Answering your questions on the legacy of transatlantic slavery 👇 https://t.co/ZY4eNHH8de
— Ed Miliband (@Ed_Miliband) November 2, 2026
ENOUGH OF THE HISTORICAL LECTURES, POLITICAL POSTURING AND HANDS IN THE BRITISH TAXPAYER'S POCKET! WHAT ABOUT THE 17,000 BRITISH SAILORS WHO DIED FIGHTING SLAVERY?
There comes a point when political posturing becomes so breathtakingly hypocritical that it deserves to be called out in the strongest possible terms.
The latest discussion about Britain's historical involvement in slavery, involving Andy Burnham and Ed Miliband, is a perfect example.
Apparently, Britain should apologise for its historical role in the slave trade. We must acknowledge our shame, demonstrate our remorse and make all the appropriate noises to satisfy those demanding reparatory justice.
But, we're told, don't worry, British taxpayers won't be paying reparations.
Oh, really?
Because almost immediately afterwards comes talk of funding education, healthcare, poverty reduction, development programmes and debt relief for countries involved in the reparations debate.
So there won't be reparations, just British taxpayers funding a collection of initiatives that appear remarkably connected to the same demands?
What a convenient bit of political wordplay.
Call it investment. Call it development assistance. Call it international cooperation. Dress it up in whatever language makes it more palatable.
If British taxpayers are expected to pay, it is British taxpayers' money.
And before Burnham, Miliband or anybody else starts lecturing this country about its historical responsibilities, perhaps they should acquaint themselves with the ENTIRE history of slavery.
Because Britain did not simply participate in the slave trade. It also became one of the most determined forces in history in bringing it to an end.
And that part seems remarkably inconvenient for today's political narrative.
17,000 BRITISH SAILORS: WHERE IS THEIR APOLOGY?
Let's talk about the Royal Navy.
Following the prohibition of British participation in the slave trade in 1807, Britain established the West Africa Squadron to hunt down slave ships and suppress the trade.
This was not some comfortable exercise in political virtue signalling.
British sailors were dispatched to some of the most dangerous and disease-ridden waters in the world. They faced armed slave traders, violent confrontations, malaria, yellow fever and appalling conditions.
The Royal Navy itself published a figure of approximately 17,000 British sailors dead during the campaign over 52 years.
Seventeen thousand!
Let that number sink in.
These were real people. Not historical statistics to be casually discarded. They were husbands, fathers, sons and brothers.
They died in an operation designed to stop the trafficking and enslavement of human beings.
The squadron captured approximately 1,600 slave ships and liberated around 150,000 Africans.
And what recognition do these men receive in today's political discussion?
Where are the grand speeches about their sacrifice?
Where is the recognition of the enormous national effort involved?
Where is the acknowledgement that Britain spent decades committing ships, manpower and taxpayers' money to suppress the slave trade?
These men deserve to be remembered, not conveniently forgotten because their story complicates today's political narrative.
If we're going to apologise for Britain's past, perhaps somebody should also remember the British sailors who died trying to put an end to one of humanity's greatest atrocities.
AND WHO EXACTLY WAS SELLING THE SLAVES?
Here is another inconvenient historical fact that seems to get rather lost in the modern political debate.
African rulers, kingdoms, merchants and intermediaries were actively involved in capturing, trading and selling enslaved Africans.
This is not controversial history. It is extensively documented.
The Kingdom of Dahomey became heavily involved in the Atlantic slave trade. African commercial networks supplied captives to European traders. Prisoners of war, people seized in raids and others were sold into the trade.
European traders did not independently capture every person transported across the Atlantic. They purchased captives through established African trading networks.
Of course, European merchants, shipowners, plantation owners and governments played an enormous role. They financed, transported, bought, exploited and profited from the trade on a massive scale.
But why is there such reluctance to discuss the African rulers and merchants who participated?
Why does historical responsibility appear to become a one-sided conversation whenever reparations enter the political arena?
Are we really expected to pretend that African participation simply didn't happen?
Historical responsibility cannot be allocated according to whichever version of events is most politically fashionable.
If we are going to examine the past, examine ALL of it.
BRITAIN PAID £20 MILLION TO ABOLISH SLAVERY. THE TAXPAYER CARRIED THE BILL.
In 1833, the Slavery Abolition Act was passed.
The British Government committed £20 million in compensation to slave owners to secure abolition.
Not to the enslaved.
To the slave owners.
British taxpayers effectively financed compensation to those who owned human beings.
It was an enormous financial commitment, representing a substantial proportion of government expenditure at the time.
The associated borrowing was not finally cleared until 2015.
Think about that.
British taxpayers carried the financial burden of abolishing slavery for generations.
The Royal Navy then continued enforcing the suppression of the trade at considerable financial and human cost.
Yet today, we have politicians seemingly desperate to discuss what further financial obligations Britain might accept.
Have we completely lost our minds?
How many times must the British taxpayer be expected to pay for the sins of previous generations?
NO REPARATIONS, BUT WE'LL PAY FOR EVERYTHING ELSE?
This is where the political argument becomes particularly difficult to swallow.
Burnham says he does not support financial reparations being paid by today's British taxpayers.
Yet the discussion includes proposals for education, development assistance, healthcare, debt restructuring and poverty reduction.
Perhaps somebody should explain the difference in practical financial terms.
How much will these initiatives cost?
Where will the money come from?
Are these additional commitments?
Will they be permanent?
Who will oversee the spending?
And why should people struggling to pay their mortgages, rent, energy bills and taxes in Britain be expected to finance them?
The public deserves answers.
It is not enough to announce that reparations are ruled out while simultaneously discussing alternative arrangements involving public money.
That is not financial transparency.
It is political semantics.
If the Government believes these programmes are worthwhile, make the case for them independently. Do not attempt to smuggle potentially significant financial commitments into the debate under a different label.
British taxpayers are not an unlimited international credit facility.
SLAVERY STILL EXISTS. PERHAPS POLITICIANS SHOULD CONCENTRATE ON THAT.
And here's another extraordinary aspect of this debate.
Slavery hasn't disappeared.
It is happening today.
The International Labour Organisation, Walk Free and the International Organisation for Migration estimated that 49.6 million people were living in modern slavery in 2021.
Approximately 27.6 million were in forced labour and 22 million in forced marriages.
Human trafficking, forced labour, domestic servitude and exploitation continue across the world.
So where is the relentless political determination to eradicate slavery NOW?
Where is the same enthusiasm for tackling the people trafficking victims across borders, exploiting vulnerable workers and forcing people into lives of servitude?
Why are we so consumed by historical financial demands when millions of people are suffering from modern slavery?
If the principle is that slavery is abhorrent, then surely it should be abhorrent wherever it happens and whoever is responsible.
It should not be a selective historical argument used to generate political pressure and financial demands.
Perhaps our politicians should spend less time debating how Britain should apologise for the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and more time ensuring that people are not being enslaved in the twenty-first.
BRITISH TAXPAYERS ARE NOT PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.
Let's get something absolutely clear.
Today's British population did not operate the slave ships.
They did not own the plantations.
They did not capture Africans.
They did not legislate to protect the slave trade.
They are not personally responsible for the actions of people who lived centuries before them.
And yet they are increasingly being spoken about as though they have inherited an unlimited financial liability simply by virtue of being British.
That is an extraordinary proposition.
Acknowledging historical wrongdoing is one thing.
Accepting perpetual financial responsibility for it is quite another.
There is no justification for politicians making vague financial commitments on behalf of millions of taxpayers without properly explaining the costs, obligations and intended outcomes.
And there is certainly no justification for presenting British history as though this country contributed nothing to ending the trade.
A FINAL WORD TO BURNHAM AND MILIBAND
If you want to apologise for Britain's historical involvement in slavery, that is a political decision.
But have the courage to tell the whole story.
Tell people about the African kingdoms and merchants who sold captives.
Tell people about the European merchants and plantation owners who profited.
Tell people about the British abolitionists who fought for decades to end the trade.
Tell people about the £20 million paid to slave owners by British taxpayers.
Tell people about the Royal Navy's West Africa Squadron.
Tell people about the thousands of British sailors who died enforcing abolition.
And tell people why, after all that history, today's British taxpayers should be expected to accept further financial commitments.
Don't give us carefully polished political statements.
Don't tell us there will be no reparations while discussing alternative ways of spending our money.
Don't lecture the British public about historical guilt while ignoring the sacrifices made by British people who helped end the trade.
And don't pretend that history began and ended with Britain's involvement in slavery.
Britain's history includes shame, but it also includes courage, sacrifice, abolition and an enormous national commitment to ending the slave trade.
The victims deserve to be remembered. The abolitionists deserve to be remembered. The Royal Navy sailors deserve to be remembered.
And today's British taxpayers deserve to be treated with some respect.
ENOUGH OF THE SELECTIVE HISTORY. ENOUGH OF THE POLITICAL POSTURING. AND ENOUGH OF MAKING THE BRITISH TAXPAYER FEEL THAT THEY MUST KEEP PAYING FOR HISTORY THEY DID NOT CREATE.
An apology is not a blank cheque.
Historical responsibility is not an unlimited financial liability.
And Britain should never be expected to forget the people who died trying to end slavery simply because remembering them makes today's political arguments rather less convenient.
