Mauritius ‘to receive £35bn' for Chagos deal over 99 years
The higher figure, released after a freedom of information request to the Government Actuary's Department, is a nominal amount.
Adjusted to account for inflation, the deal is thought to be worth an average £101 million a year in 2025/26 terms, lowering the value to around £10 billion in today's money.
The UK Government has agreed to cede the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius but retain control of the military base on Diego Garcia.
Ministers feared that without a deal, the base's future was in doubt amid challenges in international courts and tribunals.
Dame Priti Patel said it was a terrible deal for the taxpayer (Stefan Rousseau/PA)
'We've all known it's a terrible deal with huge costs to hard-pressed British taxpayers,' Dame Priti wrote in The Telegraph, which first reported the figures.
'But for months, ministers in public and Parliament have sought to cover up the true amounts.'
Dame Priti also warned that 'instead of owning up to the costs, Labour has used an accountancy trick to claim the amount was only £3.4 billion – still a vast waste of money'.
She described the £35 billion figure as 'mind-blowing', and labelled Foreign Secretary David Lammy as ''Calamity' Lammy'.
Dame Priti accused him, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, Attorney General Lord Hermer and special envoy for the negotiations Jonathan Powell of being 'the worst team of negotiators in history'.
The figures, seen by the PA news agency, show that the Government used a Treasury principle to reduce the figure by between 2.5% and 3.5% per year to £3.4 billion.
This 'social time preference', used since 2003, is based on the idea that taxpayers would prefer to get their return on the deal sooner rather than later.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
26 minutes ago
- New Statesman
The Brits who want to overthrow the state
Illustration by Roy Scott / Ikon Images Reading this while British? Then there's an extremely high chance you want to overthrow the state, or so right-wing commentators would have it. If this information comes as a shock, then I can but point you to this tweet by Daily Express political correspondent Christian Calgie that reads: 'If you don't understand how close tens of millions of Britons are to wanting a full-blown revolution, let alone fail to understand why, then you have no value as a political commentator.' There are almost 70 million people in the UK. That, by my count, puts the odds that you're a closet revolutionary at somewhere around one in three. Eye your neighbours with suspicion, comrade. This is easy to mock. But this excitable doomsday prophesying is hardly unique. The Express journalist Carole Malone has warned Jeremy Vine that immigration has left Britain 'like a tinderbox that's set to explode'. Over in the Telegraph, Isabel Oakeshott has, more in sorrow than in anger, agreed with Nigel Farage's claim that Britain is facing 'societal collapse'. 'Unless our leaders get a grip – and fast,' she warned, 'exasperated communities will turn vigilante.' Meanwhile, columnist Allison Pearson – who, delightfully, co-hosts a podcast named Planet Normal – recently tweeted, 'Anyone else hoping for a military coup?' At its end, she included a shrug emoji. Then there's disappointed former politics professor Matt Goodwin, whose Substack I have looked at so you don't have to. Recent headlines over there have included 'Labour is pushing the UK into civil unrest', 'Is Britain about to blow?', 'Epping is a warning of what's to come', and 'How things fall apart'. (This last one promises 'more BOMBSHELL numbers on what is really happening in the UK'. Exciting!) I am writing this from London, which, so far as I can tell has not fallen, is not on fire and remains free of sharia law. So perhaps I know not whereof I speak. But I do not think this country is on the verge of revolution. Sorry, but I don't. It just isn't very British. We tried it once, didn't like it, switched it off again, and were then one of the few countries in Europe that didn't join in the fun during 1848. We've experienced both street action and political violence, yes, and these are febrile times – but such things have never overthrown a government. Most of the time they don't even change policy. There is ample evidence of real rage out there (there's this report from Anoosh Chakelian, for one thing). Events in Epping are worrying; last summer there were riots. From Corbyn to Brexit, the Labour landslide to the Reform surge, there are plenty of signs that the public hungers for substantive change. But anti-migrant protests have often been accompanied by pro-migrant counter-protests, and polling has found that the British public overwhelmingly oppose street violence as a form of political action. (According to YouGov, just 7 per cent supported last year's riots; 85 per cent were opposed.) This is not a country that's ready to man the barricades. Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe All of which raises a question: what exactly do right-wing commentators think they're playing at? Why are they not just predicting social disorder – of the sort they'd want water cannons or worse to deal with, if it came from, say, students – but salivating over it? Their tone inescapably brings to mind the anti-hero character Rorschach from Alan Moore's Watchmen ('And all the whores and politicians will look up and shout: 'Save us!' And I'll look down and whisper: 'No.''). Or possibly it just reminds one of a tantruming child sobbing out the words, 'THEN you'll be sorry.' One possible explanation for all this is that an urge to shout increasingly unhinged things is an unfortunate necessity in today's ultracompetitive attention economy. Another is that Brexit irreparably warped some commentators' grasp of the concept of loser's consent. If you've spent years earnestly arguing that the will of the people is paramount, and an election victory is a mandate to deliver whatever what you happen to want, then an election loss must come to feel insupportable. The will of the people, surely, must make itself known in some other way. Then again, perhaps this is just what happens when a government is too cowardly to ever state, in plain language, that not all concerns are legitimate, that whipping up hysteria is, at best, anti-social, and that feeling angry is not the same thing as being right. It's just possible that all that's in the mix, too. [See more: Visions of an English civil war] Related
New Statesman
26 minutes ago
- New Statesman
What JD Vance was really doing in Britain this week
Photo byJD Vance is the most underestimated man in Washington. Memes of him with a cartoonishly fat face populate the internet. A recent South Park episode had Donald Trump shouting at a tiny Vance 'Will you get out of here?!' and kicking him off screen. The news that he was turned away from The Bull pub in Oxfordshire this week following a staff mutiny was gleefully reported by American media. Democrats sneer that he is nothing more than a drooling dauphin, simpering and slavish. Vance is certainly going along with Trump's conceits in order to inherit the throne. But this narrative misses that JD Vance is already the prince of the Western right. His trip to England was the surest proof yet that Vance's constituency isn't just to be found in Washington or Ohio – but across the influencers and intellectuals of a tightly bound and unusually loyal transnational reactionary movement. This summer Vance held court in an English 18th-century manor, a forward operating base in his campaign to Maga-ify the British right. Part of his itinerary was set up by the slick Cambridge theologian James Orr and the podcasting former chancellor George Osborne. The less well-known Orr used to do Jordan Peterson's scheduling during his tours of British university campuses. Orr also serves as a Vance interpreter, having been quoted in the Times that Vance has a 'special concern' for the UK. Vance's criticism of the British government, particularly over its backsliding on free speech, seems grounded in a paternal feeling for America's errant ward. For these precious weeks Vance has come in-person, here to help guide the country onto stronger ground. The line between what counts as an official trip and a family holiday has blurred under Trump's administration. One of Vance's first 'official' trips was to the Vatican – where Vance, a Catholic convert, met Pope Francis – and to India with his family, the birthplace of his wife's parents. Meanwhile, the president invites world leaders to attend to him at his Scottish golf course. Informality takes precedence over diplomatic protocol. But while Trump invited Keir Starmer and Ursula Von der Leyen to Turnberry, Vance can look to the future. His guestlist showed he is interested in a new generation, one which will be ushered in under his tutelage. On 11 August, Vance hosted a small reception, organised by Osborne. Four Conservative MPs were there, all relatively young, and none the party leader: Robert Jenrick, Laura Trott, Chris Philp and Katie Lam, who recently clocked nearly one million views on X with a video illustrating mass migration with a jar overflowing with beads. Kemi Badenoch and Vance insisted diary clashes explain her absence. Under normal circumstances, you'd think someone who wants to be prime minister would make a trip to see the person most likely to be the next president of the United States. On 13 August, the vice-president instead met the person most likely to be the next prime minister. He hosted Nigel Farage for a one-on-one breakfast which Farage described to the Telegraph as 'two old friends meeting with many, many common interests. After all, I've been the longest public supporter of Maga in Britain.' Despite this 'old' friendship, Farage is not a recipient of the ultimate honour: the only one of these political guests Vance follows on his X account is Robert Jenrick. And Vance's online habits have taken to even more unexpected corners of British internet culture. He also follows Thomas Skinner, the former Apprentice candidate and self-made English influencer known for his catchphrase 'bosh'. Skinner was a guest at the manor for a barbecue on the evening of 10 August, alongside Orr and the Tory MP Danny Kruger. This is unusual. Imagine Dick Cheney eating ribs with David Davis, Ann Widdecombe, Robert Kilroy-Silk, and a young Michael Gove at a rented cottage in Salcombe. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Vance once said that Kruger's 2023 book on Britain, Covenant, has 'lessons for all of us who love the civilization built by our ancestors'. In a fragment, here is Vance's conflicted affection for England. The view that the ancestral home has been wrecked by liberal progressivism and mass immigration is a common thread in Maga. Steve Bannon once remarked to me: 'It's so pathetic, England. God, I love England – it's so fucked up'. In a column for the Wall Street Journal to mark Vance's visit, Orr claimed that the 'historical heuristic for our [Britain's] national unwinding is Beirut 1975'. That's a soft, almost cryptic way of saying that Britain is heading for a civil war fought along ethno-religious lines. This sense that Britain needs radical reform is what explains Vance's guestlist. Jenrick not only shares a physiognomy – a stout moon-shaped face, topped with closely cropped dark hair – with Vance (at least before Jenrick's Ozempic glow-up); both men have moved gradually but decidedly from liberal conservatism to the radical right, fuelled by civilisational angst at the extraordinary number of migrants who have arrived in Europe and America in recent decades. Another term for their beliefs is national conservatism. And it's not just a belief system: 'national conservatism' might be seen as a byword for this network of individuals, one which can unite theological grandees, international statesmen – and ambitious politicians. The same network of ideas and influence will be on display in Washington DC in September when the National Conservative Conference will take place. This is the sixth annual gathering, the brainchild of the American-Israeli political thinker Yoram Hazony. Vance, the Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Trump adviser Stephen Miller have all attended in the past. The conferences are organised by Hazony's Edmund Burke Foundation, who have a UK branch, chaired by none other than Orr. Hazony recently told the New York Times that National Conservatism distinguishes itself in two directions: from the libertarians in the Republican Party to their left and the racist and anti-democratic figures to their right. Farage, who is listed as a conference speaker, has long said something similar about creating a wall between himself and people such as Tommy Robinson. Yet there are other speakers far to the right of most on Vance's guestlist: Jeremy Carl, the man trying to revive white identity politics; Jack Posobiec, a Bannon ally who once called for the overthrow of democracy; Jonathan Keeperman, an influential figure on the online right who runs Passage Press, a publishing company that prints forgotten books by reactionary authors (Ernst Jünger, HP Lovecraft) alongside contemporary writers popular with Maga intellectuals (Curtis Yarvin, Steve Sailer). One forthcoming NatCon panel will discuss how to overturn the Supreme Court ruling which legalised gay marriage in America. Does the British right have anything useful to learn from this crew? Apart from one Farage foray into abortion rights, the social issues that rivet America have little grasp in the UK. And while Skinner might like to tweet occasionally about going to church, the Catholicism of Vance and his political allies is dedicated and doctrinaire. As Ross Douthat, the Catholic New York Times columnist who interviewed Vance at the Vatican in May, told me, 'If you're going to be a Christian in the intelligentsia, it feels like Catholicism or nothing.' A paradox of American secularism is that religion is also a font of political philosophy. That is not the case in Westminster. Kruger's evangelical Christianity is unusual in parliament. But outside the Commons, perhaps the most influential evangelical is Paul Marshall, the owner of the Spectator and co-owner of GB News. Marshall met Vance on 12 August. Yet few in England would cite the Archbishop of Canterbury as a political inspiration. Roger Scruton plays the role of in-house philosopher for British conservatives much more than Pope Benedict XVI. But religiosity is not a precondition for national conservatism. English national conservatism will always be couched in English culture. Progressives' adoption of woke politics, exemplified by the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, was the last significant American political import into Britain. Is Vance leading what could be the next? There is no JD Vance analogue in the country. But this son of Scots-Irish America is assembling the English shards of himself, from the religious intellectual pondering integralism, to the Essex hillbilly with the common touch. National conservatism has the inventory to hand a wily politician both a populist playbook and at the same time an elite intellectual hinterland to serve as a guiding philosophy. One suspects Vance dished out some advice to his guests while in the Cotswolds on how to use this very modern synthesis to fuel Britain with the same forces he and Trump are using to reshape America. [See also: The Cotswolds plot against JD Vance] Related
Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Unemployed to get AI chatbot for filling out ‘boring' job applications
Unemployed people will be given an AI chatbot to help them fill out job applications as part of a government scheme to help Britons cut down on 'boring life admin'. The Government will next week unveil plans to develop an 'AI helper' that will help people apply for work – a move that critics warned could mean employers are flooded with irrelevant job applications. The scheme comes amid a surge in working-age Britons on jobless benefits and a slump in entry-level roles. Official data published this week showed that 3.7 million Britons are now claiming Universal Credit with no work requirements – a rise of more than a million since Labour came to power. On Monday the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology will issue a notice inviting AI companies to help develop an 'agent' that can fill in forms, complete job applications and register patients at doctors' surgeries. While existing chatbots such as ChatGPT are best known for answering questions, AI agents are capable of handling tasks such as booking flights and sending emails as well as answering questions. The Government's AI agent is expected to be in use in 2027. It could also be used to help people update addresses on driving licences and register to vote. Doing so would only require a short prompt, rather than filling in multiple pages of forms. Officials said the initiative was designed to 'save people time and modernise the state'. However, it comes as employers are grappling with a deluge of job applications as AI tools mean candidates can instantly generate CVs and cover letters tailored to job descriptions. A study by recruitment website Totaljobs released on Friday found that recruiters are drowning in CVs, with almost three quarters saying they were being inundated with irrelevant applications. Claire McCartney, of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, said: 'When used appropriately, AI tools can be a useful aid for jobseekers.' However, she added: 'If candidates heavily rely on or misuse AI tools, it could mean that they're unsuitable for the roles they've applied for.' She said a quarter of firms were attempting to reduce or monitor the use of AI by applicants. Neil Carberry, the chief executive of the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, said: 'If you are advertising a job you will get hundreds more CVs than a few years ago and a large number will demonstrate they haven't really thought about the job. 'They have done 50 applications in a couple of days where previously they'd have done 10 good ones.' AI tools such as ChatGPT have been blamed for a decline in graduate opportunities, but Rachel Reeves has also been criticised for hitting the jobs market with record-breaking tax rises.
