What if universal suffrage was not introduced in to the UK in 1918 and was delayed until post WW2 or equivalent (I have no idea how it would affect ww2), and male only universal suffrage is implemented, either that or the pre war franchise being continued.
WI: UK:women's suffrage not introduced after ww1.
- Thread starter Vylon Disigma
- Start date
There were practical drivers OTL. Thanks to the Pals Battalions (which Terry Pratchett once described as "a horribly innocent way of wiping out a whole neighbourhood") there were whole streets and villages in which there were practically no male voters left and there was a general feeling of gratitude to the suffragettes and suffragists for their whole hearted dedication and strenuous efforts in the war effort- which had significantly weakened the traditionalist view of women as not being capable of making decisions in the political sphere.
Hammerbolt
Donor
This. Ugly as it sounds, the war was actually good for women's rights; their physical presence in factories, arsenals and other places, or driving buses and trucks, proved they could do "a man's work" far more than any previous debates or speeches.
You would have to butterfly away World War I. There is a reason why women view the World Wars as a major step in their liberation from the patriarchy of the early 20th Century. You ever hear the old saying "Give a inch and take a mile"? Well, the British government gave their women an inch by allowing them to volunteer for gruelling and in some cases, literally poisonous work putting together munitions and other materials for the war effort. The suffragette movement was the women taking their much deserved mile.
Also before the war the Suffragettes were a very strong organised force in modern terms a mass direct action organisation. If the women who worked and suffered in the war had not received the vote there would have been violent riots on the streets and most people would have supported or at least sympathised. The government might well fall and any incoming government would have be elected on a platform including votes for women.
But then why did countries like France or Belgium which also had large women participation in the workforce during ww1 didn’t put universal suffrage until the post ww2 (44 in France, 48 in Belgium), while countries like the U.K. and Germany put it just after ww1?
I mean in France from what I know it’s mostly because the senate opposes it strongly and shut down several attempts to give the voting right to women, partially because it was thought at the time women’s vote would give more power to the church and undermine the recent french separation of church and state. I don’t know much about Belgium,
I know these circumstances are not applicable to the U.K. but surely something can be changed in the interwar politics of the U.K. and the pre war feminism to make
Women’s suffrage happen in the 30s or post ww2 (if it still happens), since it clearly was not automatic in other european countries
Point of order, universal suffrage was not implemented in the UK in 1918. That wasn't until 1928. It was only limited suffrage in 1918, over 30's IIRC.
Anyway, immediately post WW1 there was a real risk of revolution. The working classes were not well off at all, despite the prevailing foreign view of everyone British from this era living in their own version of Downton Abbey, not to mention the war in Ireland. No suffrage for the fairer sex means more agitation and more extreme solutions both put forward and possibly followed by more people.
Anyway, immediately post WW1 there was a real risk of revolution. The working classes were not well off at all, despite the prevailing foreign view of everyone British from this era living in their own version of Downton Abbey, not to mention the war in Ireland. No suffrage for the fairer sex means more agitation and more extreme solutions both put forward and possibly followed by more people.
The Representation of the People Act of 1918 (which allowed women over the age of 30 who were married to a member of the Local Government Register to vote) and the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act 1918 (which allowed women to be elected to Parliament) were passed in February and November 1918, respectively. The government put in a limit on how many women could vote by making the voting age for women to be 30, while men could be vote as young as 21, this was due to the catastrophic loss of men to the war which the government feared could lead to women to replacing men as the majority of the electorate. The RPA Act alone allowed 8.4 million women to gain the vote. The Representation of the People Act 1928 (which allowed for universal suffrage) added five million more women to the vote.
As long as that male electorate is well-sustained, I don't see the government being persuaded to undertake female suffrage. Also, seeing women put their lives on the line for the war effort caused anti-suffragette sentiment to decline, so with no war, society is still hesitant to support female suffrage due to the prevailing attitudes of the time and because the male electorate is still alive and thriving.
Hammerbolt
Donor
France and Belgium are/were Catholic countries. Despite everything, the background in upbringing this brings often results in fewer women's rights.
Irrelevant, you can’t reduce this to simple Catholic/Protestant difference, plus I explicitly said that one of the main reason France didn’t put it in the interwar was in opposition to the Church. And Benedict XV expressed himself in favour of women suffrage in 1919.
Case in point: In switerzland, the Protestant majority appenzell outer Rhodes canton gave women suffrage as late as the neighbouring catholic majority appenzell inner Rhodes, both in 1989/1990, no significant difference
It also allowed memories of the pre-war suffragette campaign to fade, so the question "should women vote" could be judged on its intrinsic merits and the contribution of women to the war effort you refer to, rather than inspiring the instinctive negative reaction that tends to occur when the most visible proponents of a political cause are a terrorist group.
You could argue that as terrorists the Suffragettes actually harmed the cause of Women's rights and sabotaged the efforts of the non violent Suffragists. (and yes the bomb throwing suffragettes were terrorists no matter how just their cause. Which it was).
Why would it be inevitably be introduced? The US has been one democratic president with a large enough majority away from getting national healthcare since the 1930s OTL, so nothing explicitly says the UK _has_ to let women vote.
Except for the fact that a decent portion of the Liberals were already in favour. With different party leadership, Britain could have had women's suffrage before WWI.
Slight correction: With different party leadership and no Emmeline Pankhurst Britain could have had women's suffrage before WWI.
In order for women to get the vote a bill granting them it has to get through Parliament, including the House of Lords. Now after 1911 the government can use the Parliament act to force it through, but it would be very much a last choice after years of failed attempts.
There's the option of stuffing the Lords with enough Liberal Peers.
From Wikipedia (I know not incredibly reliable)
Arson, bombs, and property damage[edit]
Throughout the suffragette movement, many violent tactics were employed in order to achieve its goals. Throughout Britain, the contents of letterboxes were set alight or corrosive acids or liquids poured over the letters inside, and shop and office windows were smashed. Telephone wires were cut, and graffiti slogans began appearing on the streets. Places that wealthy people, typically men, frequented were also burnt and destroyed while unattended so that there was no risk to life, including cricket grounds, golf courses and horse-racing tracks.[39] Pinfold Manor in Surrey, which was being built for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, David Lloyd George, was targeted with two bombs on 19 February 1913, only one of which exploded, causing significant damage; in her memoirs, Sylvia Pankhurst said that Emily Davison had carried out the attack.[39] There were 250 arson or destruction attacks in a six-month period in 1913.[39] There are reports in the Parliamentary Papers which include lists of the 'incendiary devices', explosions, artwork destruction (including an axe attack upon a painting of The Duke of Wellington in the National Gallery), arson attacks, window-breaking, postbox burning and telegraph cable breaking that took place during the most militant years, from 1910 to 1914.[40] Both suffragettes and police spoke of a "Reign of Terror"; newspaper headlines referred to "Suffragette Terrorism".[41]
No government is going to force a bill through Parliament that would be giving in to the demands of those committing such acts of terrorism. It would make them look weak. Also how long does it take until these acts of violence escalate to bombing public places like sports grounds and theatres as well as assassinations?
Arson, bombs, and property damage[edit]
Throughout the suffragette movement, many violent tactics were employed in order to achieve its goals. Throughout Britain, the contents of letterboxes were set alight or corrosive acids or liquids poured over the letters inside, and shop and office windows were smashed. Telephone wires were cut, and graffiti slogans began appearing on the streets. Places that wealthy people, typically men, frequented were also burnt and destroyed while unattended so that there was no risk to life, including cricket grounds, golf courses and horse-racing tracks.[39] Pinfold Manor in Surrey, which was being built for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, David Lloyd George, was targeted with two bombs on 19 February 1913, only one of which exploded, causing significant damage; in her memoirs, Sylvia Pankhurst said that Emily Davison had carried out the attack.[39] There were 250 arson or destruction attacks in a six-month period in 1913.[39] There are reports in the Parliamentary Papers which include lists of the 'incendiary devices', explosions, artwork destruction (including an axe attack upon a painting of The Duke of Wellington in the National Gallery), arson attacks, window-breaking, postbox burning and telegraph cable breaking that took place during the most militant years, from 1910 to 1914.[40] Both suffragettes and police spoke of a "Reign of Terror"; newspaper headlines referred to "Suffragette Terrorism".[41]
No government is going to force a bill through Parliament that would be giving in to the demands of those committing such acts of terrorism. It would make them look weak. Also how long does it take until these acts of violence escalate to bombing public places like sports grounds and theatres as well as assassinations?