The reason Labour keeps its cards close to its chest.

I'm not a purist and I want Labour to be elected as the next government. To that end I don't care what Starmer does internally to make Labour electable and compliant with the law on equality or anything else. If Labour were to continue to squabble internally there would be a fair chance the Tories would get back in and we would be stuck with them for years, possibly with the buffoon as PM. People sniping at Starmer does not help.

Generally in any campaign you need the 'moderates' and the 'extremists' it happened with womens rights, it happened with gay rights, I am struggling to think of a movement for equality that didnt have both.

DaisyAnne

MaizieD

DaisyAnne

MaizieD

Casdon

Not sure you’re right there MaizieD. I think you need a new broom regime sometimes, with leaders who come in, re-evaluate, and see a situation differently, acting as a catalyst for change. That’s very different to extremism.

It's not a question of right or wrong and it can be achieved in a number of ways. I'm not thinking of it in a purely political context either. But it always, IME, the 'extremes' who get things moving.

( different from)

It sounds as if you have grasped yet another theory Maizie. This time it is the one that declares that it is the disruptor who produces change. Perhaps you should discuss this with the man who sees himself as the Great Disruptor, Boris Johnson.

Oh, get lost, DaisyAnne.

How did workers get improved terms and conditions if it wasn't for the 'extremist' trade unions?

Or women get the vote?

You're too focussed on attacking me to even bother to think about what I'm saying.

No move towards moderation from you then Maizie

Women did not get the vote because of the suffragettes - the extremists of the suffrage movement. They may have helped to get the first stage through - them and the war - but that gave additional voting rights to men who didn't have it too. The 1918 Representation of the People Act extended the vote to all men over 21 and women over 30 who were householders. There was still a long way to go. The other, more than half of women, did not get the vote on equal terms to men for another 10 years. Most historians put this down to the long-term moderate campaigning of the suffragists.

But it's a better story to say it was the suffragettes "what did it", isn't it?

Actually most historians put the restrictions on Women voters in 1918 down to the fact that if women had been given the vote on the same basis as men there would have been more women voting in that election than men, because so many men had been killed in the war. Politicians of all parties distrusted women and felt they wouldn't support their party.

By 1928 numbers had evened out.

The Labour Party (who might have reasonably been expected to continue campaigning for working class women to have the vote there being property restrictions as well as age) closed down the Women's Labour League (supposedly an organisation campaigning for universal suffrage) in 1918. abandoning those women who still didn't have the vote.

Grany

Clare Short blasts Starmer's Stalinism

On Not the Andrew Marr Show

Now what do you think of Starmer and his Labour Party
m.youtube.com/watch?v=GfjnxYzI1v4

Thanks for this Grany Clare Short, another Labour woman of principle who should have been better treated. There are so many of them.

Galaxy

Generally in any campaign you need the 'moderates' and the 'extremists' it happened with womens rights, it happened with gay rights, I am struggling to think of a movement for equality that didnt have both.

It would be interesting to study these and see how much the "extremists" have increased the chance of change and how much damage they have done.

In many cases, it's the small groups working in their community that improve things. High on my list would be Robert Lowes and those who formed the Manchester Warehousemen and Clerks, who worked to get Saturday afternoons off for all those working with them and then fought to get the same for the seamstresses. This was the beginning of the modern weekend. It spread across the country.

And then there is our NHS -an idea built on the community savings scheme that had been seen by some who had the power to expand it and build it nationally.

No one had to die, no laws had to be broken in the communities where these started.

I find the trouble with extremes is that there are always two. You get one who believes they are right, say, Mrs Thatcher, and another who believes they are right but sees things from the opposite direction, say, Arthur Scargill. They are usually both in search of power rather than answers. Please tell me what that achieved? Set one extreme against another - something that is bound to happen - and you get a war of some shape or size.

I don't believe we "need" wars.

Galaxy

Generally in any campaign you need the 'moderates' and the 'extremists' it happened with womens rights, it happened with gay rights, I am struggling to think of a movement for equality that didnt have both.

That is what I was more or less saying, Galaxy. I was just wilfully misrepresented.

As far as I can see, any challenge to the status quo or 'ruling theory' is initially seen as 'extreme'. It doesn't follow that it is violent, it's just a challenge. Though I see that even DaisyAnne says of the suffragettes They may have helped to get the first stage through They certainly brought it to the attention of a wider audience; which has to be done to get people talking and thinking about it.

As an idea gathers traction it will be pursued in various ways by virtue of the sheer diversity of those who carry it forward. And it has the potential to become mainstream and no longer seen as 'extreme'.

I imagine Sue Lawley thought the lesbians under the news desk were quite extreme .

The actions of extremists brings topics to our attention that might have passed us by. Suffragettes are a good example of that. We then have the opportunity to look further into new topics that may interest us and then become involved.

Another example is the action against the monuments of historic slave owners. Whilst we may not agree with the pulling down of statues etc it brought to our attention the activities of the slave trade and also the plantation owners.

MaizieD

Galaxy

Generally in any campaign you need the 'moderates' and the 'extremists' it happened with womens rights, it happened with gay rights, I am struggling to think of a movement for equality that didnt have both.

That is what I was more or less saying, Galaxy. I was just wilfully misrepresented.

As far as I can see, any challenge to the status quo or 'ruling theory' is initially seen as 'extreme'. It doesn't follow that it is violent, it's just a challenge. Though I see that even DaisyAnne says of the suffragettes They may have helped to get the first stage through They certainly brought it to the attention of a wider audience; which has to be done to get people talking and thinking about it.

As an idea gathers traction it will be pursued in various ways by virtue of the sheer diversity of those who carry it forward. And it has the potential to become mainstream and no longer seen as 'extreme'.

The campaign first developed into a national movement in the 1870s. At this point, all campaigners were suffragists, not suffragettes. Up until 1903, all campaigning took the constitutional approach.

And then someone wanted the power a more extreme movement would give her. In 1903 Emmeline Pankhurst and others, including from her own family, founded the Women's Social and Political Union. This gave her the power but stopped the movement from being as democratic as the suffragists were - just as any extreme movement can and usually does. There were still suffragists until the end. They probably didn't offer the personality politics that the newspapers love to write about, but they started, continued and brought to fruition women's suffrage.

Galaxy

Generally in any campaign you need the 'moderates' and the 'extremists' it happened with womens rights, it happened with gay rights, I am struggling to think of a movement for equality that didnt have both.

You are right that extremists often jump on the bandwagon of a idea which they can see has already caught on - it gives them the power extremist seek.

Whether you "need" extremists or not is quite another thing.

Agreed! Very unpleasant.

hilkin

Agreed! Very unpleasant.

It helps to say who or what you are replying to hilkin The posts can move quite quickly.

DaisyAnne

MaizieD

Galaxy

Generally in any campaign you need the 'moderates' and the 'extremists' it happened with womens rights, it happened with gay rights, I am struggling to think of a movement for equality that didnt have both.

That is what I was more or less saying, Galaxy. I was just wilfully misrepresented.

As far as I can see, any challenge to the status quo or 'ruling theory' is initially seen as 'extreme'. It doesn't follow that it is violent, it's just a challenge. Though I see that even DaisyAnne says of the suffragettes They may have helped to get the first stage through They certainly brought it to the attention of a wider audience; which has to be done to get people talking and thinking about it.

As an idea gathers traction it will be pursued in various ways by virtue of the sheer diversity of those who carry it forward. And it has the potential to become mainstream and no longer seen as 'extreme'.

The campaign first developed into a national movement in the 1870s. At this point, all campaigners were suffragists, not suffragettes. Up until 1903, all campaigning took the constitutional approach.

And then someone wanted the power a more extreme movement would give her. In 1903 Emmeline Pankhurst and others, including from her own family, founded the Women's Social and Political Union. This gave her the power but stopped the movement from being as democratic as the suffragists were - just as any extreme movement can and usually does. There were still suffragists until the end. They probably didn't offer the personality politics that the newspapers love to write about, but they started, continued and brought to fruition women's suffrage.

So many misconceptions. The WSPU was not formed as an extremist group. It was formed because the NUWSS always supported the Liberal candidate in GEs regardless of if the candidate believed in women's suffrage. The WSPU supported candidates who were in favour of womens suffrage, including Labour candidates.
Not all members of the WSPU were suffragettes, although many were pushed into militancy when they were attacked during peaceful demonstrations. The event which really turned public opinion in favour of votes for women was probably Black Friday, when this photograph shocked the public

I don't think these are misconceptions Glorianny, unless you were there of course which seems very unlikely.

I think it is, to some extent a case of "chose your historian".

But the evidence is clear. Between 1912 and 1915, hundreds of bombs were left on trains, in theatres, post offices, churches, even outside the Bank of England; while arson attacks on timber yards, railway stations and private houses inflicted an untold amount of damage. Yet the lives of the women who did this have been largely forgotten and erased from history, as a long-standing desire to sanitise the actions of suffragettes and portray them as perfect activists, or perfect martyrs, has altered our perception of even those whose names we know. While some historians have begun to acknowledge the violence and extremism of the WSPU, there remains a dominant belief that its violence amounted to little more than firecrackers in tins, or a few well aimed stones. This long-running historical myth has its roots among the suffragettes themselves.

People support extremism not always knowing what they are doing. At least you could be open-minded enough to admit that yours is one version of history and, as is always the case, we will never know the whole truth. What we do know is the leadership of this group wanted action.

Source: Fern Riddell, Published in History Today Volume 68 Issue 2 February 2018

DaisyAnne

I don't think these are misconceptions Glorianny, unless you were there of course which seems very unlikely.

I think it is, to some extent a case of "chose your historian".

But the evidence is clear. Between 1912 and 1915, hundreds of bombs were left on trains, in theatres, post offices, churches, even outside the Bank of England; while arson attacks on timber yards, railway stations and private houses inflicted an untold amount of damage. Yet the lives of the women who did this have been largely forgotten and erased from history, as a long-standing desire to sanitise the actions of suffragettes and portray them as perfect activists, or perfect martyrs, has altered our perception of even those whose names we know. While some historians have begun to acknowledge the violence and extremism of the WSPU, there remains a dominant belief that its violence amounted to little more than firecrackers in tins, or a few well aimed stones. This long-running historical myth has its roots among the suffragettes themselves.

People support extremism not always knowing what they are doing. At least you could be open-minded enough to admit that yours is one version of history and, as is always the case, we will never know the whole truth. What we do know is the leadership of this group wanted action.

Source: Fern Riddell, Published in History Today Volume 68 Issue 2 February 2018

That's a bit old hat DaisyAnne the person who first 'sanitised' the suffragettes actions was in fact Sylvia Pankhurst (Emmeline's daughter). Her history wiped out one of the most active suffragettes Kitty Marion, possibly for a number of reasons some unrelated to the suffrage cause. Kitty was of German birth and exiled to the US during WW1, she was an actress, and became involved in the family planning service, advocating legal abortion. None of these would have endeared her to the British public in 1918. But they aren't to do with her activities and militant actions. Her biography, based on her handwritten autobiography(unpublished) was published recently.
But as I said the misconception is that all the women involved in the WSPU were militant and damaged property. They weren't. Read Elizabeth's Crawford and her lists of members of the WSPU some of them were women with reputations to maintain. Actually the leadership condemned militancy which was why Emily Wilding Davison was at Epsom alone and why a secret group called "The Youngbloods" existed in London.

To clarify, I do not believe the suffragettes are the main or even the majority reason why we have the vote. I think we would see them as radicalised, in this day and age. Some did it for what they believed were the best of reasons but I have yet to find a revolutionary leader who does not have a personal axe to grind. I would not have joined their ranks or seen them as heroic. I might have been a suffragist.

If you are going to be derogatory about my thinking, my opinion, and my view on the basis that those with more knowledgeable than either of us is "old hat", I don't think you are worth the conversation. There are quite a few "old hat" historians who we would each be happy to refer to although in your case, I can see, only if it substantiated your thinking. You are in good company with that on this forum.

What amazes me is that Maizie can tell another poster to “get lost” and only a brave few take issue!! Bigotry and hatred are as much the province of far left supporters as those of the far right.
ExperiencedNotOld was right. Some of you have no sympathy with the ordinary working class, who see the world around them changing with no concern for their fears. Do you really think the leaders of the current Labour Party understand the concern of the traditional working class person about uncontrolled immigration and mainly from a religion which treats women so badly and approves of throwing gay men off high buildings? So they dislike people being accommodated in hotels because the Civil Service is so poor at processing asylum applications and they do not like “foreign” men approaching their female family members on the streets? Well I do understand their unease and I shake my head at the sudden resignation of Ms Sturgeon because the average Scot does not support her Gender Recognition Law. This woman so supported by Maizie and a few others here. I wonder what they will feel if the religious female candidate becomes the SNP leader and scraps Nicola’s attempt to support a rapist changing his gender ….Cannot wait to see what happens. I do not think Sir Keir wants the support of Maizie however much she hates the Tories!

DaisyAnne

To clarify, I do not believe the suffragettes are the main or even the majority reason why we have the vote. I think we would see them as radicalised, in this day and age. Some did it for what they believed were the best of reasons but I have yet to find a revolutionary leader who does not have a personal axe to grind. I would not have joined their ranks or seen them as heroic. I might have been a suffragist.

If you are going to be derogatory about my thinking, my opinion, and my view on the basis that those with more knowledgeable than either of us is "old hat", I don't think you are worth the conversation. There are quite a few "old hat" historians who we would each be happy to refer to although in your case, I can see, only if it substantiated your thinking. You are in good company with that on this forum.

So why didn't we get the vote in 1911 or 1913 when Bills were before Parliament Daisy Anne? Suffragists had been active since 1869 so why 50years later hadn't they achieved their objective? Women could vote in local elections and stand for local councils well before then.

Your view isn’t the widely accepted one Glorianny. Here’s some archive material from the BBC, note the momentum and ‘concessions’ before the suffragettes - it was going to happen regardless. Not to say it wasn’t speeded up by their actions, but the move towards the universal vote was inexorable without.
www.bbc.co.uk/teach/did-the-suffragettes-win-women-the-vote/z7736v4

The "get lost" is water off a duck's back Anniel and I'm not sure anyone other than me "took issue". Maizie believes that her perception of politics is the only right one and that anyone disagreeing with that perception is attacking her personally. That must feel uncomfortable, so she retaliates. It has often been the case in both religion and politics.

However, you are doing much the same, aren't you? You are attacking those - not as personally in this case, I admit - who don't share your perspective.

We will not all agree, but neither is this a church for the extremists to come along and preach that their way is the only way. Sometimes I think that years ago, some of the posters on here would have gone off to other countries, with their missionary zeal, to tell the people that their God is not the right God and their way of believing is not the right one and - oh look - I can show you how to think and behave when it comes to these things.

Casdon

Your view isn’t the widely accepted one Glorianny. Here’s some archive material from the BBC, note the momentum and ‘concessions’ before the suffragettes - it was going to happen regardless. Not to say it wasn’t speeded up by their actions, but the move towards the universal vote was inexorable without.
www.bbc.co.uk/teach/did-the-suffragettes-win-women-the-vote/z7736v4

I would say Casdon that most male historians are influenced by their ideas of how women should act and behave. It took over 100 years to erase the perceived view of Emily Wilding Davison that she was erratic, a little unhinged and unstable. The historians view until 1969 was that she threw herself under the King's horse. Then "One way ticket to Epsom" was published, but her actions were only proved to be well thought out, logical and planned when Lucy Fisher published her biography and detailed her speeches and writing. Women cannot be acknowledged as militant or violent and any women who behaved in such a manner cannot be credited with anything.

Glorianny

DaisyAnne

To clarify, I do not believe the suffragettes are the main or even the majority reason why we have the vote. I think we would see them as radicalised, in this day and age. Some did it for what they believed were the best of reasons but I have yet to find a revolutionary leader who does not have a personal axe to grind. I would not have joined their ranks or seen them as heroic. I might have been a suffragist.

If you are going to be derogatory about my thinking, my opinion, and my view on the basis that those with more knowledgeable than either of us is "old hat", I don't think you are worth the conversation. There are quite a few "old hat" historians who we would each be happy to refer to although in your case, I can see, only if it substantiated your thinking. You are in good company with that on this forum.

So why didn't we get the vote in 1911 or 1913 when Bills were before Parliament Daisy Anne? Suffragists had been active since 1869 so why 50years later hadn't they achieved their objective? Women could vote in local elections and stand for local councils well before then.

You don't get it, do you Glorianny? I was discussing whether we need the extremists and whether they do more harm than good. I don't really care about your opinion regarding women's suffrage and I certainly don't come on GN to be lectured.

I have tried to explain my point of view. I don't care if you agree or not. I'm sure there are some instances where I could be convinced that terrorism and attacks on democracy have done more good than harm but I have yet to come across them. As far as I can see revolutions often hurt most the people they say they set out to help.

I am interested in others' views and how they arrived at them but your hectoring is just a complete turn-off from this forum.

DaisyAnne

Glorianny

DaisyAnne

To clarify, I do not believe the suffragettes are the main or even the majority reason why we have the vote. I think we would see them as radicalised, in this day and age. Some did it for what they believed were the best of reasons but I have yet to find a revolutionary leader who does not have a personal axe to grind. I would not have joined their ranks or seen them as heroic. I might have been a suffragist.

If you are going to be derogatory about my thinking, my opinion, and my view on the basis that those with more knowledgeable than either of us is "old hat", I don't think you are worth the conversation. There are quite a few "old hat" historians who we would each be happy to refer to although in your case, I can see, only if it substantiated your thinking. You are in good company with that on this forum.

So why didn't we get the vote in 1911 or 1913 when Bills were before Parliament Daisy Anne? Suffragists had been active since 1869 so why 50years later hadn't they achieved their objective? Women could vote in local elections and stand for local councils well before then.

You don't get it, do you Glorianny? I was discussing whether we need the extremists and whether they do more harm than good. I don't really care about your opinion regarding women's suffrage and I certainly don't come on GN to be lectured.

I have tried to explain my point of view. I don't care if you agree or not. I'm sure there are some instances where I could be convinced that terrorism and attacks on democracy have done more good than harm but I have yet to come across them. As far as I can see revolutions often hurt most the people they say they set out to help.

I am interested in others' views and how they arrived at them but your hectoring is just a complete turn-off from this forum.

Wow so arguing your point of view is hectoring.
If you want another example of militant behaviour look at Ireland and the 1916 uprising. There certainly wouldn't have been an independent Ireland without it.

Wow so arguing your point of view is hectoring.
If you want another example of militant behaviour look at Ireland and the 1916 uprising. There certainly wouldn't have been an independent Ireland without it.

I was using the examples I cited to show why I don't think extremism, radicalism, fanaticism, or whatever we call it, make very much difference in the changes that happen over time. There was no need to argue them in detail. I don't require you to come along and indocrinated me.

General information freely passed on, on the other hand, is always interesting, but I don't think you know the difference.

You've said extremism doesn't work. I've provided examples of when it has.
I could add the French Revolution, the Boston tea party and the War of Independence, the Cuban revolution and others. Extremists started them all.