Andy Burnham should tell those demanding a formal apology for Britain’s role in the slave trade to “sod off”, Rupert Lowe has said. The Prime Minister said on Friday night that he is open to such calls but would not consider financial reparations.

Mr Burnham‘s comments came as King Charles tours the Caribbean ahead of the Commonwealth heads of government meeting next week. Caribbean nations have repeatedly called for the UK to apologise for its role in selling enslaved people for profit, and for reparations.

The PM’s comments sparked fury among his opponents, including Mr Lowe, who leads Restore Britain. He told the Daily Express: “If Burnham apologises over slavery, he’s even more pathetic than we ever imagined. Britain has nothing to apologise for, at all.

“We should be proud of our country’s achievements and utterly unapologetic about defending it. Those demanding apologies, reparations and god knows what else are deluding themselves.”

The MP for Great Yarmouth added: “Quite frankly – he should tell the lot of them to sod off.”

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch described slavery as an evil in which people from every continent and region participated, adding that the call for an apology is a navel-gazing distraction. She called into question whether the Commonwealth was worth the effort.

Mrs Badenoch said: “If Caribbean countries are asking Britain for a formal apology for Britain’s role in the transatlantic slave trade, will they also be asking the same of the descendants of African kingdoms, rulers and merchants who captured, sold and profited from the trade?”

The Tory leader said there is no reason British taxpayers today should be held financially responsible for things that happened generations before any of us were born. She added: “And I have even less patience for political elites in commonwealth countries who don’t know how to make their own citizens prosperous now looking for another opportunity to blame Britain.”

Mrs Badenoch added: “This is all another navel-gazing distraction. The Commonwealth should be looking forward, not endlessly backwards. That means economic partnerships to make us all richer and deeper military and security cooperation against common threats.

“If every Commonwealth summit becomes an exercise in presenting Britain with demands for cash then we need to start asking if it is worth the effort.”

Reform UK MP Andrew Rosindell said Mr Burnham would “perhaps” do better by focusing on the 50 million people who are victims of slavery today.

He added: “Prince Albert apologised for slavery back in 1840 in a speech at an international anti-slavery meeting in London. 186 years ago.”

Estimates from the International Labour Organisation, International Organisation for Migration and Walk Free show about 50 million people were living in slavery in 2021.

Prince Albert spoke at a meeting of the Society for the Abolition for Slavery on June 1, 1840. In his first public speech in the UK, he condemned the trade and signalled his regret that efforts to end it by that time had not yet been successful.

Mr Burnham’s comments have been received favourably by leaders in the Caribbean. Mia Amor Mottley, Prime Minister of Barbados, said she welcomed her British counterpart’s acknowledgement of the slave trade’s brutality and his openness to a formal apology.

The British Prime Minister, writing in the Guardian, said: “We are offering a structured dialogue with those affected by the transatlantic slave trade. Listening to calls for a formal apology on behalf of the British state will form an important part of this process and I am open to them.”

In keeping with the policy of his predecessors, he stopped short of offering any consideration of reparation payments. He wrote: “Some have called for financial reparations for the slave trade. I do not believe that is the right answer.

“I do not think that British people today can be held liable for historical wrongs, however heinous, that happened in a different age under different laws and in which they played no personal part.”

Denis O’Brien, founder of The Repair Campaign, which describes itself as a transatlantic movement for reparatory justice for the Caribbean, said on Friday: “The British Government must stop obfuscating and give a full and formal apology now. This would be a significant and symbolic first step towards reparatory justice.

“Tonight’s statement from the Prime Minister was disappointing, and will not quell the demand for an apology from the 15 Caricom countries in advance of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Antigua next week.”

ANDY BURNHAM RISKS LOOKING ‘EVEN MORE PATHETIC’ – ‘BRITAIN HAS NOTHING TO APOLOGISE FOR’, POLITICAL ROW ERUPTS OVER SLAVERY DEBATE

Andy Burnham has found himself at the centre of a growing political controversy after suggesting that Britain could consider issuing a formal apology for its historical role in the transatlantic slave trade.

The Prime Minister’s comments have triggered strong reactions from opposition politicians, with critics questioning why the British government should apologise for events that took place generations ago.

The debate has quickly become one of the most sensitive political issues surrounding Britain’s relationship with the Commonwealth.

For some, acknowledging the suffering caused by slavery is an important step towards maintaining meaningful relationships with Caribbean nations. For others, a formal apology risks opening the door to further demands for financial compensation from British taxpayers.

The disagreement has exposed significant differences between political figures over how Britain should approach its history and its responsibilities in the modern world.

Rupert Lowe Launches Strong Criticism

Among the most outspoken critics has been Rupert Lowe, leader of Restore Britain.

Lowe argued that Britain should not issue a formal apology and suggested that Burnham risked appearing weak by considering the demands.

He told the Daily Express that Britain had nothing to apologise for and should instead be proud of its historical contribution to ending the transatlantic slave trade.

His comments have attracted attention because they reflect a wider argument among politicians who believe that present-day British taxpayers should not be held financially responsible for historical events.

Lowe also argued that Britain should concentrate on defending its national interests and addressing contemporary challenges rather than becoming involved in disputes about historical responsibility.

However, supporters of an apology argue that recognising historical suffering does not necessarily mean accepting financial liability.

What Did Andy Burnham Actually Say?

Burnham’s position is more complicated than simply agreeing to pay compensation.

Writing in The Guardian, he described the transatlantic slave trade as a brutal and barbaric violation of human dignity.

He expressed sorrow and regret for the suffering experienced by millions of enslaved Africans and their descendants.

He also proposed establishing a structured dialogue with countries affected by the trade.

Importantly, Burnham said he was open to considering calls for a formal apology on behalf of the British state.

However, he explicitly rejected financial reparations.

His position was that British people living today should not be held financially liable for historical wrongs committed hundreds of years ago in which they personally played no part.

This distinction is central to understanding the controversy.

An official apology and a financial compensation programme are two different political and legal questions.

Kemi Badenoch Also Challenges the Proposal

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has strongly criticised the possibility of a formal apology.

She warned that issuing an apology could encourage further demands for financial reparations.

Badenoch argued that Britain should concentrate on strengthening relationships between Commonwealth countries through trade, security cooperation and economic development.

She also questioned whether modern British taxpayers should be expected to accept financial responsibility for historical events that occurred long before they were born.

Her intervention demonstrates that opposition to reparations extends beyond one political party.

However, Badenoch also acknowledged the historical reality of slavery and argued that the contributions made by British abolitionists should be recognised.

The debate is therefore not simply about whether slavery was wrong. It concerns what responsibilities the British state should accept today.

Why Caribbean Nations Want an Apology

Several Caribbean countries have continued to call for Britain to acknowledge its role in the transatlantic slave trade.

Their arguments focus on the enormous human suffering caused by the forced transportation of Africans, the exploitation of enslaved people and the long-term consequences of colonial rule.

For campaigners seeking reparatory justice, a formal apology would represent an important symbolic acknowledgement.

Some also argue that historical exploitation contributed to economic inequalities that continue to affect Caribbean societies.

The British government, however, has traditionally resisted financial reparations.

Burnham’s proposed structured dialogue could therefore provide an opportunity for discussions without immediately committing British taxpayers to compensation.

Caribbean leaders have welcomed the willingness to discuss an apology, although campaigners have indicated that acknowledgement alone may not satisfy all their demands.

The Historical Role Britain Played

The transatlantic slave trade was one of the most devastating systems of exploitation in modern history.

Millions of Africans were forcibly transported across the Atlantic, where enslaved people were subjected to violence, forced labour and the denial of basic human rights.

British merchants, shipowners and plantation interests played a major role in the trade during its expansion.

Britain abolished its participation in the transatlantic slave trade in 1807.

The Slavery Abolition Act followed in 1833, with abolition taking effect across most of the British Empire in 1834.

Britain subsequently used naval resources to suppress the international slave trade.

These historical developments are important, but they do not erase Britain’s earlier involvement or the suffering experienced by enslaved people.

Both aspects form part of the historical record.

Does an Apology Automatically Mean Reparations?

This is one of the central questions in the political dispute.

Burnham has made clear that he does not believe financial reparations are the appropriate response.

His proposal focuses on dialogue, acknowledgement and possible diplomatic cooperation.

However, some campaigners believe that a formal apology should be accompanied by practical measures addressing the long-term consequences of slavery.

Others argue that modern generations should not be financially responsible for historical actions committed by previous generations.

There is no universal agreement on how historical responsibility should be addressed.

The legal implications of a formal apology would also depend on its wording and the circumstances in which it was issued.

It is therefore important not to assume that an apology automatically creates a legal obligation to pay compensation.

King Charles and the Commonwealth Summit

The controversy has also attracted attention because of King Charles’s Caribbean tour and the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Antigua and Barbuda.

The monarch has previously spoken about the suffering caused by slavery and the importance of acknowledging difficult historical experiences.

However, constitutional responsibilities mean that decisions about government apologies and policy commitments belong to elected ministers rather than the monarch personally.

The situation creates a delicate diplomatic challenge.

Britain wants to maintain strong relationships with Commonwealth countries while managing domestic disagreements about historical responsibility and public spending.

Burnham’s proposal for structured dialogue is intended to provide a framework for those discussions.

What Does This Mean for Britain’s Future?

The disagreement highlights a broader question about how Britain should approach its history.

Some politicians believe the country should concentrate on its achievements, including the abolitionist movement and the Royal Navy’s efforts to suppress the slave trade.

Others argue that acknowledging historical wrongdoing is essential to maintaining trust with countries affected by slavery.

There is also a practical economic dimension.

Britain has opportunities to strengthen trade, education, infrastructure and security cooperation with Caribbean nations.

These areas could form part of a broader relationship that looks towards future development rather than focusing exclusively on historical disagreements.

The challenge for Burnham is to demonstrate that his proposed dialogue can produce meaningful diplomatic progress without creating financial commitments that the government has ruled out.

A Political Debate Far From Over

The reaction from Rupert Lowe, Kemi Badenoch and other political figures shows that the question of a formal British apology remains deeply divisive.

Supporters believe acknowledgement could help strengthen relationships with Caribbean countries.

Opponents argue that Britain should not accept financial responsibility for events that occurred centuries ago.

Burnham has attempted to draw a distinction between recognising historical suffering and agreeing to reparations.

Whether that position satisfies either side remains uncertain.

What is clear is that the debate will continue to attract attention as Britain considers its responsibilities within the Commonwealth.

THE BIG QUESTIONS:

• Should Britain issue a formal apology for its historical role in the slave trade?
• Can an apology be made without accepting financial responsibility?
• Should modern British taxpayers contribute towards reparations?
• Is structured dialogue a practical way to improve relations with Caribbean nations?
• How should Britain balance recognition of its historical mistakes with its achievements?

The controversy is about more than one political statement. It raises fundamental questions about history, responsibility, diplomacy and the relationship Britain wants to build with the rest of the Commonwealth.