h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A century ago my Great-Grandfathers and Great-Grandmothers got the vote! Yes, before 1918 only the wealthiest 60% of men held the franchise – it was felt that only if you owned a fair portion of the country should you have a say in how it is run. Also before 1918, you had to be resident in the UK in order to qualify to vote, so any man who had served his country during the Great War had been disenfranchised, leaving only rich old men allowed to vote – until a century ago today!

So we all owe a huge debt to Dame Millicent Fawcett, suffragist and President of the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies.

<BB<

Good morning Bluebottle. This is really interesting and would make a great guide entry. I am astonished by how late in history we got the right to vote, and although I am ashamed by the level of public service many of our politicians provide, hopefully democracy will survive them.

While ing 'power to the people', may I just point out that eliminating the property requirement in the US led to the election of Andrew Jackson?

Voter education is an absolute necessity in a democracy.

The UK was the 8th country on to give the vote to women. But I know I would be completely the wrong person to write about it. I have considered writing an entry on the history of suffrage in the UK from Henry VI onwards. Many people have a distorted idea of history and don’t realise that most men in the UK couldn’t vote until 1888, when 60% could vote, and it wasn't until 1918 that all men got the vote. Similarly, people believe that Suffragettes believed in votes for women when in fact the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU) believed in votes for wealthy women whereas Suffragists (National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies or NUWSS) believed in universal suffrage, but the suffragettes had a more organised publicity department that was quick to take credit for any achievement suffragists made.

The Suffragists and Suffragettes had different aims, which would need an understanding of the politics of the time. The real question wasn't 'Should women have the vote?' but rather 'Which women, if any, should have the vote?' Many Liberal politicians were in favour in principle in allowing women to vote, but the Conciliation Bills of 1910-1912 proposed giving the vote to wealthy women, who they believed would likely vote Conservative and so voted against.
Another factor is that in Edwardian England expanding suffrage to working men or women just wasn't considered a priority by Parliament. There were strikes that crippled the country, particularly the 1912 Miner's Strike. There was the threat of war with Germany. There was also the threat of civil war in Ireland, with the south demanding home rule and Ulster stating they would start an armed rebellion if the south were given home rule.

Before 1918 Labour wanted universal suffrage but had no power, the Conservative Party had power but weren't interested except as a means of boosting their own power, proposing Conciliation Bills that would only give voting rights to the wealthiest women, and the Liberal Party were all in favour in principle but knew that if women got the vote, they would lose out. The 1918 Representation of the People Act fundamentally changed the political landscape of the UK. As well as allowing women to vote, it allowed the working class to vote for the first time. Before the 1918 Representation of the People Act, the Labour Party had never been in government; after it the Liberal Party has never been in government (except as a minority coalition).

The 1918 Representation of the People Acts wasn't the end of the story, although the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act 1918 was passed only nine months later, allowing women to be elected to Parliament. One woman was elected in December 1918, however she was a Sinn Fein candidate who following her party's tradition of Abstentionism, boycotted Parliament. True voter equality following the 1928 Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act – this delay was to try and restore the balance following the Great War – even so, in many London boroughs in the 1918 elections the number of women voters outnumbered men 20 to 1.

<BB<

Elektra's right. This is really interesting and would make a great guide entry.

And it sounds like Bluebottle's the knowledgeable one, too.

I had no idea that universal suffrage came so late in the UK. This is a fascinating subject, and one we need in the Guide. Written by a British Researcher, might I add.

*cough* Isle-of-Wightian researcher *cough*

I wish whoever you get to write it .

The funny thing is that a majority in Parliament agreed in 1897 that (some) women should be able to vote, but MPs disagreed with which women should vote as the Liberals Conservatives didn't want to advantage the Liberals and vice versa. Although the majority of Liberal MPs believed women should have the vote, the Liberal Prime Ministers William Gladstone (1868-1874, 1880-1885, 1886, 1892-1894) and Herbert Asquith (1908-1916) opposed. Asquith believed women were more conservative than men and would therefore vote Conservative. This led the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies or NUWSS to campaign in favour of the Labour Party. Was Asquith right to believe that giving women the vote would be political suicide for the Liberal party? They've never formed a government since.

From 1905 there were quite regular private members and conciliation bills on the subject and in 1910 women came close to gaining the votes, but when they didn't sadly when the Suffragettes started their campaign of arson, bombing churches, breaking windows, slashing paintings in the National Gallery etc, in the belief that no publicity would be bad publicity. The result? The government had no choice but to refuse to give in to that sort of pressure in the way that no government gives in to blackmail by terrorists and the movement lost a lot of support. As long as women were committing those sort of acts, the government would not give women the vote as it would involve losing face, which resulted in a pointless stalemate. Fortunately the suffragette movement only delayed women getting the vote for a few years as the suffragettes stopped their violent campaign at the outbreak of war in 1914, while the suffragists continued their peaceful approach. The Representation of the People Act came at a time when there had been no militant suffragette activity for over three years, meaning the government could give women the vote without having appeared to be bowing to the pressure of the suffragettes.

The other prevailing rumour is that women were given the vote then as a reward for manning the factories etc during the war. That's a lovely story, but sadly untrue. The female workers in the factories were predominantly under 30, while the Representation of the People Act enfranchised women over 30 – in other words, the women who hadn't been doing any work during the war.

Tell you what, if you want I can turn this conversation into an entry for if you want to bung it in Monday's edition?

<BB<

It is a fascinating and difficult period of history...

I guess all the action was part of it, that the criminal acts showed that the issue needed to be taken seriously and couldn't be ignored, but does indeed potentially have the effect of making the powers that be not want to be seen to give in...

Quite a few disabled people have been accused of criminal acts over the years, fighting for our rights, but things like chaining themselves to buses and being taken out of their wheelchairs by police did tend to increase rather than decrease support - the Disability Discrimination Act was created in 1995 following protests in 1992 and later. Even last year my disabled friend was arrested for protesting against US health insurance changes, but the protesters didn't cause any damage, just occupied a particular space.

I watched the Clare Balding documentary last night about Emily Wilding Davison A5882033 - very sobering, to say the least, but fascinating how her final actions were captured on three film cameras so modern technology was able to triangulate and recreate the terrible scene... Clare's conclusion was that Emily was trying to give the King's horse a Votes For Women scarf but misjudged the speed of the horse...

That's a good point - it's important to see all sides. I'm not trying to detract from the bravery of individuals. Emily Davison cheekily hiding in a cupboard in the House of Parliament on census night is definitely admirable, while s force-feeding women on hunger strikes is horrific. There's no doubt that both sides are guilty of unconscionable acts.

But the emphasises should be on celebrating that the law was passed – even though it took too long. But that's politicians for you, less interested in doing what is right than doing what is right for their party and pocket…

<BB<

BB, you do realise that your comments in this conversation already make up about half of the Entry already, don't you? nudgenudge

There are many sides to every story, and this is just briefly telling the political side. I don't want people to think I am detracting from any suffragists' individual achievements or trying to stop their story being told. I'm not – and I wholeheartedly encourage everyone to sign petitions, go on marches and write to newspapers and their MPs (or equivalent) and so forth for what they believe in. That's important.

But the suffragists and suffragettes isn't the whole story, and the power to grant votes to women was held by a few hundred men in Parliament. I'm not trying to turn the story of the women's struggle for the vote into a story about men, I'm really not, and I don't want to be lynched if people think that I'm implying that. However Parliament had the power, and you can't escape that. Public opinion influences Parliament, but Parliament has the final say, so Parliament is the stumbling block. By the 1910s it was generally believed that the majority women were conservative, being interested in looking after the home, while the Liberals held power.

The 100,000 wealthiest women in the UK almost got the vote in the 1884 Reform Act, which extended the vote to about 60% of men if Gladstone hadn't opposed on the grounds that he felt that wealthy women would certainly vote Tory. While some MPs genuinely believed women should note vote, the vast majority were less interested in the question 'should women vote' and far more interested in 'will women vote for me?' After all, suffrage affects MPs quite directly – everyone in the House of Commons knew that under the established system they had a good chance of being re-elected. If you extend the franchise, they might not be re-elected. That gives each MP a strong motive to keep the status quo.

So how do you reassure MPs that women will vote for them? This is where the suffragettes and suffragists had different approaches, in addition to both holding rallies, petitions, leaftlets etc. The suffragists under Millicent Fawcett befriended MPs, invited them to parties where they would meet lots of women interested in votes for women, who would befriend them too. And befriend and recruit the MPs wives, sisters, mothers etc. All to give the message 'women are your friends, please give us the vote'.
Suffragettes burnt MPs houses down instead.

Now there's no doubt that 'suffragette burns down MP's house!' attracts more newspaper attention than 'suffragist invites MP to tea'. However – and please prove me wrong - I don't know of any MPs who said in Parliament or to a newspaper, 'Yesterday a suffragette burnt my house down so I've decided to become a lifelong supporter of women's suffrage'. Did it really help the cause?*

Meanwhile in Russia in 1917 there was a bit of an uprising. Uprisings tend to scare MPs, as fear that they'll lose their heads is an even more pressing worry than concern they'll lose their seat. Was there anything that could be done to ensure there would be no uprising here? (Don't forget there had been severe strikes earlier in the decade). Suddenly in early 1918 in Britain the Representation of the People Act gave the vote to the poorest men (who were expected to be left wing) and women over 30 (who were expected to be right wing) and, aside from the disappearance of the Liberal party, left the country politically stable and free from revolution. Is that a coincidence?

As I said, this isn't the whole story. It's a greatly simplified summary of the motives of hundreds of people that is part of a much larger story. But I can't see an entry that tells the story of women's suffrage from the point of view of male politicians in Parliament as working. Not standalone, anyway. If someone else wrote a counter-balancing entry of the struggle at the same time that this linked to then maybe it could hide in the shadow and get away with it.

<BB<

* I will concede that during the Great War, MPs who hadn't had their homes burnt down yet may well have thought, 'If I vote to give women the vote now, the Government doesn't look weak, my home won't be burnt down, and women get the vote – so win/win/win'

"But the emphasises should be on celebrating that the law was passed – even though it took too long."

Yes

Yes, I was amused in the documentary by the Census return showing Emily's address as the Houses of Parliament!

"Now there's no doubt that 'suffragette burns down MP's house!' attracts more newspaper attention than 'suffragist invites MP to tea'"

Yes - reminds me of Lord Leverhulme, who was a supporter of Votes for Women, but was high profile so he wasn't immune from one of his houses being burned down as it was very newsworthy... A87886525