Why has David Lammy not retracted his past comments on reparations?
David Lammy’s reckless past is catching up with him and jeopardising Britain’s interests on the world stage.
Lammy’s past comments could cost the UK £18 trillion and key diplomatic relationships. The foreign secretary has a history of calling and campaigning for Britain to pay reparations, among other eye-catching comments. The recent circus around Commonwealth slavery reparations was embarrassing and undermined Britain’s position in the world. Now that he finds himself in a position of authority representing the UK, Lammy should explicitly disavow and retract his previous comments. Anything less won’t do.
For example, in 2020, Lammy gave more than succour to the reparations crowd when he said: “The starting point is truth and reconciliation… we’re no longer in a society where we question notions like white privilege. And then we get to a point where we have to discuss power and reckoning and repairing – and that to some extent is obviously financial, and involves endowments.”
Keir Starmer, the prime minister and Lammy’s boss, flew to Samoa to attend the Commonwealth Summit in October. Some Commonwealth countries turned up with the clear aim of getting reparations its own discussion slot on the agenda at the summit, in open defiance of the UK. Starmer’s government made it clear reparations payments were not on the table, only to then give ground under minimal pressure and open the door to reparations.
It is clear why the government is shying away from the discussion. Reparations demands total a whopping $18 trillion. This figure is about six times higher than the UK’s entire GDP. To put that into perspective, the Anglo-American loan in 1950 of almost £60 billion (in today’s money) was only fully paid after 56 years. The British economy is not struggling as much as it did in the post-war period, but it is not experiencing a boom either. It is a stagnant, middling power country.
Lammy, a prominent proponent, lobbyist, and politician for the Windrush generation and Caribbean reparations, cannot sincerely expect the UK to afford this without its economy coming to a grinding halt. His continued reluctance to stand up to the reparations demands therefore raises questions around his motives. Lammy is putting his personal politics before his country’s interests.
Besides, the claims fail logically and statistically. For example, take Britain’s economic development and the Industrial Revolution. The peak of slave ships leaving Britain was decades after the structural changes which started the Industrial Revolution. The slave ships which did leave only accounted for 1.5% of Britain's total ships while the rest were non-slave trade ships. What’s more, while sugar was a huge trade with the Caribbean and used to be much larger than trade with America, Caribbean sugar only added around 2.5% to the British National income. The cogs of the Industrial Revolution were already in motion. Whatever economic benefit Britain enjoyed was tiny compared to goods and services not involved in the slave trade.
We cannot forget, while many in Lammy’s camp will blame Britain for the Caribbean’s supposed economic woes, this is simply not a fair assessment. Many of the economic troubles these Caribbean nations face began after they gained their independence from the UK. Barbados, for example, experienced most of its growth under British rule in the 1950s and ‘60s, rather than post-independence. During this time, the first hospital and deepwater port were built.
On the other hand, some of these nations can be blamed for their own poor governance after gaining independence from the British. Jamaica has been fiscally irresponsible, allowing its monetary situation to deteriorate. Compare it to other nations like the Cayman Islands, which remained dependent and is still a British territory to this day, and has made more responsible monetary decisions. The Cayman dollar remains far more valuable than the Jamaican dollar. To buy one American dollar, you would need around 155 Jamaican dollars but only 0.83 Cayman dollars.
David Lammy’s rhetoric and campaigning are divisive, destructive, and unworthy of his office. The foreign secretary ought to be diplomatic, constructive and uniting. We need a foreign secretary who can build and strengthen diplomatic ties. Building these relationships will play a key role in the UK getting back on its feet and growing, not to mention helping our allies grow. We cannot do this when we are divided as a nation and distant from potential allies. David Lammy must urgently exchange his rhetoric for responsibility, starting with disavowing his previous calls for British reparations to Caribbean nations.
Oscar Gill-Lewis is a political commentator with Young Voices UK, a writer for outlets including the Daily Express and Reaction, and an editor for Speak Freely Magazine.
