Arts, Books, Britain, History, Society

Book Review: Hearts And Minds

SUFFRAGISTS–SUFFRAGETTES

Smashed windows, lobbed bombs and underhand tactics. A fascinating new book in this 100th year of the suffragette movement casts new light on the bitter rivalry between the women who fought for the vote. The war between the sisters.

A USEFUL mnemonic for remembering the difference between suffragists and suffragettes is ‘Millicent: non-militant’.

Millicent Fawcett and her suffragist crowd were the peaceful ones who trundled around Britain in horse-drawn caravans, waved embroidered banners, dropped leaflets from hot-air balloons and used the art of gentle persuasion.

The suffragette Pankhurst and her troupe were the ones who went around smashing shop windows, bombing pillar-boxes and slashing paintings in the National Gallery.

Jane Robinson’s lively new book on the subject, published in this 100th anniversary year of the Representation of The People Act of 1918 – that, at last gave women the vote – is an excellent source of reading for fleshing out those spare bits of general knowledge.

Suffragists, Robinson tells us, were rude about suffragettes, calling them a “dictatorship movement of the sort that drives democracy out”. Suffragettes were rude and curt back, saying that suffragists were “staid, so willing to wait, so incorrigibly leisurely”.

The author of this book brings all these straight-backed Edwardian ladies to life, telling the story of the centrepiece of the suffragist movement: the Great Pilgrimage of 1913, in which thousands of suffragists walked all the way to London from far-flung corners of Britain for a mass rally of 50,000 in Hyde Park.

The aim was to drive the world’s attention (and that of stubborn prime minister Herbert Asquith) to the growing swell of opinion in favour of the women’s vote – and to prove women had the ability to turn the world upside down without violence.

 

THEIR peaceful protest proved to be the prototype for others, from the Jarrow march of 1936 to the Greenham Common peace camp of the 1980s.

Did the pilgrimage do any good? Well, trying to get Asquith to change his mind was like banging your head against a brick wall, and it would take a four-year World War to bring about the Act of Parliament for which the campaigners yearned.

But it was their suffragist training that gave women the confidence to step into men’s jobs when the war started; and by their war efforts in factories and hospitals they “worked out their own salvation”, as Asquith himself put it.

On a sunny morning in June 1913, the Great Pilgrimage began – the Watling Street Pilgrims setting off first, for their five-week walk from Carlisle.

It was thanks to a sensible piece of sartorial advice for the pilgrims – that skirt hems should be taken up four inches to prevent them getting caked in mud – that skirt lengths began their slow progression up the leg from that moment on.

Some pilgrims wore their smart new Burberry raincoats (“airy, light and porous … the ideal coat for the Pilgrimage”, according to Burberry’s own advertisement). Lady Rochdale, carrying her rolled umbrella, strode out side-by-side with Emily Murgatroyd, a weaver at a cotton mill since the age of ten. In those class-ridden days, this pilgrimage was the first coming-together of women from all walks of life – though the wealthier ones did enjoy the luxury of posting their dirty laundry home and picking up parcels of nice clean blouses en route.

The Land’s End Pilgrims started next, then the Great North Road Pilgrims, then the North Wales Pilgrims, and so on, until the Brighton and Kentish Pilgrims stepped out in the final week, all fixing their compasses on Hyde Park.

One of the less literate pilgrims spelled “suffrage” wrong in her diary – “sufferage”. Robinson coins this spelling mistake as a useful word to describe how some of them suffered for their cause. Vast swathes of the public couldn’t tell a ‘gist from a ‘gette, and classed them all as “pantomime villains” who deserved to be beaten up or pelted with rotten tomatoes, stones and rubbish.

In Birkenhead the Pilgrims were pelted with coal – not by disaffected men, but by women and children, reminding us that there was vociferous female as well as male “antis”, who believed that women should shut up and (as one poem went) be satisfied with “The right to brighten earthly homes / With pleasant smiles and gentle tones”.

To a woman, they picked themselves up, dusted themselves down, rearranged their sashes, and started all over again. They wore body armour in the form of pieces of cardboard which they moulded to the body in the bath and then allowed to dry, so they fitted snugly. The more “sufferage” they endured, the stronger their sense of sisterhood grew.

 

LUCKILY, there were just as many kind and supportive locals across the country who gave them hot baths, as well as crumpets for tea and beds for the night. By the day of the Hyde Park rally on July 26, the atmosphere in London was celebratory.

From the gates at all four corners of the park, thousands of pilgrims poured in. Seventy-eight speakers stood up on platforms, announcing that the “tide had turned”. An hour later, bugles sounded, and the resolution was proposed: “This meeting demands a Government measure for the enfranchisement of women.” It was passed unanimously.

A page later, Asquith’s pompously anticlimactic reply to the suffragists’ post-rally letter demanding that he take notice will have many readers banging their heads against a brick wall. “I feel bound to warn you,” he wrote, “that I do not see my way to add anything material to what I have lately said in the House of Commons as to the intentions and policy of the Government.” In other words, “Nice try, but no cigar.”

The suffragettes continued with their usual business of window-smashing and raiding Downing Street – all of which, the suffragists believed, did more harm than good to “the cause”, blackening the reputation of campaigners. Everyone was so busy smashing things up or not smashing things up that none of them noticed that “the war to end all wars” was creeping up behind them.

During that cataclysm of a war, women really proved their worth. By 1915, the slogans on their banners had changed to: “Shells Made by a Wife may Save a Husband’s Life”. And indeed they did.

Suffragists and suffragettes alike did astonishingly demanding war work, including running hospitals on the Western Front.

The great suffragist Katherine Harley – who had come up with the idea of the Great Pilgrimage – was killed in 1917 by a shell while caring for refugees in Serbia.

“We can’t give these suffragists and their militant sisters much in return,” Robinson writes, “except a promise to use the vote they fought so hard to win and, wherever it’s necessary, to keep on fighting.”

– Hearts And Minds by Jane Robinson is published by Doubleday for £20

Standard
Business, Government, Politics, Scotland, Society

Digital Economy: Many small firms not able to cope with cyber attack

SCOTLAND

ONE in five businesses in Scotland is unprepared for dealing with a cyber-attack, raising fears that the economy is at risk unless action is taken.

A Scottish Government survey of more than 3,000 firms has revealed 19 per cent of them are “not equipped” or “poorly equipped” for dealing with an attack.

The research indicates that the private sector is at risk if hackers deploy viruses to disrupt the Scottish economy, which could also threaten the personal information of firms’ customers.

. See also Digital interfacing must be embraced by public sector

The survey comes just months after a malware attack wreaked havoc on NHS Scotland as hackers deployed a virus that sealed off vitally important files and demanded payment to unlock them.

The findings have sparked calls for more help from the Scottish Government to ensure firms are better prepared to deal with such incidents.

In 2015, the Scottish Government set a target for Scotland to become “a world leading nation in cyber resilience” by 2020. The UK Government has previously blamed Russia for major cyber attacks and the growing tensions between the two countries have increased fears of another major strike.

Separate research found a quarter of firms are struggling to grow because of the threat of a cyber-attack.

A spokesperson for the Federation of Small Business in Scotland, said: “We know there is a growing digital threat out there for Scottish firms and that is why the FSB offers services to members on this and have made the case to government north and south of the Border for extra help for small businesses.

“Like traditional crime, firms need to keep themselves safe and take sensible precautions. There have been high-profile cases where crooks have got the better of businesses and firms large and small need to protect against that threat.”

The Scottish Government surveyed 3,258 firms as part of a Digital Economy report. It asked them to what extent they felt equipped to protect against and deal with cyber-security threats.

Nine per cent said they were “not equipped at all” to deal with a cyber-attack and 10 per cent were “poorly equipped”. A further 47 per cent described themselves as “somewhat equipped”, while only 30 per cent rated themselves as “fully equipped”.

Standard
Britain, Government, NATO, Russia, Society, United Nations

NATO stands united against reckless Russia

NATO

THE attack in Salisbury was the first offensive use of a nerve agent on NATO soil since the alliance was created in 1949. It involved one of the most toxic substances ever deployed. And the attack displayed total disrespect for human life.

As the fallout from the attack continues, many people have been rightly appalled that a chemical-nerve agent could be used in a small cathedral city. People there just go innocently about their daily lives.

All NATO allies stand in solidarity with Britain. The alliance has offered support as the investigation proceeds, and it has called on Russia to urgently address the UK’s questions. NATO also says that Russia should provide full disclosure of the Novichok programme to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

Any use of chemical weapons is a threat to international peace and security – an unacceptable breach of international norms and rules, which has no place in a civilised world.

Sadly, though, the attack in Salisbury comes against the backdrop of a reckless pattern of Russian behaviour over many years.

The illegal annexation of Crimea. Support to separatists in eastern Ukraine. Unwelcome Russian troops in Moldova and Georgia. Meddling in the domestic affairs of countries such as Montenegro. Attempts to undermine our democratic elections and institutions. Cyber-attacks and disinformation. And Russia has also been investing in new weapons, some of which carry nuclear warheads. NATO has responded: our defences are now stronger than at any point since the Cold War.

NATO has tripled the size of its multinational response force to 40,000 troops – with a 5,000-strong spearhead force ready to deploy anywhere within 72 hours. It has also stepped up air patrols over the Baltic and Black seas.

The alliance has deployed four battalion groups to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, with contributions from across the membership – a clear demonstration that the organisation stands together, all for one and one for all. Britain leads the battlegroup in Estonia; they’re protecting the whole of Europe.

When it comes to Russia, NATO’s response remains firm, defensive and proportionate. It won’t mirror Russia tank for tank, missile for missile, or soldier for soldier. It will continue to combine strong deterrence and defence with the search for meaningful political dialogue.

When tensions run high, and they invariably are, it’s important both sides talk to each other, to avoid misunderstandings and miscalculations. NATO does not want a new Cold War. And it certainly doesn’t want to be dragged into a new arms race. An arms race has no winners. It is expensive, risky, and in nobody’s interest.

Russia will continue to seek to divide us. But NATO allies stand united. Twenty-nine countries – representing half the world’s military and economic might.

Britain does not stand alone.

Standard