The Governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, wants us to believe that Winston Churchill must be marched off Britain’s banknotes for “security reasons”.
Security reasons.
This is the sort of logic that arrives fully dressed in a pinstripe suit, armed with a PowerPoint presentation, and assumes nobody will notice that the argument fell apart three slides ago.
For decades Britain has managed perfectly well to produce secure banknotes while featuring heroes such as Newton, Darwin, Shakespeare, Austen and Churchill. Yet suddenly we are asked to believe that the real obstacle standing between civilisation and a flood of counterfeit fivers is not criminal gangs, not advances in printing technology, but Winston Churchill’s face.
Apparently counterfeiters have finally cracked Churchill.
One imagines shadowy criminal masterminds gathering in underground bunkers. “Gentlemen,” says the kingpin, “the holograms defeated us. The polymer defeated us. The ultraviolet security strips defeated us. But Churchill? Churchill was our greatest ally.”
The argument collapses the moment you examine it. Security features can be updated. Portraits can be refreshed. Designs can evolve. Countries all over the world manage to strengthen their currencies against fraud without removing the historical figures who helped define them. None of that requires pretending that Britain’s greatest wartime leader has somehow become a national vulnerability.
What makes this episode so revealing is the bureaucratic mindset behind it. Increasingly, our institutions seem to regard history as a problem to be managed rather than an inheritance to be celebrated. Churchill is not on the £5 note because he had a nice hat or a recognisable silhouette. He is there because, at Britain’s darkest hour, he embodied resilience, courage and defiance. His presence serves as a reminder that this country once produced extraordinary people capable of extraordinary things.
Yet now we are told that perhaps a badger, a puffin, an otter or a salmon would be a more fitting representation of Britain. No disrespect to the wildlife. The otter has many admirable qualities. But I somehow doubt that in 1940 the nation would have rallied behind a promise to fight them on the beaches beneath the inspirational gaze of a kingfisher.
The deeper problem is that modern officialdom increasingly prefers symbols that make no demands on us. Historical figures remind us of achievement, sacrifice and national story. They force us to think about who we are, where we came from and what we owe those who came before us. Wildlife, by contrast, is pleasant. Wildlife is safe. Wildlife does not argue back.
That, I suspect, is why so many people find this proposal so irritating. It is not really about banknote design. It is about a growing sense that Britain’s institutions are forever trying to sand down the sharp edges of our national story. We are encouraged to celebrate “heritage” in the abstract while the actual men and women who shaped that heritage are quietly ushered towards the exit.
The public are perfectly capable of deciding whether they want Churchill on their money. My suspicion is that many people enjoy carrying around a small reminder of Britain’s history rather more than they would enjoy carrying around something that looks like an expensive National Trust membership card.
If security genuinely requires a redesign, then redesign it. Add holograms. Add new materials. Add laser-etched unicorns if you must. But spare us the suggestion that Winston Churchill has suddenly become a counterfeiting risk. The Bank of England is asking the public to swallow an argument so implausible that even a forged £20 note would struggle to pass it.
And so, Mr Bailey, if you truly believe the British people are clamouring to remove Churchill from their banknotes, then make that case honestly. Tell us plainly that this is a cultural choice. Tell us plainly that you believe wildlife is a better symbol of Britain than the man who led Britain through its finest hour. Tell us plainly that millions of people who like seeing Churchill on their money are mistaken.
But do not expect us to believe that Winston Churchill has suddenly become a security threat.
The British people are many things. They are patient. They are tolerant. They are often astonishingly forgiving. But they are not fools. They know the difference between a security feature and a national symbol. They know the difference between modernisation and vandalism. And they know a counterfeit argument when they see one.
The people did not ask for this. The people do not want this. And the people will have their say.
We will make our case in newspapers, online and wherever this debate is had. We will defend our history, defend our symbols and defend the right of ordinary people to decide what represents their nation.
The people want Churchill.
The Blob wants a salmon.
Let’s see who wins.
Just you wait.
Claire Bullivant – CEO, The Great British PAC
