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.'
Bob Geldof with Bono and Tony Blair in Downing Street (PA)
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
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Glenrothes is living proof why UK needs a second Clement Attlee in charge
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... On the back of its landslide victory at the 1945 general election, Clement Attlee's Labour government decided that a better Britain should be built. A high-point of this vision was the 35 new towns built across the UK, with five in Scotland: Cumbernauld, East Kilbride, Glenrothes, Irvine and Livingston. Their role was to give working-class families decent homes, fresh air away from polluted industrial cities, modern schools and easy access to leisure and culture in places that separated industry and busy roads from where people lived. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The British state financed, planned, built and ran the towns. Everything was developed from scratch on what had been green fields. Until the mid-90s, when their management transferred to local authorities, all this was done by unelected development corporations. This was moderate, gradualist, altruistic social democracy writ large. Children play in Glenrothes, one of five new towns created in Scotland by an Act of Parliament in 1946 (Picture: Keystone Features) | Getty Images A modern mining town I was once the London representative of the Scottish new towns. Since then, I've had a lingering affection for them. I opted for a visit to Glenrothes, a town born in 1947. Glenrothes' genesis was the Rothes Colliery 'super pit'. Opened in 1948, it was forecast to produce coal for many decades. Glenrothes was to be a modern mining town. Geological problems closed the pit in 1962. Glenrothes joined the other new towns in seeking fresh types of employment, mainly through inward investment by US electronics concerns. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad My day in the town starts with coffee at the recently refurbished Kingdom Shopping Centre. Bakers & Barista's manager Jackie Beveridge says the centre is busy all day, 'and getting busier'. I find a library is part of the Kingdom Centre. Library assistant Sheena Balls helps me find books on the architecture of the town and on the many sculptures by the artists once employed by Glenrothes Development Corporation. Almost all the works still exist and are much loved by locals. The motivation for the sculptures was the same as that which brought us the Arts Council and the Open University: a better society. Clement Attlee and his wife Violet wave to crowds in London in July 1945 after Labour won the election earlier that month (Picture: Keystone) | Getty Images 'A glorified housing estate' Sheena Balls lives in the town. She thinks the idealism and vision that created the place has been lost. 'Subsequent leaders have strayed very far from the original concept. Glenrothes is now a glorified housing estate.' Church of Scotland minister, the Rev Alan Kimmitt, has a rosier view of Glenrothes, though his feet are firmly planted on the ground. He deals daily with every sort of despair, isolation and joy that human beings encounter. Kimmitt had a business career before taking the cloth. St Columba's is his first charge. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Forty years ago, the Church of Scotland was a dominant force in Scottish and Glenrothes life. Today, Kimmitt's architecturally magnificent St Columba's Church, built in 1962, is part of an alliance of six local kirks, mustering only some 150 people for Sunday services, which rotate between the parishes. Kimmitt acknowledges Scotland's growing secularism, finding it hard to pin down how it has happened. He's more comfortable discussing his pastoral role. He knows his parish and can read the heartbeat of Glenrothes. He sees a place of civic pride, perhaps less insular and more welcoming than older, more traditional places. 'There's a strong and distinct civic identity tied up with the new town. Everybody's an incomer or the child of an incomer.' Dancing pumps If religious observance has changed dramatically in Glenrothes, so too have other elements of its canvas. Where once multi-national, high-tech businesses made Glenrothes a key part of Scotland's 'Silicon Glen', most have now gone. The companies making things today are mainly smaller concerns. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Local SNP MSP Jenny Gilruth says small-to-medium enterprises are 'the backbone' of the local economy. 'Last year, 9,270 properties in Fife, including in Glenrothes, received £39.9 million from the Scottish Government in non-domestic rates relief,' she says. I visit Thistle Shoes, a 40-year-old family business making dance pumps and supplying shoes to pipe bands internationally. Managing director Pamela McDowall tells me her business is the official supplier of pumps to the Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo. Each dancer goes through three pairs of pumps. Three of her six staff live in Glenrothes. She says she couldn't ask for better folk. 'Everybody here mucks in.' Richard Baker, the town's Labour MP, found a minute to call and talk about the various renewable energy projects in the district. We spoke the day after the Reform party announced that if it wins the next UK general election it will end all subsidies for renewable energy. Baker was scathing in his response. 'Reform's proposals are reckless in the extreme. Their idiot plan would be devastating for Scotland, for consumers, for industry and for energy security. It would lead to lost jobs, higher prices and businesses collapsing.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Paternalistic social engineering? Glenrothes has its poverty and deprivation and its fair share of often struggling immigrants and disaffected young people. However, it felt livelier and a bit more self-confident than other towns of similar size I've visited on my tour. Critics of the post-war new towns accused them of social engineering, a paternalistic state telling the working classes how to live, while giving their early inhabitants no democratic say in the priorities of the towns. Some British new towns are far from socially or economically successful. Glenrothes, I think, is not among them. Is there any political party with the vision, courage and ideas for improving the economic and social lot of ordinary people shown by Clement Attlee's 1945 government? If there is, they're doing a good job of hiding their boldness from us.
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
Tory modernisation has failed
We at the New Statesman are not neutral observers of the politics of this country. We may be critical of this Labour government when we think it deserves criticism. But we also do not want to see the country move to the populist right, under a Tory government or one led by Reform. This should be obvious: we are a magazine of the left, which wants to see progressive reform. And yet what happens in the Conservative Party and Reform matters because it often affects the political direction we are all forced to travel. One of the most important developments in British politics today, therefore, is the extraordinary implosion of the Conservatives under Kemi Badenoch. Its scale is remarkable in its own right, but it also has profound implications for how Britain is governed. Think about how Labour behaves as it shifts its focus from the Conservatives to Reform ahead of the next general election. Without the collapse in support for the Tories – and the corresponding rise in the polls for Nigel Farage – would Starmer ever have uttered the words 'island of strangers'? The Prime Minister's mistake reveals a deeper truth: he and his government have yet to develop a strategy for how to deal with Farage The rub of Will Lloyd's cover story this week is simple: Kemi isn't working. For those who may (understandably) take some joy from this, Will's piece offers pause for thought. While it is absolutely the case that one of the reasons Badenoch is failing is her own limitations, there is no getting away from a deeper truth: she is also struggling because of nastier currents in society. Badenoch is not struggling because she is too right wing. Quite the opposite, in fact. For many of those agitating against her leadership, she represents the failed project of modernisation (as they would see it) of the David Cameron years. Today, the 'New Right' wants a far more Trump- (or Farage-) inflected conservatism than the one Badenoch is offering. Another reason the mood has soured is that a growing segment of the New Right has become dangerously fixated on questions of race, ethnicity and demographics. For some young Tories, it seems, Badenoch will never be British enough. This is a grim trend that we at the New Statesman feel a duty to expose. One final lesson from Will's piece is the continued failure of our political class to meet the challenges before it. As a friend put it to me recently, the problems the country now faces are at least as acute as any we have faced for decades, while the quality of our leaders seems to deteriorate from one parliament to the next. As our problems become bigger, our politicians get smaller. And so we enter a doom loop of hopelessness and despair, as one government after the next fails to rise to the challenge before it. Badenoch, in other words, may simply be a symptom of a deeper structural problem in Britain (and the West) today. Of course, Badenoch is not the only party leader in Westminster struggling in the polls. Andrew Marr delves into the disquiet bubbling just below the surface in Labour. As ever, his column is a must-read for those who want to understand the inner workings of the government. Meanwhile, Oliver Eagleton examines the lasting legacy of the war in Afghanistan, which continues to cast its shadow over British politics. Will Dunn looks at the extraordinary inertia of our governing class and Pippa Bailey casts her eye over Labour's (sensible) changes to sex education in schools – some good news at last! We have expanded Correspondence to reflect the huge number of letters we have received following last week's cover story about war crimes in Gaza. In the New Society, we have compiled our list of the best summer reads (including Don't Forget We're Here Forever by the New Statesman columnist Lamorna Ash), Finn McRedmond decamps to Chianti, and Michael Prodger reviews a book by the artist David Gentleman (he of those beautiful murals at London's Charing Cross Underground station). Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Before I sign off, I'd like to draw the reader's attention to one final piece in this week's magazine. Hannah Barnes reflects on the devastating death of her brother in a motorcycle crash. Life is precious and fragile. Perhaps it is so precious because it is so fragile. I hope that we at the New Statesman try to live it with vim and vigour while we can, bringing you life in all its pain and joy, glory and tragedy: a magazine reporting on our world as it is, while always having an eye on how we want it to be. Related This article appears in the 23 Jul 2025 issue of the New Statesman, Kemi Isn't Working
New Statesman
2 hours ago
- New Statesman
Keir Starmer is no politician – but this could be his strength
If you cut him, would he bleed? Nobody knows. Keir Starmer is one of the strangest of all the odd characters we have had in No 10: perhaps we are only just beginning to realise just how different he is. He does almost none of the obvious things a prime minister 'must' do. With few exceptions, he doesn't speak to the cabinet. By speak, I mean properly, confidentially, deeply – not just exchanging phrases in a meeting. He doesn't speak to his other ministers either. He doesn't read newspapers, magazines or blogs. He's not in the Commons. He doesn't make uplifting speeches. At the recent cabinet away day at Chequers he delighted ministers present by explaining why he was in politics. But it was their surprise, even relief, that was eloquent. What he said was the down-to-earth, autobiographical account an averagely egotistical prime minister would repeat while asleep. This curiously closed man seems surrounded by other politicians and advisers who can explain him better than he can. The downsides of his behaviour are by now well understood. The New Statesman has been charting the problem of dropping policies well before you have won the argument about them; of having no personal relationship with MPs on whom your legislation depends; of failing to develop an emotional connection with voters when your enemies can. Another downside, largely unreported, is an atmosphere of distancing and thinking beyond Starmer inside the cabinet. This is not, I must emphasise, a 'leadership plot'. We must move beyond the clichés. One senior minister says: 'There is no active conversation going on, but a lot of us are looking at the restlessness of the party and we think it's serious.' There are two obvious crisis points ahead after the summer break. One comes next May with the Scottish, Welsh and English local elections. If Labour is absolutely hammered up and down the country, Starmer's leadership will come into question. Scotland is probably going to go better than the commentators expect – the best result in 20 years, predicts one insider. The more serious challenge doesn't yet have a date attached: that is the possibility of a Truss-style market meltdown sufficient to destroy Rachel Reeves' chancellorship. Her frustration with Labour critics who don't understand how close to the edge the British economy stands, is completely understandable. Long-dated UK gilt yields (5.5 per cent last week) are already at levels not seen since 1998. For a lot of public debt, repayments recur frequently. Government sources worry about the 'extraordinary' lack of a senior economic policy adviser in No 10, which leaves the Treasury to itself while Downing Street is 'constantly racking up the bills'. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe The bond markets are watching all the stuttering, over-indebted 'advanced' (aka sclerotic) economies like vultures. In the eurozone, France is in obvious trouble. But there is a particular focus on Britain, and not just because of Liz Truss and not just for technical reasons. After the U-turn on welfare cuts, the markets are asking whether this Labour government is really in control. Will it be forced to come back for substantial new borrowing? These are the big questions ahead of the Autumn Budget. They go a long way towards explaining the removal of the whip from rebels. If Starmer and Reeves are really committed, as the Prime Minister says, to lifting the two-child cap, there would have to be major spending cuts elsewhere, or tax rises, to compensate. In all this, Wes Streeting's fight with the resident doctors has become the political front line. It's lucky that he is the best political explainer, by far, the government has. Reeves has possible tweaks to make which could bring her up to £15bn extra and is doubtless looking at other moves: a banking levy and a gambling tax. But without tight spending control, that is all loose change – and she would have to turn to the big tax promises made at the election. Bringing investment income into line with income tax, as Angela Rayner has suggested, would be a possible answer, though that too has consequences for growth. Tony Blair, whose influence over the government grows by the day, has been bringing in groups of Labour MPs to warn them that if Reeves raises the big taxes in November 'it's over'. As one senior adviser says: 'The more you borrow, the less control you have over your destiny.' How close are we, then, to 1976, when the UK was unable to service its debts and needed an IMF bailout? I think of Jim Callaghan speaking to the Labour conference that year: 'We used to think you could spend your way out of a recession… by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you, in all candour, that that option no longer exists.' That isn't, yet, the speech that Starmer is planning. He intends to build on the spending review to chart a more optimistic year ahead, with waiting lists down, houses going up, and trade deals bringing better jobs, with a distinct community-first tone. The danger is that it sounds insufficiently confrontational, just when the markets are watching most closely. Downing Street is not complacent: one source talks of the difficulty of governing with an enfeebled state, one that is 'fat, not fit', a machine that seems 'too weak to lift a bin in Birmingham; to pick up the phone in a GP's office; to stop sewage flowing into rivers'. This inheritance will take time to turn around. In the short term, there needs to be an urgent challenge to the party about its priorities, as well as self-congratulation about the things that have gone well. The Labour Growth Group's call for a 'National Renewal Compact', recently published online by the New Statesman, is a sign of the serious thinking about Britain's challenges being done on the back benches. Mark McVitie, Lola McEvoy and Chris Curtis argue that Britain is facing a 'revolutionary moment'. The language is stark. Inside government, there is no longer an assumption that both Starmer and Reeves will survive. Angela Rayner, while the most obvious successor, is said not to want the top job for personal reasons. She is regarded as loyal to Starmer. Others doubt this. 'She always gives the impression of someone who does want the top job; she is very important, very political,' says another minister. If, to use Boris Johnson's phrase, the ball came loose from the scrum, we would probably see some kind of alliance between Wes Streeting, Bridget Phillipson and perhaps Shabana Mahmood – Mahmood representing the most right-of-centre, state-sceptical part of the party. The only other name being mentioned is John Healey, the Defence Secretary, seen as the safest hands in the administration, and a man who could Callaghan-style calm markets and backbenches alike. So, finally, we return to this oddest of prime ministers. His disdain for ordinary politics, his lack of real conversation with colleagues, and his arm's-length relationship with a commentariat are also a kind of strength which we have not perhaps taken seriously enough. He has the hide of a rhinoceros. Starmer doesn't, to switch jungle metaphors, give a monkey's about most of the criticism. He can listen – and he is refreshing Downing Street, importing badly needed experience of governing. Pat McFadden is likely to be given, I'm told, an enhanced political role at the centre. The former Blair-era spinner Tim Allan has been approached as communications supremo. The fundamental question, however, is about the real state of the country. Plenty of ministers believe we are on the edge of something pretty grim. As the summer stretches on, there is a general sense that the state is losing control of the streets – and Nigel Farage is watching, with one nicotine-tinted finger on the national pulse. The Prime Minister does not think the country is broken, and from the City to the universities, from science to new technology, there is plenty to celebrate. Calm and resilience are great political strengths. But we are living through a social and economic Dunkirk. Business as usual won't cut it. [See also: Kemi Badenoch isn't working] Related
