Geldof's threat to quit Blair's Africa Commission
But official papers released to the National Archives in Kew, west London, show he was outraged when – after just one meeting – the commissioners were sent a document setting its 'emerging conclusions'.
In an angry letter to the commission's director of policy, the economist Sir Nick Stern, dated August 9 2004, he said it was impossible to have come to any conclusions it such a short period of time.
The former rock star warned that he was not prepared to serve on a body which was simply there to push 'pre-determined government policy'.
'To be clear, policy must be determined by the commission independently sitting and independently deliberating and concluding of its own volition. This distinction is vital. If I have got this wrong please inform me so I may tender my resignation,' he wrote.
'More broadly, the whole notion of emerging solutions is laughable. If the solution to the misery of Africa can be 'concluded' within a mere six week time span, it is a truly remarkable feat.
'How blind we must all have been these past years. The fact is that there are not and cannot as yet be any emerging conclusions.
'The commission will lose all credibility if it is not clearly seen to be an independent entity. If it seems to advance pre-determined government policy it will be correctly viewed as a laughable grotesque.'
Geldof went on to complain that the involvement of some of the commissioners – including some of those from Africa – appeared to have been 'minimal'.
'Is it not the secretariat's function, on behalf of the chair, to ensure that this is not the case? Or is this all some farcical political game played out at the expense of the wretchedly poor? If so, I ain't playing.'
Sir Nicholas wrote back hurriedly to assure him the that the document was not an attempt pre-empt the commission's findings, and that the input from British politicians had been 'comparatively minor'.
'Far from being an attempt to rush conclusions the paper is intended to to be a tool to help promote discussion and ensure a real interchange between commissioners at the second meeting in October,' he wrote.
'I would be very keen to sit down and discuss these questions with you; perhaps we could meet for a drink as soon as we are both around?'
Geldof's reply is not recorded in the files, but he was sufficiently placated to carry on.
After the Gleneagles summit the following year agreed to double aid to Africa and extend debt relief, he hailed it as 'mission accomplished'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
14 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
New UK driving laws to be introduced soon after being 'fast tracked'
A new consultation has been launched on the automated passenger services (APS) permitting scheme and the draft stature instrument, which will dictate the future of self-driving vehicles Fresh motoring regulations will arrive on British roads in the coming months as autonomous vehicles begin their rollout. Labour MP and minister Lilian Greenwood has unveiled a consultation regarding the automated passenger services (APS) licensing framework and the draft statutory instrument. The MP is encouraging both the general public and industry experts to share their perspectives on the future of driverless cars. The APS framework represents a crucial element of the Automated Vehicles Act, which will govern self-driving taxis, bus-style services and cabs once fully enacted in the latter half of 2027. The government has chosen to accelerate trials of autonomous passenger vehicles to spring 2026, enabling companies to test small-scale operations without a safety driver for the first time, reports Birmingham Live. Advancing these driverless vehicle trials will generate 38,000 employment opportunities to boost household incomes, spurring investment to support British engineering expertise and establishing an industry valued at £42 billion by 2035. Future of roads minister, she explained: "Self-driving vehicles are one of the most exciting opportunities to improve transport for so many people, especially those in rural areas or unable to drive." "We want to work with passengers and industry to make this new form of transport safe and accessible, as we take our next steps towards adoption. Labour MP and minister Lilian Greenwood continued: "This technology doesn't just have the potential to improve transport for millions of people. It will help stimulate innovation, create thousands of jobs, and drive investment to put money money in people's pockets-all part of delivering our Plan for Change." Mike Hawes, SMMT chief executive, also added: "Britain's self-driving vehicle revolution moves one step closer, with today's announcements putting the country on track to reap the road safety and socio-economic benefits this technology can deliver." "Pilot rollout of commercial self-driving services from next year will widen public access to mobility, while the consultation will ensure the technology is deployed in a safe and responsible way." He concluded: "These latest measures will help Britain remain a world leader in the development and introduction of self-driving vehicles, a manifest application of AI at its finest." As explained, self-driving vehicles can facilitate people to get around more easily, especially for those who don't have a license. It can also add a new method of transport in rural areas, improving mobility and overall road safety by reducing the number of accidents.
New Statesman
17 minutes ago
- New Statesman
The government's government problem
The Environment Secretary Steve Reed promised to revolutionise the water industry. But what has happened? Photo byThe heavy rain that arrived last week was, for the nation's gardeners, an encouraging sign after what had been the driest spring since 1893. But the sad truth is that relatively little of that water will have ended up in the country's reservoirs, the newest of which was completed in 1992. Most of it ran into our combined sewers, where rainwater is mixed with household waste. The untreated effluent then overflowed into our rivers and inshore waters, giving them a fresh coat of bleach, microplastics and faecal matter, just in time for the school holidays. Fortunately the government had prepared by adding this long-running disaster to the list of things it is planning to do something about, unless anyone has any strong objections. The public wants water companies to stop extracting tens of billions of pounds from a captive market of bill-payers while turning the country's waterways into open sewers. The Environment Secretary, Steve Reed, has promised them a 'revolution'. Will the system be renationalised? Are the most highly remunerated executives going to prison? Will they be forced to swim through the noxious gubbins while a gleeful public pelts them with toilet rolls? Not quite. Ofwat and the Drinking Water Inspectorate will be replaced by a new regulator, hopefully by 2027. Robespierre was not available for comment. On the same day, the Work and Pensions Secretary, Liz Kendall, revealed that she, too, had a revolutionary solution to one of Britain's deep, long-running problems: the fact that very few people of the current generation of workers are saving enough for retirement. Almost half of all working-age adults are putting nothing at all away for later life, and will spend the last 20 years of their lives wholly dependent on the state. This is a slow-moving disaster that can be seen happening from a long way off, and there is a set of options that have been discussed by economists and pension fund companies for decades. Employers could be told that they have to contribute to employees' pensions whether or not employees opt out of paying in (as many people on lower incomes do). Auto-enrolment could start at 16, or as soon as one starts working. The default rate of contributions could be bumped up to 12 per cent. We could make pension contributions mandatory, as they are in Switzerland and for some employees in Australia. But let's not be too hasty: the first step is to bring back the Pension Commission, which will also look at the options, really stare at them, like one of those magic 3D pictures, until the right one pops out. And then it will report to the government in 2027. Both these commitments to doing something, eventually, follow the hotly anticipated 'Leeds Reforms' announced by Rachel Reeves in her Mansion House speech on 15 July. In it, the Chancellor committed to probably doing something about the fact that British companies are underinvested in, and that many British savers are keeping their money in low-interest savings accounts rather than using them to Back British Businesses. Reeves had previously considered making significant changes to cash ISA allowances, but this was a bit contentious, so there will be an advertising campaign, reminiscent of the 1980s 'Tell Sid' adverts, which encouraged the public to buy shares in the newly privatised British Gas. The difference with Thatcher's ad campaign was that Thatcher was actually doing something for Sid to be told about. The thing that was being done (privatisation of state industries) was ideologically driven, inept and ultimately disastrous for the UK economy, but one thing we can say about it is that it did in fact happen. The problem that the Labour government has is that it is a group of very clever, well-intentioned people who do not seem to be able to get things done. The Employment Rights Bill and planning reform are other areas in which good plans are turning into insufficient compromises. The most immediate danger of this trend is that it creates a financial credibility problem. When investors decide how much they will pay for Britain's debt, they are to a great extent making a prediction about two things: the path of inflation (because higher inflation reduces the returns from buying bonds) and how much more debt the government is going to borrow (the more debt it sells, the lower the demand). When the UK is run by a government with a large majority, which is apparently unable to enforce its own policies to save money, a reasonable prediction is that it will have to borrow quite a lot more in the future. This means the market will pay less for our debt, which means our borrowing costs are higher. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Politically, this will combine with growing frustration among the government's own MPs, such as the 100-strong Labour Growth Group, which is increasingly resorting to blatant means of criticism, such as fulminating in the New Statesman about 'the exhausted politics of technocratic incrementalism'. Not all revolutionaries need to be Montagnards, determined to write history in blood. As Camille Desmoulins put it, having been sentenced to death on the order of his old pal Robespierre, 'a little ink would have sufficed'. But in times that demand change, withholding it begins to look less like prudence, and more like the narcissism of people whose political project does not extend beyond holding on to power. [See also: Who is an acceptable migrant?] Related
New Statesman
17 minutes ago
- New Statesman
The MoD's Afghan data breach shows us who we really are
Hundreds of people are evacuated out of Afghanistan by British armed forces in August 2021. Photo by Ben Shread/MoD Crown Copyright via Getty Images The Afghan data breach was not an isolated incident. Between 2023 and 2024, there were 569 known cases in which the Ministry of Defence (MoD) failed to keep sensitive information safe: software compromised, devices missing, documents mishandled. On 16 July it was revealed that a UK official had accidentally leaked information on 18,714 Afghan nationals applying for a government relocation scheme for those who had helped the British military. Before that, the MoD had made public the identities of 265 Afghan collaborators, most of whom were interpreters, in a stray email in 2021. It had left its payroll system vulnerable to hackers who gained access to the names and bank details of British military personnel. And it had admitted to losing hundreds of government assets, from laptops and memory sticks to a Glock pistol and a First World War machine gun. What explains this pattern of failings? It appears that by removing security checks, foregoing proper data protection, cutting back on staff and hiring outside contractors, the MoD laid the foundations for the unfolding national scandal. The leaks thus reflect the deeper maladies of the British state: a decrepit structure, starved of skills and resources, which is willing to meddle in the affairs of foreign countries yet incapable of running its own IT. It is equally the latest reverberation from the new century's version of imperialism, when Tony Blair hymned overseas conquest like Kipling reborn, and the British army marched through deserts it had last seen in 1880. The New Labour era was a period of peculiar political and geopolitical arrogance. Today, Keir Starmer praises the record of these governments and cites it as a model for his own, even as their legacies threaten to undermine his leadership and give succour to his right-wing opponents. Nostalgists for the Blair-Brown era tend to bracket its foreign policy, presenting the war on terror as a blunder that needn't detract from domestic achievements like Sure Start or the national minimum wage. But the Afghan debacle shows that these two spheres cannot be separated; the national and international dimensions of Blairism followed the same economic logic. As New Labour embarked on its state-building projects abroad, it simultaneously hollowed out the state at home, marketising those parts of it that hadn't yet been sold off by the Tories. The MoD was the second biggest departmental spender on private finance initiatives, raining hellfire down on Iraq and Afghanistan with the help of an emboldened private sector, to which it handed billions worth of contracts. This strategy left public institutions increasingly unable to function by themselves. They made little effort to develop their internal expertise, not least when it came to the new frontier of digital services and databases. Both New Labour's military adventurism and its private finance agenda emanated from a belief that the market-led 'liberal democracy' would conquer the world after the Cold War, replacing backward governments with modern ones, fusty bureaucrats with dynamic entrepreneurs. Authorities in Kabul and Westminster alike would be swept away by this emerging order. Since the arc of history supposedly bent in its direction, the transformation would be mostly spontaneous. Policymakers were encouraged to step back and let it take its course. Their main role was to remove the obstacles to this telos via targeted interventions: overthrowing unfriendly dictators, repealing onerous regulations and waiting for peace and prosperity to follow. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe But such progress never arrived. Instead, the Middle East was drenched in blood: cities bombed to oblivion, ancient heritage sites razed and ethnic conflicts inflamed, with a network of torture facilities springing up across the region to deal with popular resistance. The puppet government in Afghanistan hid out in its securitised Green Zone, siphoning off foreign aid while the rest of the country suffered an endless social crisis. Inequality widened, with basic services in short supply. Political opposition was monopolised by the Taliban, who could bide their time until the occupiers exhausted themselves. Nor was New Labour's 'modernising' vision realised on the home front, where opening the state to market competition brought no benefit to anyone apart from the successful competitors. Just as external actors took over what passed for public provision in Afghanistan, private entities assumed many of the traditional functions of government in Britain, creating a culture of kickbacks and corner-cutting, soaring costs and deteriorating services. Blair had assumed that he could remove the constraints on his 'Third Way' model – 'rogue regimes', nationalised utilities – and bask in its success. But in practice the elimination of those fetters led to perpetual crisis, which the government was forced to step in and manage: staying in the Middle East far longer than expected to attend to the aftermath of its invasions, while struggling to limit the blowback from its free-market reforms. This sequence of events unfolded not just in Britain but across the Global North, as governments joined foreign wars and delegated authority to big business. It soon gave rise to a paradoxical situation. New forms of international dependency were created, with impoverished client states becoming completely reliant on the imperial powers. At the same time, those powers themselves became dependent on predatory investors and asset-stripping corporations, with dire results for states and wider societies. So, as elites in Kabul looked to Western governments to stabilise their rule, they realised that the latter were grappling with their own set of instabilities, caused by the forward march of neoliberalism. Politicians in the developed world had forfeited their own sovereignty while trying to assert it over others. This dynamic contributed to the failure of the regime-change doctrine. These weakened states – internally atrophied and externally overstretched – were not up to the task of neocolonial governance. Their operations were often haphazard, their intelligence flawed. They never established hegemony, which requires the maintenance of power through a careful balance of coercion and consent. The mode of rule was based on the first far more than the second: domination pure and simple. Under this system, the original sins of colonialism began to proliferate. According to a BBC investigation, scores of Afghan civilians were executed by British special forces, with one SAS squadron reportedly competing internally to attain the highest body count. One veteran described it as 'routine' for soldiers to handcuff and kill detainees – including children – and then cover up their crimes by removing the restraints and planting weapons on the corpses. Killing, said another former fighter, was 'addictive'. 'On some operations, the troops would go into guesthouse-type buildings and kill everyone there… They'd go in and shoot everyone sleeping there, on entry.' Countries that are run in this way tend to rebel against their rulers. The abrupt Nato withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021, allowing the Taliban to regain control rapidly, was an open acknowledgement of that fact. Two decades of engagement had cost an estimated 243,000 lives without leaving behind any durable power structure. While some clung to the dream of an indefinite occupation, most of the political and military establishment recognised the urgent need to jump ship. Yet the notion that Britain could easily escape this quagmire was no less misguided than the decision to enter it in the first place. Relations of dependency do not disappear overnight. UK officials had to work out what to do about the significant number of Afghans who lent their services to the war effort, and who now have a legitimate claim to asylum. Once again, their response was astoundingly inept: first presiding over a leak-prone MoD that broadcast the collaborators' details on an unencrypted spreadsheet; then failing to notice the mistake for 18 months; then refusing to inform those it endangered; and finally launching a belated resettlement scheme under the cover of a super-injunction. Britain has now abandoned even this fleeting attempt to make up for its reckless activities. The Defence Secretary, John Healey, has announced that no more Afghans whose data was exposed will automatically be offered relocation in the UK, nor will they be given compensation. He assures us there is 'little evidence of intent from the Taliban to conduct a campaign of retribution against former officials' – even though there is already a well-documented record of similar revenge attacks, and Healey admits he is 'unable to say for sure' whether people have been killed as a result of the breach. Naturally, the families of those featured on the spreadsheet are not as sanguine as he is about their possible fate. All this follows Labour's earlier decision to shut down safe routes for Afghan asylum seekers, abolishing both the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy and the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme. These were designed for those who had assisted UK forces along with other vulnerable groups, but have now been closed with immediate effect, as part of a broader attempt to outflank the anti-migrant politics of Reform UK. Starmer's intention, it seems, is simply to ignore the inconvenient fallout of the war on terror. The fantasy of building a harmonious Western-orientated Afghanistan has been swapped for the fantasy of evading the consequences of that project. It will not turn out well. The Labour Party's wars of aggression have reshaped 21st-century Britain, not to mention the Middle East, in ways that are impossible to repress. In particular, by promoting the narrative that Muslims are incapable of running their own countries and attempting to modernise them at gunpoint, they have legitimated the kind of Islamophobia Nigel Farage is now wielding against the main Westminster parties: calling for a hard-border regime to keep out those lacking in 'British values'. Farage has used the data breach to further incite such paranoia, claiming with no evidence that sex offenders have been allowed into the UK under the resettlement programme. The only principled and effective antidote to this reactionary tendency is a full rupture with the legacy of New Labour. The first step would be to reckon with the scale of suffering caused by foreign interventions and accept Britain's obligation to alleviate it to the greatest possible extent: by welcoming refugees, easing sanctions that continue to strangle the Afghan economy, and paying reparations. The real test of whether we've learnt from the 2000s, however, is whether we continue to repeat its mistakes. The current Labour government might be more wary of dispatching troops to faraway places. But it still sent RAF spy planes to aid Israeli intelligence operations in Gaza, and has supplied components for Israel's F-35 jets that are being used in air strikes, all in the service of a protracted regime-change campaign against Hamas. It refuses to rule out supporting a US-Israeli assault on Iran, which would inevitably cause mass death and displacement as well as creating many more refugees. If the government's main foreign policy ambition is to act as Washington's henchman, this is in part because its domestic policy is not designed to reclaim the sovereignty that was relinquished during the neoliberal period; it is characterised by the same mix of deregulation and deference to private interests. In this sense, the data leak offers a glimpse of a much wider problem: the ability of Blairism to survive amid the wreckage it has made. [See also: Israel and Gaza: A question of intent] Related
