Andy Burnham is under fire for making the King’s work in the Commonwealth harder (Image: Getty)

Prime Minister Andy Burnham has been accused by Reform UK leader Nigel Farage of “peddling grievance politics” by signalling he may apologise for Britain’s role in the transatlantic slave trade. The Labour leader has also been accused of letting down the King and handing a “weapon” to campaigners who want Britain to pay potentially trillions of pounds in reparations for slavery.

There is anger that his comments on slavery landed as King Charles toured the Caribbean, with Commonwealth heads of government about to gather for a summit in St John’s, Antigua and Barbuda. It is feared an apology could turbocharge demands for compensation, with “British taxpayers expected to foot the bill for crimes committed centuries before they were born”. A major report in 2023 led by the Brattle group of financial advisers concluded the UK should pay $24trillion – then £18.8trillion – for its involvement in slavery in 14 countries.

Ahead of the Commonwealth gathering, Mr Burnham said he wanted to express his “sorrow and regret for the pain and suffering of so many millions of people, and to recognise the way it still shapes our world today”.

He said Britain is offering a “structured dialogue with those affected by the transatlantic slave trade”, adding: “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.”

Reform UK leader Mr Farage declared Britain has “already paid the price for its role in the slave trade”. He told the Express: “We abolished the slave trade in 1807 and then spent vast sums of money stamping it out across the world – a bill that wasn’t settled until 2015. Instead of peddling grievance politics, the Prime Minister should be proud of the leading role Britain played in ending this barbaric practice.”

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said Mr Burnham “should be Britain’s greatest defender” and said this is not the time for him to provide “global welfare”. She shot down demands for reparations, saying: “There is no reason British taxpayers today should be held financially responsible for things that happened generations before any of us were born. 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 called into question Britain’s future in the 56-member organisation, saying: “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.” She asked whether Caribbean countries pressing for a formal apology will also ask “the same of the descendants of African kingdoms, rulers and merchants who captured, sold and profited from the trade”.

Earlier, Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, a former Conservative Leader of the Commons, said Mr Burnham’ remarks were worthy of an “insignificant mayor” but not a prime minister. He told the Express: “An apology is the first step to reparations and there is no reason for one.

“Britain ended the slave trade, but slavery remains rife today in countries that are now criticising us. Burnham’s comments are those of an insignificant mayor, not a prime minister, and are especially unwelcome while the King is picking his way with great diplomatic skill through a difficult foreign trip.”

Former Brexit minister David Jones warned that the Labour leader had committed a major blunder, saying: “Andy Burnham has demonstrated his lack of both judgment and experience. An apology would be seized on by reparations campaigners as a down payment, with British taxpayers expected to foot the bill for crimes committed centuries before they were born.

“His assurance that he would not pay will do nothing to discourage those demands. To float this idea while the King is overseas, faithfully following his Government’s advice not to apologise, is astonishingly irresponsible. Burnham has let his own sovereign down and handed campaigners a weapon to use against him. The King is there to strengthen Commonwealth ties, not to be left exposed by the British Prime Minister’s ineptitude.”

 

King Charles will address Commonwealth heads of government (Image: Getty)

Former home secretary Dame Priti Patel said the Prime Minister should work to support the Commonwealth rather than “looking at the past”.

“Burnham needs to stop looking at the past, rewriting history and get on with dealing with the challenges Britain faces after two years of Labour’s higher taxes, higher unemployment and the cost of living pressures Labour have inflicted upon the British public,” she said. “The Commonwealth leaders summit is led by HM the King and Burnham should be working to support the shared endeavours for the future of the Commonwealth and stop looking at the past.”

In his Guardian article, Mr Burnham set out why he did not believe financial reparations are the “right answer” to the legacy of the slave trade, saying: “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.”

Chancellor John Healey told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg: “The Prime Minister has said, look, we are open to a discussion about an apology. He feels that’s the right thing, particularly ahead of the Commonwealth leaders’ conference. He doesn’t believe that reparations are the right approach. And considering a formal apology doesn’t mean accepting British people now should accept the financial liability of any party in things that happened hundreds of years ago in which they had no role.”

Gaston Browne, the prime minister of Antigua and Barbuda, described Mr Burnham’s statement as a “welcome development” and said “differences over financial compensation should be addressed through dialogue”. Philip Davis, the prime minister of the Bahamas, told Sky News that he would be “open” to the removal of the King as head of state.

Nigel Farage Attacks Andy Burnham for ‘Peddling Grievance Politics’ About Slave Trade

Nigel Farage has launched a fierce attack on Prime Minister Andy Burnham over his willingness to consider a formal British apology for the transatlantic slave trade, accusing Labour of reopening historical divisions and promoting what he describes as “grievance politics”.

The Reform UK leader has argued that Britain should be proud of its leading role in abolishing slavery rather than allowing historical controversies to dominate the country’s political agenda.

His intervention has intensified an increasingly heated debate about Britain’s colonial history, the responsibilities of modern governments and the possibility of reparations.

The controversy comes as King Charles III visits the Caribbean ahead of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Antigua and Barbuda.

Burnham’s comments have attracted criticism from Conservative and Reform politicians, who fear that offering an official apology could encourage further demands for financial compensation.

However, Caribbean leaders and campaigners argue that acknowledging historical suffering is an important step towards building stronger international relationships.

The disagreement has placed Burnham in a difficult political position, with pressure coming from both domestic opponents and Commonwealth representatives.

Farage Accuses Labour of Reopening Historical Divisions

Farage has made clear that he strongly disagrees with Burnham’s approach.

The Reform UK leader told the Daily Express that Britain had already paid a substantial price for its involvement in the slave trade.

He argued that Britain abolished the slave trade in 1807 and subsequently spent enormous sums attempting to suppress it internationally.

Farage said the Prime Minister should be proud of Britain’s role in ending the practice rather than “peddling grievance politics”.

His comments reflect a wider argument among Conservative and Reform politicians that modern British taxpayers should not be held financially responsible for historical events.

They also highlight the importance of recognising Britain’s role in the international abolitionist movement.

However, critics of this position argue that Britain’s involvement in slavery and its later campaign against the trade are both essential parts of the country’s history.

They believe that celebrating abolition should not prevent an honest examination of the suffering caused by British participation in slavery.

What Did Andy Burnham Actually Propose?

Burnham’s intervention came through an article published in The Guardian ahead of the Commonwealth summit.

The Prime Minister expressed personal sorrow and regret for the suffering experienced by millions of enslaved Africans.

He acknowledged that the consequences of the transatlantic slave trade continue to shape societies around the world.

More importantly, he said Britain was prepared to establish structured dialogue with countries and communities affected by slavery.

He also indicated that he was open to listening to calls for a formal apology on behalf of the British state.

However, Burnham made an important distinction concerning financial compensation.

He explicitly rejected financial reparations, arguing that people living in Britain today should not be held personally liable for historical wrongdoing committed under different laws and circumstances.

Instead, he suggested that Britain should explore practical forms of cooperation with Commonwealth countries.

One of his proposals involved addressing the debt-servicing difficulties faced by poorer nations.

His argument was that improving financial conditions, healthcare and economic opportunities could create more meaningful benefits than simply debating historical compensation.

This distinction has become central to the political controversy.

The £20 Million Question

One of the strongest arguments made by Farage concerns Britain’s financial contribution to the abolition of slavery.

Under the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, the British Government agreed to pay £20 million in compensation to slave owners.

At the time, this represented an enormous financial commitment, equivalent to approximately 40 per cent of annual government expenditure.

The money was borrowed, and the resulting financial obligations continued for generations.

The associated government debt was not finally repaid until 2015.

Farage and other critics argue that this demonstrates the enormous financial sacrifice Britain made to bring slavery to an end.

However, there is an important historical detail that cannot be overlooked.

The compensation went to former slave owners, not to the enslaved people themselves.

Those who had experienced forced labour, violence and family separation received no equivalent compensation.

This is one of the principal reasons why Caribbean campaigners continue to argue that the historical settlement did not provide justice to the victims of slavery.

Consequently, the £20 million payment remains a central but highly contested element of the modern reparations debate.

King Charles Caught in a Sensitive Diplomatic Situation

The timing of Burnham’s announcement has also attracted criticism because of King Charles’s Caribbean tour.

The monarch is visiting the region at a particularly sensitive moment in Britain’s relationship with several Commonwealth countries.

Caribbean leaders have repeatedly called for greater recognition of slavery’s historical consequences.

Some have also demanded a formal apology and financial reparations.

The King’s position is complicated by his constitutional responsibilities.

As Britain’s head of state, he represents the country during official visits but does not independently determine government policy.

His speeches and diplomatic engagements must therefore reflect the constitutional requirement to remain politically neutral.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has warned that Burnham’s comments could place additional pressure on the monarch.

She believes the Government should avoid creating uncertainty while the King is representing Britain overseas.

However, Buckingham Palace was informed about the Prime Minister’s announcement, and the King’s planned Commonwealth speech was not changed.

The controversy therefore concerns political judgement and diplomatic presentation rather than an established constitutional confrontation.

Caribbean Leaders Refuse to Abandon Reparations Demands

While Farage has rejected further financial demands, several Caribbean leaders have maintained that the issue deserves serious consideration.

The Caribbean Community, known as CARICOM, has supported a regional reparations programme.

Its proposals include formal apologies, educational investment, healthcare improvements, cultural restoration and measures addressing economic inequalities.

Some campaigners also want direct financial compensation.

They argue that the effects of slavery cannot be understood simply by looking at the passage of time.

For generations, enslaved populations were denied freedom, property rights and economic opportunities.

Supporters of reparatory justice believe that these historical disadvantages have contributed to inequalities that remain visible today.

Antigua and Barbuda’s Prime Minister, Gaston Browne, welcomed Burnham’s willingness to discuss an apology.

He also suggested that disagreements over financial compensation should not prevent progress through dialogue.

This demonstrates that Caribbean governments do not necessarily share identical expectations.

Some prioritise formal recognition, while others emphasise debt relief, development assistance and wider economic cooperation.

Kemi Badenoch Joins Farage in Criticising Burnham

Farage is not the only political figure questioning the Prime Minister’s approach.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has also criticised the possibility of another formal apology.

She argues that Britain should concentrate on strengthening relationships within the Commonwealth rather than repeatedly revisiting historical disagreements.

Badenoch has also questioned whether an apology could encourage campaigners to increase their demands for compensation.

Her position is that modern British taxpayers should not be held responsible for the actions of previous generations.

However, supporters of Burnham argue that a formal apology does not automatically create a financial obligation.

They believe it is possible to recognise historical injustice while rejecting direct compensation payments.

Chancellor John Healey has defended the Prime Minister’s approach, explaining that considering an apology does not mean accepting financial liability for historical events.

The disagreement therefore reflects different interpretations of what an apology would mean politically and diplomatically.

Could the Dispute Damage Labour?

For Labour, the controversy creates another difficult political test.

Burnham must demonstrate that his Government can address Britain’s historical responsibilities while continuing to focus on domestic priorities.

The country faces significant challenges involving economic growth, taxation, immigration, public services and living standards.

Opposition parties argue that these issues should receive greater attention.

Reform UK is likely to continue using the controversy to challenge Labour’s approach to national identity and international relations.

However, the Government believes that constructive dialogue with Commonwealth countries can strengthen Britain’s international partnerships.

The political challenge is finding a position that acknowledges historical suffering without creating unnecessary financial uncertainty or diplomatic tensions.

Burnham will need to explain precisely what his proposed dialogue involves and what practical outcomes he hopes to achieve.

Conclusion

Nigel Farage’s attack on Andy Burnham has intensified Britain’s debate over slavery, historical responsibility and the possibility of a formal national apology.

The Reform UK leader argues that Britain should recognise its contribution to abolishing the slave trade rather than encourage further demands for reparations.

Burnham, meanwhile, has expressed sorrow for the suffering caused by slavery and indicated that he is open to discussing a formal apology, while firmly rejecting financial compensation.

The historical arguments are complicated.

Britain played an important role in abolishing the international slave trade, but it also participated in the system that transported and exploited millions of enslaved Africans.

The £20 million compensation settlement of 1833 illustrates this complexity, particularly because the money went to slave owners rather than the people who had been enslaved.

For the Government, the challenge is to acknowledge these facts while maintaining constructive relationships with Commonwealth partners and protecting the interests of modern taxpayers.

For Farage, the priority is to prevent the debate from becoming a justification for further financial demands.

Ultimately, Britain’s past cannot be changed, but the way the country discusses its history and builds relationships with former colonies will continue to shape its international reputation.

The coming Commonwealth summit will provide an important opportunity to see whether political disagreements can be transformed into meaningful dialogue.