Geldof's threat to quit Blair's Africa Commission
The Live Aid campaigner was instrumental in persuading Mr Blair to set up the commission to examine the problems of the continent ahead of a crucial summit of the G8 at Gleneagles in Scotland, which the UK was chairing.
Advertisement
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.
Advertisement
'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. Photo: 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'.
Advertisement
'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?'
Advertisement
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
BreakingNews.ie
35 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Lammy not accepting Iran's claims over enriched uranium
Foreign Secretary David Lammy says he does not accept Iran's claims that the country is enriching uranium for academic purposes. Representatives from the United Kingdom, Germany and France held talks with Iran last week to try to break the deadlock over the country's nuclear programme. Advertisement Tehran maintains it is open to diplomacy, though it recently suspended cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). A central concern for western powers was highlighted when the IAEA reported in May that Iran's stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% – just below weapons-grade level – had grown to more than 400kg. In a wide-ranging interview with The Guardian, Mr Lammy said: 'Its leaders cannot explain to me – and I've had many conversations with them – why they need 60% enriched uranium. 'If I went to Sellafield or Urenco in Cheshire, they haven't got anything more than 6%. The Iranians claim it's for academic use, but I don't accept that.' Advertisement Mr Lammy warned that Iran developing nuclear weapons could lead to an escalation of tensions in the Middle East. Israel and the United States carried our strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June. 'Many of your readers will have watched Oppenheimer and seen the fallout of (the US building an atomic bomb),' he said. 'So it's what (a nuclear Iran) might mean in terms of other countries in the neighbourhood who would desire one, too. And we would be very suddenly handing over to our children and grandchildren a world that had many more nuclear weapons in it than it has today.' Advertisement The Foreign Secretary said he had heard Israeli arguments in favour of regime change in Tehran, but did not believe that was behind the US decision to strike. The Tottenham MP added any decision to topple the government was one for the Iranian people, with his focus 'on what the UK can do to stop Iran becoming a nuclear power'. Last month, Mr Lammy suggested that Britain, France and Germany could 'snap back' on sanctions against Iran unless the country gets 'serious' about stepping back from its nuclear ambitions. He told the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee: 'Iran face even more pressure in the coming weeks because the E3 can snap back on our sanctions, and it's not just our sanctions, it's actually a UN mechanism that would impose dramatic sanctions on Iran across nearly every single front in its economy. Advertisement 'So they have a choice to make. It's a choice for them to make. 'I'm very clear about the choice they should make, but I'm also clear that the UK has a decision to make that could lead to far greater pain for the Iranian regime unless they get serious about the international desire to see them step back from their nuclear ambitions at this time.'
BBC News
35 minutes ago
- BBC News
Derbyshire council continues to face losses over leisure centre
A parish council is continuing to face financial losses due to a heritage and leisure centre, according to documents released under the Freedom of Information Act. Elmton with Creswell Parish Council has faced criticism for a "multitude of failures" in its governance due to the losses it has made on the heritage and leisure centre in centre operated at a loss of more than £230,000 last year and is on course to make losses of over £1m over the next three years, according to documents obtained by residents, which have been seen by the parish council said the overall deficit has reduced in real terms. The parish council took out loans of almost £3m from the government and Bolsover District Council to build the centre. But the cost of running the facility soon became a cause for concern and the council ordered an external investigation into its finances, which was published earlier this year. It said there were "large and systemic failure to follow basic legal obligations" that left councillors potentially liable to prosecution. A further investigation was then carried out by the National Association of Local Councils (NALC).It did not find any evidence that warranted prosecutions, but estimated the running the centre and repaying the loans were costing the council £10,400 per week. The centre's income was just over £100,000 in the last financial year, which is roughly the same as its salary costs alone, according to documents released to residents under the Freedom of Information Act, which have been seen by the BBC. The documents also show the council's total spending on the centre was £200,000 in the last financial year and it needed to subsidise the facility to the tune of £70,000 each financial quarter.A repayment plan is also now in place to keep the council from defaulting on its debts. The problems with the leisure centre led the council to increase its council tax precept by 323% over the last two years, taking its charge to a Band D home from £172.05 in 2023/24 to £557.09 in 2025/ say the council has no choice but to increase its share of council tax bills because the leisure centre's income does not cover its running costs. The charitable trust set up to run the centre will soon be dissolved after officers concluded it was not "able to carry out the functions it was set up to perform". Day-to-day running is expected to be taken over by Bolsover District Council, which is expected to make a number of structural changes in an effort to bring down costs. There are currently no discussions between the two councils on offloading the centre to a third party operator, after NALC warned the move could incur costs for the parish elsewhere. A spokesperson for Bolsover District Council said: "Bolsover District Council and Elmton with Creswell Parish Council are currently discussing detail around day-to-day management of the Heritage and Wellbeing Centre. "The prime intention is to sustain facility access to the general public, with operating costs being met by the Parish Council." The chair of a local residents' group, Cris Carr, said that there is increasing anger among residents that they are being asked to "pay more and more with no meaningful way to challenge what's happening".He added: "The latest report suggests costs are continuing to spiral, and many now fear another rise in the precept is inevitable — even as living costs bite hard."Residents are struggling to understand how a Parish Council — traditionally responsible for Christmas lights and hanging baskets — could commit an entire village to millions of pounds in future liabilities without any form of democratic safeguard or community consent."Yet not a single Parish Councillor believes they've done anything wrong." The parish council said in a statement it "understands and shares residents' concerns" and is addressing them through "greater transparency, financial discipline, and community engagement"."For Quarter 1 of the 2025/26 financial year, the Heritage and Wellbeing Centre received a subsidy of £70,253.12, coming in under the budgeted figure of £80,485.00", it said."This marks the second year running in which the overall deficit has reduced in real terms, as part of the Council's active work to bring costs down."Our focus is on bringing down the precept and reducing the impact on council tax bills."
Telegraph
35 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour's hopes of a building boom are fading
The Government's entire economic strategy can be summed up in one phrase: planning reform. This is front and centre of every response to poor GDP figures, in every speech on the economy and high up in any list of government 'achievements'. It doesn't seem to matter that taxes on business have gone up massively and employment regulation is about to do the same. That is all fine because of planning reform. In her Spring Statement for instance, the Chancellor stated that these reforms would mean the Government was now 'within touching distance of delivering our manifesto promise to build 1.5 million homes in England in this Parliament'. The result of all this housebuilding would be, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), an increase in GDP worth 'an additional £3.4bn' by 2029/30. Delivering this level of housebuilding is therefore crucial to the Government's economic and political success. The early signs are not good, and this should be a major cause for concern in the Treasury. First, the OBR's assumptions for this economic impact are nothing short of heroic. They state that net additions to the housing stock will increase from 192,000 this year to 305,000 by 2029/30. A near-60pc increase and a 40-year high in terms of net additions. They are also forecasting a booming property market with transactions rising from 1m in 2023 to 1.472m in 2029. Turnover rate in the housing market will apparently rise to 4.58pc by 2029. Other than the Covid market surge in 2021 – when stamp duty was eased – that would be the highest annual turnover rate in 20 years. No one in the industry thinks these forecasts are realistic. And for good reason. The Home Builders Federation's recent housing pipeline report shows that the number of residential planning approvals actually fell by 37pc during the first quarter of 2025. The 50,610 units that these approvals will deliver was the lowest quarterly figure in nearly 12 years. In certain key regions things are even worse. Data from Molior shows that in London, where Labour has been in charge for years, just over 2,000 private homes began construction during the first half of this year. That is just 4.9pc of the Government's 44,000 half-year target. It could be fairly argued that the Government's planning reforms have yet to kick in. The OBR says most of the increase will happen from 2026/27. But things do not look good on that front either. Molior is forecasting that London will deliver just over 5pc of the 176,000 homes that the Mayor is targeting over the next two years. And if that were replicated across the country it would be nothing short of disastrous. If things continue along at the sort of rate we've seen since Labour came to power, rather than that which is currently in the OBR forecast, it will only be a matter of time before they look again at the numbers. They do in fact warn that their projections for housebuilding contain 'several significant uncertainties' including constraints within the sector and local opposition to the reforms. To that they should add other government policies because since these reforms were announced ministers have done everything they can to hamper them. They've already watered down some of their plans in the face of backbench opposition so environmental and nature campaigners will still be able to easily block new developments. Any hope that Government backed affordable housing would help reach the target have been ended after the Spring Statement confirmed most of the £39bn trumpeted for this programme is back loaded into the next parliament. There's actually less money for affordable housing in the next crucial few years. Added to all of this, the Government is actively making it more expensive to build new homes. New levies, inherited from the previous Government, will add a few thousand pounds to the cost of each new home. And Treasury officials have managed to slip through a massive increase to the landfill tax, something the previous government rejected, that will halt many brownfield developments in their tracks. So unless we see some new, additional and radical planning reforms for the OBR to take into account, at some point they will revise down the number of net additions they are currently forecasting. At which point the Government won't have an economic strategy left. The minor planning reforms they have half implemented will count for nothing. Instead of a housebuilding boom that delivers the economic growth that the Chancellor has promised, we are going to see the sector limp along like the rest of the economy because this Government simply doesn't understand that tax and regulation matter.
