Winston Churchill, Jane Austen, JMW Turner and Alan Turing are being swept off Britain’s banknotes in favour of bees, puffins, owls and hedgehogs. Almost half a million people responded to a public consultation, but there is one rather enormous problem: the public were asked which animals they preferred, not whether they wanted Britain’s historic figures removed in the first place.
Britain has apparently reached the extraordinary point where Winston Churchill, the man who helped lead this country to victory over Nazi Germany, is considered too controversial to appear on a five-pound note, but a bumblebee is perfectly acceptable.
The Bank of England has confirmed that Churchill, Jane Austen, JMW Turner and Alan Turing will disappear from the next generation of British banknotes, replaced by a collection of British wildlife. Bumblebees, puffins, barn owls and hedgehogs have been selected to adorn our currency, bringing an end to more than half a century of celebrating some of the greatest figures in British history.
And the justification behind this extraordinary decision should concern every patriotic Briton.
According to research obtained by The Telegraph under Freedom of Information legislation, focus groups commissioned by the Bank suggested that historic figures were seen as “elitist and divisive”. The report also described concerns that such figures presented a “backward-looking vision of the UK”.
Just consider the breathtaking absurdity of that argument. Churchill, who stood against Hitler when Britain’s very survival was at stake, is apparently divisive. Alan Turing, whose extraordinary work at Bletchley Park helped break Nazi codes and laid foundations for modern computing, is apparently part of an outdated vision of Britain. Jane Austen, whose novels remain celebrated across the world more than two centuries after her death, must make way for a hedgehog. And JMW Turner, one of the greatest painters this country has ever produced, is being replaced by wildlife.
What an utterly depressing indictment of the thinking now influencing one of Britain’s most important institutions.
A public consultation that didn’t ask the most important question
Perhaps the most insulting aspect of this whole sorry affair is the Bank of England’s claim to have consulted the British public.
According to The Telegraph, more than 478,000 responses were received during the consultation process. That sounds impressive, doesn’t it? Almost half a million people having their say on the future of Britain’s currency.
Except there was a rather glaring omission. The public were asked which animals they wanted on the banknotes. They were not given an equivalent opportunity within that exercise to vote to retain Churchill, Austen, Turner or Turing.
Those who wished to object to the removal of Britain’s historic figures were therefore faced with a consultation framed around a decision that had effectively already been made. It was not a straightforward choice between preserving our national heroes and replacing them with animals. It was a choice of animals.
And that distinction matters enormously.
People who attempted to register their opposition have complained that the consultation offered no obvious means of objecting to the fundamental decision. Instead, respondents were directed towards selecting their preferred creatures.
What sort of meaningful public consultation asks people to choose the decoration but denies them a proper say over the underlying decision?
Imagine a council announcing that it intends to demolish a historic monument, then inviting residents to vote on whether they would prefer flowers or shrubs planted in its place. Would anybody seriously call that democratic consultation?
Yet the Bank can now point to hundreds of thousands of responses as evidence of public engagement, despite the exercise not directly testing whether the public supported removing historic figures at all.
The Bank should publish the full consultation questions, explain how objections were handled and disclose precisely what evidence it has that the British public actually wanted these historic figures removed. Because choosing a favourite animal is not the same thing as voting to remove Winston Churchill.
£22,500 spent asking which animals we prefer
As if the decision itself were not extraordinary enough, Freedom of Information figures reported by The Telegraph reveal that the Bank of England spent £22,500 on public consultations about which animals should appear on the new notes.
The buff-tailed bumblebee emerged as the most popular, receiving 360,399 nominations. Wonderful. Britain has produced some of the greatest scientists, writers, inventors, military leaders and statesmen in human history, and we have spent thousands of pounds consulting people about bees.
Nobody is suggesting that Britain’s wildlife is unworthy of celebration. Our countryside, native species and natural heritage are magnificent, and absolutely deserve recognition. But why must celebrating nature come at the expense of celebrating the people who helped shape our nation? Why should admiration for a puffin require the removal of Churchill? Why can we not have both?
And why is an unelected institution apparently so uncomfortable with honouring the country’s extraordinary achievements?
The real scandal is the suggestion that Britain’s heroes are divisive
The most troubling aspect of this decision is not the animals themselves. It is the thinking revealed by the research behind the change.
The suggestion that historic figures represent an elitist, contentious or backward-looking Britain reflects an increasingly fashionable tendency to treat national history as something embarrassing, rather than something worth understanding and celebrating.
Of course, history is complicated. Historical figures were human beings, not saints, and their decisions can and should be examined critically. But the notion that controversy should disqualify someone from national recognition is a dangerous road to travel. By that standard, almost nobody of historical significance would survive scrutiny.
Churchill was not chosen for the £5 note because every decision he ever made was beyond criticism. He was chosen because of his extraordinary leadership during Britain’s darkest hour. Turing was not celebrated because he fitted neatly into some modern political narrative. He was honoured because his brilliance helped defend this country and changed the world.
Austen and Turner were recognised because of their enormous contributions to British literature and art. These are achievements that should inspire future generations, not be quietly airbrushed from everyday national life because a focus group found historical figures uncomfortable.
Indeed, the selection of Austen and Turing demonstrates just how varied Britain’s celebrated historical figures already are. Yet apparently even this is insufficient.
The Bank of England should concentrate on the value of our money, not rewriting its symbolism
The Bank insists that new banknotes are required to incorporate improved security features and remain ahead of counterfeiters. That is a perfectly reasonable objective. Nobody disputes that currency must evolve technologically.
But there is absolutely no obvious reason why improved security features require Churchill to be replaced by a bumblebee.
The Bank’s incoming chief cashier, Rhys Phillips, has spoken about combining advanced security technology with new materials. Fine. Improve the security. Modernise the notes. Protect the currency. But why discard the historic figures? The two objectives are not mutually exclusive.
Robert Jenrick, Reform UK’s Treasury spokesman, has condemned the proposals as ridiculous, arguing that the Bank should concentrate on inflation rather than removing historical figures from our currency. And he has a point.
At a time when millions of households remain concerned about the cost of living and the purchasing power of their money, it is hardly surprising that the public might question why so much institutional energy is being devoted to the images printed upon it.
The Bank of England’s principal responsibilities concern monetary stability and the financial system, not deciding which parts of Britain’s history might offend a focus group.
Britain’s history belongs to the British people
There is something profoundly wrong with a national institution deciding that the people who helped make Britain what it is should disappear from our currency, then presenting the public with a questionnaire about which animals should take their places.
The first historical figure, other than the monarch, to appear on a Bank of England note was William Shakespeare in 1970. For more than five decades, our banknotes have offered a small but important celebration of British achievement. They have reminded us that this country has given the world extraordinary literature, scientific breakthroughs, artistic masterpieces and acts of remarkable courage.
Now that tradition is being abandoned. And for what?
Not because British people have clearly voted to remove these figures. Not because modern security technology makes their portraits impossible. But following a process in which focus-group concerns about division and representation helped shape the decision, and a public consultation that asked people to choose between animals rather than between animals and historical figures.
That is not good enough.
The Bank of England should be challenged to explain why it did not put the central question directly to the public: Do you want to retain Britain’s historic figures on our banknotes, or replace them with wildlife?
It is a simple question, one that hundreds of thousands of people might have welcomed the opportunity to answer. Instead, the British public were invited to choose between bees, puffins, owls and hedgehogs.
The tragedy is not that Britain is celebrating its wildlife. It is that an institution appears to have decided that celebrating our wildlife means no longer celebrating some of our greatest people.
Churchill helped save this country from tyranny. Turing helped defeat the Nazi war machine. Austen and Turner helped establish Britain’s extraordinary cultural legacy. They deserve better than to be dismissed as relics of a supposedly divisive past.
And the British public deserve better than a consultation in which the most important decision was never properly put to them.
Britain should not be ashamed of its history. It should be proud of it. And if the Bank of England truly believes the public wants Churchill replaced by a bumblebee, it should have the courage to ask them.
