Lambeth says: Save Our Statues!
First analysis of public consultation shows overwhelming support for status quo.
The London Borough of Lambeth’s two-month public consultation on what it calls “statues, memorials and street names with associations with the trans-Atlantic Slave Trade and colonialism” has now ended. Given that the raw responses are available online (and rather than wait forever for the Council to spin the results), I thought I would just scroll through the 1,000 responses and analyse them myself.
To briefly remind you of the background, the subjects for consultation were established in a report published in November 2020, which introduced a traffic light system of “controversy” – a ludicrously simplistic way of assessing history that reduces humanity down to “good” and “bad”, devoid of nuance and context. But perhaps the most distasteful aspect of this report was its inclusion of several tombs as targets for possible action, including those of Henry Tate and Captain Bligh of HMS Bounty.
The format of the consultation split these into five categories: one for statues, one for street names, another for street names with “uncertain” links, and then two dedicated sections relating to two prominent local personages, Sir Henry Tulse and Richard Henry Vassall-Fox. The results of these categories are summarised below.
Lambeth Council asked the people. The people answered. Now the onus is on Lambeth to listen. In every category, an overwhelming majority supports the status quo. Only 17% want street names changed and a mere 6% want statues removed. Far more say ‘do nothing’ than support plaques. If the Council ignores this and presses ahead with plaques regardless, it will be flagrantly ignoring those it asked and making it clear that it’s pursuing its own divisive political agenda. Enough time and money has been wasted on this. The message from the people is loud and clear: end it now and move on.
Statues
The vast majority of respondents not only want the statues to stay, but also rejected plaques. Only 13 people (6%) said they wanted statues removed. Of the 94% of people who want the statues to stay, 75% of those said to take no action. This was 2.5 times as many people as suggested plaques (154 vs 59).
This category included the statue of Sir Robert Clayton at St Thomas’ Hospital. A 2020 application to move it was withdrawn after we raised 630 objections, yet nearly two years on it remains shamefully boarded up. Of the 162 people who specifically commented on the Clayton statue, only 11 wanted it removed. Hopefully this convincing rejection is enough to now end the hospital’s vendetta against its benefactor and builder.
Street Names
People were asked for their opinions on four streets: Juxon Street, Tradescant Road, Rhodesia Road and Thurlow Road. Once again, the response was convincing with only 29 people (17%) supporting any name change. Of the 83% who want the names to stay, 74% of those said to do nothing – well more than twice as many as support an information board (107 vs 44).
Street Names with “uncertain origins”
Four more street names were in this category: Burgoyne Road, Cromwell Road, Dundas Road and Nelson’s Row. The Council said that “if the community expresses a strong desire” it would erect information boards at these sites (or, more accurately, “speculation” boards, given that they admit they don’t know the facts of any connections). Luckily, they have been saved the embarrassment of these “speculation boards” because only 8 people expressed support. On the other hand, an overwhelming 83% said to do nothing at all. It’s fairly clear where the “strong desire” really lays.
Vassall
Four out of five people said not to rename anything, with only 61 of 298 supporting a name change. Of that 80%, the majority of them (58%) again rejected any kind of plaque and said to do nothing.
Tulse
Again, more than four out of five (83%) said not to rename anything, with only 48 supporting a name change. And again, the majority of those (52%) also rejected plaques and said to do nothing.