or should the descendants of black Africans who profited enormously from selling their fellow Africans into bondage also cough up?
The whole campaign smacks of one of those fashionable crusades that is so complex – not to mention counter-logical – that it was never meant to be resolved; rather its aim is more likely to provide perpetual employment for social justice activists.
But back to the Foreign Secretary. When he made his injudicious remarks, he was a humble backbencher, so perhaps he has grown out of his crowd-pleasing tendencies.
Unfortunately, Sir Hilary Beckles, the chairman of the Caribbean Community (Caricom) reparations commission, doesn’t seem to think so.
He considers that Mr Lammy still sticks to his previously stated views. So Sir Hilary argues that Mr Lammy should have a “free hand” in deciding whether reparations should be paid.
It turned out that the Government didn’t need me to warn them that allowing the Foreign Secretary to allocate hundreds of billions of pounds (various estimates have calculated that the final bill “owed” by Britain to the descendants of slaves could be anywhere between £200 billion and £18 trillion) might not be the most effective way of convincing the electorate that they didn’t make a colossal mistake on July 4. Even this administration, which has spent so much time on the back foot when it comes to sensitive political matters, saw the sense in nipping this one in the bud.
But now that the Government has decisively ruled out reparations, will the Foreign Secretary feel forced to consider his position and do the honourable thing? Or is he capable of arguing the opposite case from the one he made with his customary zeal?
Surely even he can recognise the political risk in Britain sending many more billions overseas at a time when UK pensioners are being told to scrape together more of their own money to pay for their winter heating bills.
The imminent Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Samoa might now prove a frosty affair, with Mr Lammy having raised expectations of a lottery-level win for our former colonies, only for the Prime Minister to dash them.
Opposition is easy, government hard. Perhaps too hard for Mr Lammy.
The world was agog at the weekend at news footage of the SpaceX Starship returning to earth by successfully completing a vertical landing on to the launchpad where a pair of giant mechanical arms safely caught it – known as the “chopsticks manoeuvre”.
What a pity that the genius entrepreneur behind SpaceX, Elon Musk, is persona non grata with the current government, otherwise he might well have been invited to share some of his ideas at yesterday’s much-trumpeted inward investment jamboree at London’s Guildhall.
The Government does – but also does not – know why Mr Musk was not invited to attend the event, aimed at showcasing Britain’s attractiveness to international investors. This Schrodinger’s Invitation was illuminated by Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds, who point blank refused to get into it when challenged in the TV studios on Sunday, while the next day the Science Secretary Peter Kyle was happy to explain that the X owner wasn’t invited because he tends not to attend such events.
But as well as sending rockets into space and winding up the Left on X with his support for Donald Trump and his warnings that Britain is about to descend into civil war (which many suspect is the real reason for his snubbing), Mr Musk is also the owner of Tesla, the world’s most valuable car maker. And according to the former chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, the firm is currently considering a new European manufacturing base, with Britain one of the possible candidates.
Perhaps ensuring that Mr Musk was invited and made something of a fuss of by ministers could have been more of a priority? Even if he could not be persuaded to invest, might it not have been a better idea to play nice with the richest man in the world than to be seen to freeze him out just because he has said some mean things about the Government?
Is this Government being led by grown-up politicians or by student activists who want to “stick it to The Man”, even at the expense of crucial inward investment?