The ex-PM has launched a blistering broadside against plans to pay slavery reparations (Image: Getty)
Boris Johnson has launched a blistering broadside against plans to pay slavery reparations, revealing his own great-great-grandmother was sold as a child. The former Tory premier tore into Prime Minister Andy Burnham for opening the door to official apologies and compensation, branding the push a “fiasco” and pure “madness”. In an extraordinary disclosure, Mr Johnson revealed family ancestry research confirmed he is the direct descendant of a slave girl bought at a 19th-century Istanbul market. He said his ancestor, Hanife Feride, was a Circassian refugee fleeing Russian imperial aggression in the Caucasus who was shipped across the Black Sea and put up for auction in the Grand Bazaar. She was later purchased by a Turkish woman and married to a 43-year-old businessman at just 13.
“Her name was Hanife Feride and she is my great-great-grandmother. Yes, folks, it’s true… it seems undeniable: that we Johnsons are descended from slavery,” he wrote.
Seizing on the discovery, the ex-Prime Minister turned Daily Mail columnist used this week’s column to ridicule calls for British taxpayers to fund historic atonement packages, asking if anyone seriously believed his own family deserved a payout. “Let me ask you: does anyone out there seriously think that the large, sprawling, and broadly affluent Johnson family deserve any kind of taxpayer-funded compensation?” he asked.
“Would you like to see me get some sudden wodge of cash, in compensation for the undoubted injustice suffered by my great-great-grandmother? Of course you wouldn’t.”
Targeting the current occupant of No 10, Mr Johnson branded Mr Burnham a “muppet” after he pledged to launch a year-long “structured dialogue” on making amends and offered £40million in assistance to Caribbean nations. He warned the move would expose hard-working Britons to a financial black hole that could cost “literally hundreds of billions of pounds.”
Taking aim at both the Government and the Church of England – which established a £100million fund over historic links to slavery – he argued the UK taxpayer was being dragged into a “fatuous shakedown campaign.”
Andy Burnham and the King have been asked for a transatlantic slave trade apology (Image: Getty)
“We should not pay a red cent to the descendants of slavery. It is the quintessence of insanity. You might as well pay me,” he added.
Warning of the endless precedent it would set for the country, Mr Johnson pointed out that Britain had invaded 171 of the 193 UN member states throughout history, concluding: “If we concede this ridiculous principle, of paying compensation for the regrettable deeds of our distant ancestors, we will be in the dock for eternity.”
The row erupted after Mr Burnham ditched Britain’s longstanding refusal to apologise for the transatlantic slave trade. Despite ruling out direct cash payouts, the Prime Minister sparked fury by confirming he is “open” to an official state apology. He also unveiled a £40million Caribbean aid package and a year-long “structured dialogue” to explore how the UK can make amends.
Yet the move backfired on both sides. Caribbean leaders and campaigners instantly dismissed the £40million as inadequate, demanding full restorative justice, while critics warned any formal apology would open the door to claims worth hundreds of billions.
The toxic row also dragged in the Royal Family ahead of a Commonwealth summit in Antigua and Barbuda. Buckingham Palace stepped in to distance King Charles from the crossfire, firmly clarifying that his role as head of the Commonwealth is about “inspiring and convening, rather than policy making.”
‘WHERE’S MY REPARATION CASH?’ – BORIS JOHNSON BLASTS SLAVERY DEMAND WITH BOMBSHELL REVELATION!
Boris Johnson has reignited Britain’s increasingly heated debate over slavery reparations, delivering a fierce response to demands that the UK should pay compensation for its historical role in the transatlantic slave trade.
The former Prime Minister’s intervention has added fresh fuel to an argument that is already dividing politicians, historians and the public.
At the heart of the controversy is a fundamental question: should modern Britain be financially responsible for historical injustices committed centuries ago?
Johnson has long been critical of demands for Britain to make financial reparations, arguing that contemporary generations should not be held personally responsible for the actions of people who lived hundreds of years ago.
His latest comments have brought that disagreement back into the political spotlight, particularly as Andy Burnham and other Labour figures face questions about how Britain should address its colonial past.
Boris Johnson Challenges the Reparations Argument
<AsyncImage query=”Boris Johnson former British Prime Minister speaking public event” aspectRatio=”16:9″ width=”100%”/>
Johnson’s position reflects a wider argument among those opposed to financial reparations.
They believe that while Britain’s historical involvement in slavery must be acknowledged, demanding payments from present-day taxpayers creates serious questions about fairness and responsibility.
The former Prime Minister has also questioned where the financial claims would ultimately end.
If Britain is expected to compensate countries and communities for historical injustices, critics ask how governments would establish the appropriate amounts, identify eligible recipients and determine which historical events qualify.
Supporters of reparations reject the suggestion that the issue should be dismissed so easily.
They argue that slavery generated enormous wealth for Britain and caused lasting economic and social damage to generations of enslaved Africans and their descendants.
For them, acknowledging the past must involve more than expressions of regret.
Why Is Britain Being Asked to Pay?
<AsyncImage query=”British Empire transatlantic slave trade historical archive ships illustration” aspectRatio=”16:9″ width=”100%”/>
The debate has intensified following renewed calls from Caribbean nations for reparatory justice.
The Caribbean Community, known as CARICOM, has developed a ten-point reparations plan addressing the consequences of slavery and colonialism.
Its proposals include:
- A formal apology for slavery.
- Debt cancellation for affected Caribbean countries.
- Investment in education and healthcare.
- Support for economic development.
- Assistance addressing the continuing consequences of racial inequality.
- Greater cooperation on public health and cultural preservation.
Supporters argue that these demands recognise the long-term consequences of a system that deprived millions of people of freedom and economic opportunities.
Opponents question whether modern governments should accept financial responsibility for historical events and whether reparations would be an effective way to address present-day inequalities.
Andy Burnham Faces an Uncomfortable Political Question
<AsyncImage query=”Andy Burnham British politician speech Labour conference” aspectRatio=”16:9″ width=”100%”/>
The controversy also places Andy Burnham under political pressure.
Burnham has faced criticism over comments concerning Britain’s historical responsibility and whether the country should consider apologising for its involvement in slavery.
Critics fear that an apology could become the starting point for further demands for financial compensation.
However, an apology and a financial reparations programme are not the same thing.
Politicians can acknowledge historical wrongdoing without automatically agreeing to a particular compensation arrangement.
The challenge for Burnham is explaining precisely what he believes Britain should do and where he would draw the line.
How Much Could Reparations Cost Britain?
One of the most controversial aspects of the debate concerns the potential financial implications.
Some campaigners and commentators have discussed reparations estimates running into trillions of pounds.
However, there is no agreed financial bill that Britain has accepted or is legally required to pay under a general international reparations programme.
The figures depend heavily on the methodology used, the historical period considered and the forms of compensation proposed.
Some proposals involve direct financial payments, while others focus on investment, debt relief and development assistance.
For British taxpayers already dealing with high living costs, taxation and pressure on public services, the prospect of additional financial commitments is politically sensitive.
Britain’s Historical Role Cannot Simply Be Ignored
<AsyncImage query=”Liverpool International Slavery Museum historical exhibition slavery history” aspectRatio=”16:9″ width=”100%”/>
Britain played a major role in the transatlantic slave trade.
British ships transported enslaved Africans across the Atlantic, while British merchants and plantation owners accumulated substantial wealth through slavery.
The British Parliament passed the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act in 1807, prohibiting British participation in the slave trade.
Slavery itself was subsequently abolished across most of the British Empire through legislation in 1833, with the abolition taking effect in 1834.
However, the historical settlement also included compensation for slave owners rather than the formerly enslaved people.
The British government borrowed £20 million to compensate slave owners, a sum equivalent to a substantial proportion of national income at the time.
That historical fact is frequently highlighted by reparations campaigners, who argue that the economic consequences of slavery continued long after abolition.
Nigel Farage and Reform UK Could Exploit the Debate
<AsyncImage query=”Nigel Farage Reform UK political rally speaking microphone” aspectRatio=”16:9″ width=”100%”/>
The controversy provides another opportunity for Reform UK to challenge Labour.
Nigel Farage has repeatedly criticised what he considers excessive government spending and policies that place additional burdens on British taxpayers.
Reform supporters are likely to argue that money should be directed towards Britain’s own priorities, including healthcare, housing, education and public infrastructure.
However, the issue also requires a serious discussion about historical responsibility and Britain’s relationships with Caribbean countries.
A political argument about national finances should not prevent an honest examination of the past.
What Do Supporters of Reparations Actually Want?
It is important to recognise that not every reparations campaign is demanding an immediate cash payment.
Some organisations prioritise educational programmes, historical research, healthcare investment and economic partnerships.
Others believe direct compensation is essential.
The distinction matters because the debate is often reduced to a simple question of whether Britain should write a cheque.
In reality, reparatory justice covers a much wider range of proposals.
Governments must examine those proposals individually rather than assuming that every demand is identical.
A Political Battle That Is Far From Over
Johnson’s intervention has once again exposed the deep divisions surrounding Britain’s historical legacy.
For opponents of reparations, the principle of making present-day taxpayers financially responsible for historical wrongdoing is fundamentally unfair.
For supporters, refusing to address the continuing consequences of slavery risks ignoring generations of injustice.
Burnham and Labour must decide how to approach the issue without creating further uncertainty about Britain’s financial commitments.
The government will also need to explain whether it supports formal apologies, development partnerships or any form of financial compensation.
Until those questions are answered, the controversy is unlikely to disappear.
Britain Needs a Serious Debate, Not Political Slogans
The history of slavery deserves honesty, accuracy and serious consideration.
Equally, any proposal involving public money must be examined carefully, with clear explanations of its costs, objectives and expected benefits.
Boris Johnson’s intervention has brought the argument back into the headlines, but the underlying questions remain unresolved.
Should Britain apologise? Should it provide financial compensation? Or should future cooperation focus on education, development and economic partnerships?
These are questions that deserve open democratic debate.
THE BIG QUESTIONS:
- Should modern British taxpayers pay reparations for slavery?
- Was Boris Johnson right to challenge the financial demands?
- Should Britain offer a formal apology for its historical role?
- Is Andy Burnham opening the door to further compensation demands?
- Should Caribbean nations receive development assistance instead of direct payments?
- What is the fairest way to address the lasting consequences of slavery?
Britain cannot change its history, but it can decide how honestly it confronts it. Any decision about reparations must balance historical responsibility, legal considerations and the interests of people living in Britain today.