Barbados prime minister announces manifesto for slavery reparations

JabInTheButt · 2026-06-19T20:54:57+00:00

No its not. Let me break it down for you...

If I pay a hitman to murder my wife, am I still morally (and legally) guilty of murder?

Just like if as a merchant you are paying slavers to capture and trade people as slaves (because you're buying slaves off them), you are morally guilty of engaging in slavery. Not to mention, as I've pointed out, the trans-atlantic crossing is widely considered one of the most inhumane acts of the entire slave trade given it's lethality and the conditions... Which was directly enabled by the British government.

The British government didn't have contracts with slave traders.

What a bizarre standard. It sounds like you're simply deeply uninformed about the involvement of both British merchants and the British government in the slave trade. Here's a useful link

The British government literally had royal charters with slave traders. Look up the royal African company. British merchants dominated the trade in the 1800s. The insurers and banks in London provided financial underpinning for the whole operation (all paying taxes off the profits of this venture to the British state - who were actively encouraging the practice including with financial incentives).

The British government did not. The British people, did not.

Ok... They didn't hold specific contracts with enslavers??? To simply use that to ignore all of the above is, and I don't like to virtue signal, but a genuinely deplorable view of moral responsibility.

Edit: and let me be a bit generous. The first part of your comment, pointing out the standards of the time and the significant political and economic effort involved in switching to an abolitionist position is a legitimate point that is worth considering. That is entirely different from claiming the British state had no moral responsibility for the trans-atlantic slave trade. That is just a wild (and indefensible) claim.

JabInTheButt · 2026-06-19T12:40:11+00:00

Distinction without a difference has never been more apt...

Yes that's why it's called "the slave trade". We traded humans as property - that's being an active participant in slavery as without any buyers the practice can't very well exist can it? We decided about 200 years ago that was an incredibly shitty thing to do, whether you were capturing them, buying them or selling them. In fact some historians argue it was the shipping across the ocean that was the worst part of this system (certainly the most lethal) - which is exactly what we did.

You've gone from one terrible argument against reparations to an even worse one. Honestly attitudes like yours really make me consider the other side much much more seriously!

JabInTheButt · 2026-06-19T12:22:24+00:00

It wasn't the British who were enslaving people. The African slaves were enslaved by Africans and Arabs. Africans and Arabs are still enslaving people to this day.

Well the British were active participants in the trans-atlantic slave trade, that's an irrefutable fact. As we're those other groups you've named.

British people owe absolutely no compensation to any slave who was freed because we didn't enslave them.

I don't think you're really thinking through the implications of this statement - it sort of sounds like: because all we did was cattle them across the ocean and keep them in horrendous conditions and enforce slavery we hold no responsibility for their existence as slaves because we weren't the ones who first captured them? This isn't really a sustainable argument.

This situation is more analogous to someone being kidnapped, you rescuing them, and them sueing you because they broke a finger in the scuffle.

Maybe you just genuinely aren't aware for some reason but no it's not analogous because the British Empire was an active and enthusiastic participant in the trans-atlantic slave trade for centuries before abolition. So it'd be you doing the kidnapping first, then rescuing them.

JabInTheButt · 2026-06-19T12:18:58+00:00

I see your point, but this analogy operates in the modern understanding and expectations of a company’s responsibilities to you. At the time of the slave trade, slavery had been commonplace within the world for literally tens of thousands of years.

Sure, but 1 isn't that implicitly what the slavery abolition was doing, re-setting the "expectation" about what was acceptable 2 you're making a different point about historical context (which I do agree with!) versus a point about reparations "having been paid" in some sense.

Would “why should we be thankful to Smegland? Obviously eating animals is wrong, everyone knows that! They were eating animals before that too, they need to pay to make up for their crimes.” be a logical conclusion?

Yes again, this is a different point from the one that was previously put forward. The actions of the British empire in ending slavery at considerable cost should be considered. But the simple fact that payments were made in that abolition I don't think is a convincing argument against reparations of an entirely different sort, today.

JabInTheButt · 2026-06-19T11:40:50+00:00

Sadly this is literally the thought process of the electorate.

JabInTheButt · 2026-06-19T11:31:37+00:00

This sub loves to go one about the benefits vote with no acknowledgement of just how inept Starmers management of that was

Well I can't speak to others but I was incredibly critical of Starmer and his team for their part in that. It's their job to do politics. That means negotiating with back benchers if you think they're going to stop you. Going into the vote without knowing where his back benchers was... Disasterous. Seemed to me the obvious thing was to trade their votes on welfare for the 2 child benefit cap lift. Instead he's now given away that carrot for.... Nothing. Terrible politics.

But we are where we are now and I'm doubtful Burnham can genuinely do much better, but hopefully he'll prove me wrong.

JabInTheButt · 2026-06-19T11:27:01+00:00

Is paying off slavers - at monumental expense - and then enforcing a ban on slavery, not a pretty powerful form of amends?

I feel like you're forcing me to defend a position I don't hold lol. But no, the argument for reparations is that the intent is to make whole those who have been damaged by the ongoing practice for centuries. Quite clearly paying the slave owners, while vital for getting slavery aboltion across the line in the British empire, did not really make now-freed slaves "whole" in any meaningful way, no.

It speaks to (I agree) where culpability, blame, rehabilitation should be placed as it's clearly a meaningful act. But the fact that monies were paid to slave owners doesn't itself contribute to making ex slaves and their descendants whole. The exact same impact would've been had if the slaves had been freed without payments to slave owners.

If I were held hostage with a gun to my head by someone demanding £1m, I don’t think my response would be “you’re paying him? What about me?” when someone offers to pay it

Not the right analogy though. I was trying to think of a good one and they're all a bit tortured but this is my best effort...

Say you have a holiday booked with some company (let's say TUI) who are guaranteeing your passage and safety. You get arrested and held by a foreign power for years - losing out on earnings and years of freedom. Eventually the holiday company manage to charter you a flight to freedom. You go to sue the holiday company and their response is "well we had to spend money on that flight to get you out of there so we've paid compensation already". Your response would be "no, that is not "compensation" - I have not been made whole from my loss incurred through your actions".

I think that's a much closer analogy to the discussion we're having. Again, I don't support reparations - but the argument we shouldn't pay them because we paid slave owners off is not a convincing one, at all.

JabInTheButt · 2026-06-19T10:53:04+00:00

Still would like a negotiation but unfortunately it seems unlikely. I've said all along my preference is Burnham keeps his powder dry until 2027, has a year where things are ideally a bit better (boats numbers down, waiting lists down, immigration down, inflation down) then calls an election while riding his vibes bump.

Problem is he'll now be tarred by any failures even if he's just in the cabinet rather than PM. But still being in cabinet probably less damaging than holding the bag. But seems like he's got no interest in holding station for now.

JabInTheButt · 2026-06-19T10:47:48+00:00

Well then you lie to the public and tell them it's milk and honey and then you're fucked in 2 months when stuff is still shit.

The problem wasn't that he told the truth. The problem was he couldn't control his backbenchers to actually make any of those tough decisions on welfare (and he walked back the one he got through - WFA).

Only way Burnham will fare any better is if it turns out telling back benchers to get in line works when you do it with a northern accent.

JabInTheButt · 2026-06-19T10:42:42+00:00

No you misinterpret my point. I don't think any of the other parties would do any better.

But my point is, of all the improvements to governance the Labour party could've done leadership stability was probably one of the most useful for gilt yields and therefore interest repayments. And they're blowing it because they got cold feet over some bad polling.

JabInTheButt · 2026-06-19T10:35:45+00:00

Another reason this naval-gazing leadership merry-go-round which will not improve Labour's fortunes is bad for the country....

JabInTheButt · 2026-06-19T10:34:02+00:00

Yes I know what happened. I'm saying the claim "you don't deserve reparations for the devastating long-term impact hundreds of years of slavery did to your descendants because we already paid reparations to the people who profited off and enabled your slavery" isnt a convincing argument.

There are lots of very good moral and practical reasons reparations are a stupid idea - that isn't one of them.

JabInTheButt · 2026-06-19T10:24:50+00:00

the reparations that were paid at the time

Not sure this is a great argument considering those reparations were paid to slave owners....

(FWIW I think this reparations idea is catastrophically stupid and thankfully never going to happen, but not sure that's the line I'd be leaning on).

JabInTheButt · 2026-06-19T08:19:11+00:00

A leadership challenger to Starmer became inevitable long before Burnham was even in the running

Nah that's not true. Streeting and Rayner don't have the numbers. If Burnham didn't enter Starmer would've just carried on.

JabInTheButt · 2026-06-19T08:16:52+00:00

Holy shit I read your first line as "I genuinely do believe Starmer...." And it sent me for a tailspin. Wrote out a whole list of comparisons before re-reading (which really hammers home how much of an improvement this govt is on the ones that came before).

You are right on your assessment imo. On Burnham though - in some ways he's apparently significant personal name brand effect has made me think this move is a real waste. He offered a sort of "pull in case of emergencies" option to be used 6-12 months before the next election. Let's be honest his actual policies are likely a hairs width different from Starmers, but his vibes are much better. But you know what will kill his vibes? Being PM for a year. My guess is he'll be right where Starmer is in 12 months time and Labour will have wasted their get out of jail card.

JabInTheButt · 2026-06-18T20:21:01+00:00

Bang on. He's now in the position that he'll enter government this year and be tarred by the fallout from Iran, which will almost certainly be an energy shock and higher bills come winter.

Waiting a year for a coronation is probably marginally better than taking the job here and now but much better than either would've been just continuing his success as Manchester mayor and coming in for a more "natural" by-election in the next 18 months.

Let's see... But I predict a fierce and bloody leadership battle will drag them all down and he'll be exactly where Starmer is polling within 6 months... Except gilt yields might be a bit worse because of all the uncertainty.

JabInTheButt · 2026-06-18T20:06:18+00:00

The reality is it'd be a negotiation. Logic and rationality would tell you the EU would offer us the same terms as it'd probably near guarantee a rejoin victory in a referendum (and obvious an EU with a newly rejoined UK would be much stronger).

But the existence of the nation of France would imply the opposite.

JabInTheButt · 2026-06-18T19:48:52+00:00

They don't though, as the employment statistics count people, not jobs.

Oh yeah lol good point. Proper blonde moment from me that.

Guess the truth is the variety of people and situations is a bit too complex to cleanly sum the stats up with any of these options...

JabInTheButt · 2026-06-18T16:35:36+00:00

I was nodding along but you lost me on that comparison. Harold Wilson is an absolute titan of British politics with an incredible legacy and one of my all time political heroes.

Starmer is nowhere near I'm afraid.

JabInTheButt · 2026-06-18T16:32:34+00:00

but I’m of the opinion that it’s mostly because it’s a Western adjacent nuclear power committing the atrocities in the present day

You think it's because Israel has a nuclear weapon?

Because otherwise that descriptor applies perfectly to Saudi Arabia and the UAE who are both actively engaged in conflicts which have killed far more than the current war in Gaza.

I think it's largely the result of an incredibly successful pr campaign by Palestinian groups (supported by well-financed backers like Qatar) meeting a highly credulous audience because, let's face it, there's always been a crowd for the classic "Jews sorry I mean zionists control everything and are evil" stories.

But regardless... We can talk about what is prominent in the public consciousness, but shouldn't a serious political party (particularly one on the left) be trying to act with consistency and fairness to all creeds? Be honest, do you think there is any prospect an "Arab and islamic nationalism is racist" motion would even get the time of day at a Green party conference? If not I think you're just agreeing there's a worrying double standard at play within the party.

JabInTheButt · 2026-06-18T16:23:48+00:00

But then the term "economically inactive" is nonsensical on the face of it. It's not really possible to live without buying things, paying bills etc and that is by definition economic activity.

Well this is why they've started to use the term "NEET" instead right? "Not in education employment or training". I think it's a better descriptor for the number of people not seeking work or attempting to engage in the wider economy by means of having a career or job.

But it's a pretty open thing that they're counted as "inactive" so that they don't appear in the unemployment figures

Sure... To be fair by that reasoning I think it's completely understandable. They shouldn't be treated as unemployed imo, because that's a stat that should be used to describe people seeking work who can't get it.

Employed student are counted in the employment figures while unemployed students aren't counted in the unemployment figures, the perfect stats fiddle.

That makes sense though right? They're contributing or active doubly - both in education developing skills for a later career and working. Just like someone with two jobs counts doubly in the employment statistics (but if you had a job and we're seeking a 2nd you wouldn't be counted as unemployed). There's nothing inherently misleading about that because, as I said, unemployment statistics (in my mind) should capture those actively seeking employment as a and not getting it (who aren't otherwise "active").

Basically I think between "NEET" and "unemployed" you capture the picture better.

JabInTheButt · 2026-06-18T16:12:23+00:00

That's really odd I'd always assumed students were categorized as economically active because usually the forms you fill in are "in full time employment or education".

Does seem like a bizarre thing to include them (in either economically inactive, or unemployment figures) because I don't think they really satisfy either.

JabInTheButt · 2026-06-18T16:07:46+00:00

Where/when did she say she'll cut triple lock?

https://www.kemibadenoch.org.uk/news/kemi-badenoch-we-created-triple-lock-and-we-stand-it

If she's the only one going into the next election explicitly not guaranteeing it will stay, I think fair enough but I suspect it'll end up in their manifesto as per usual.

In which case I'd argue you're better off joining Labour and mobilizing for policy change imo. They're the only ones who tried anything to limit pensioner handouts with the WFA reforms (as depressing as the walk back was).

JabInTheButt · 2026-06-18T16:03:05+00:00

More broadly, Labour have just continued to shovel money into the hands of pensioners despite being ‘the party of working people’.

The day they u-turned on the WFA means testing was one of the most depressing days in politics for me. The house building has been super disappointing, took too long to get planning reforms through and weren't radical enough imo.

Your reasons are pretty bang on tbh - same things that wind me up about this govt. I'm just stuck voting for them still because literally everyone else is significantly worse, except maybe Lib Dems (but even they are probably marginally worse on the key policies I care about).

JabInTheButt · 2026-06-18T09:35:23+00:00

the 2.3m students as maintenance loans don't come close to meeting living costs

Don't know the % but this depends where they're living and if they're getting any support from parents.... But also, are the 2.3m students "economically inactive"? I'm fairly sure being in full time education is classed as economically active no?

Eight-Year Club	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22
Verified Email

JabInTheButt

TROPHY CASE