And conversely, other questions not in the Guardian we can answer with a yes would be:
Millions of women do vote. Did the suffragists suffer in vain?
Hallowed Be
Was it the right to vote the suffragists suffered for or the obligation to vote?
Rob
One interesting fact about the Suffragette movement which has been buried deep was their bellicosity against Germany on the outbreak of war. I think the “white feather” thing originated with them, goading men into getting themselves killed fighting the Bosche.
An example of an early 20th century ideology filtered and misrepresented to suit a late 20th century one.
Andrew K
“An example of an early 20th century ideology filtered and misrepresented to suit a late 20th century one.”
An early 21st ideology. Do keep up!
Martin Davies
I w0uld have tried t0 get feathers f0r a new pill0w.
Have never underst00d this trying t0 change 0thers pr0blem certain pe0ple have.
Pellinor
Rob – the white feather thing fell into a certain amount of disrepute when one young man in civvies was given one – while he was on his way to to the palace to receive the VC he’d just won đ
Ian B
White feathers was a suffragette/feminist campaign. Most were given to men who did not have the vote either. Pankhurst’s WSPU disafilliated from the Labour Party as a protest when they adopted the Universal Franchise as a policy, as they did not want suffrage for lower class women or men; they wanted it restricted to bourgeois women with the property qualification, who with their superior social purity values could be expected to vote the “right” way.
1st Wave Feminism/Suffragism was simply the militant wing of the social purity movement. Their campaign for the vote was not motivated by a desire for universal representation and democracy, but to enable (bourgeois) women- who have a superior moral nature, you see- to vote for and maintain their other, primarily social purity, policies.
The Other Bloke in Italy
Not for the first time, I fail to keep up. When did Suffragette become Suffragist?
Ian B
The more pertinent question to ask is “did the suffragists suffer?”.
The universal franchise has been a disaster. Bring back a property qualification, or disqualify those who receive more than 50% of their income from the state.
Ian B
A property qualification now would just put the country entirely in the hands of the “Metropolitan Elite” or whatever we’re currently calling them.
Theophrastus
“A property qualification now would just put the country entirely in the hands of the âMetropolitan Eliteâ…”
Why? Surely it would place more power in the hands of those who have a financial stake in society, rather than in the hands of the parasitic. And the disenfranchised would be incentivised to acquire property.
Anyway, I’m pleased to see that your only objection concerns only your alleged consequences, not the principle.
Ian B
Theo-
No, it’s not my only objection. But it’s a big one. A property qualification would put the franchise, in this day and age, in the hands of the shareholders in Big Government PLC and seal us into Progressivism forever.
bloke (not) in spain
“Surely it would place more power in the hands of those who have a financial stake in society, rather than in the hands of the parasitic. And the disenfranchised would be incentivised to acquire property.”
If you’re talking about holders of unencumbered freeholds, fair’nuff. But restricting the vote to general “property owners” would be giving the franchise to the biggest bunch of welfare scroungers of the lot. For what else is the current mortgages via credit creation at artificially low interest rates – may property value increases be neverending – but State Financial Welfare on a massive scale?
bloke (not) in spain
For “those who have a financial stake in society,” read “for those who society has a financial stake in”
While we’re turning back the clock, let’s restrict the property qualification to the ultimate owner of all land in England, Wales and Northern Ireland – the Crown – and whomever owns Scotland.
Tim Worstall
This isn’t actually true. Rather large amounts of land are now held “freehold”. Which means rather what it says on the tin.
Theophrastus
B(n)IS:
‘For âthose who have a financial stake in society,â read âfor those who society has a financial stake inâ’
Meaningless waffle. ‘Society’ – which is a people and the institutions they create or inherit – cannot have a collective financial stake in some of its members. It doesn’t make sense; it’s conceptually incoherent.
Yes, property ownership gets indirect subsidies from the state, but that is a good thing insofaras that helps people to be more independent of the state and to have a stake in the future of society. Unlike benefit dependency, which is degrading and a form of freeloading.
IanB
“…and seal us into Progressivism forever.”
How exactly?
Ian B
Because Progressivism is the new post-Christian religion of the bourgeoisie, Theo.
Theophrastus
“Progressivism is the new post-Christian religion of the bourgeoisie”
Only of a small proportion of the bourgeoisie – the left-liberal elite and sympathizers. So your argument is flawed.
And the horny-handed sons of toil may be anti-PC, but they love the welfare fruits from the progressive tree.
This isnât actually true. Rather large amounts of land are now held âfreeholdâ. Which means rather what it says on the tin.
No, it’s more complicated than what it says on the tin. A “freehold” is a type of “estate in land”, the rights and duties in relation to the piece of land. You don’t own the land, you own the estate in land.
Jeez how I detest these vacuous politician’s expressions.
People buying a house on a mortgage aren’t “taking a stake in the future of society”. Not more than the extent of their meager little deposit, anyway. The major stake’s being taken by the lenders & their depositors that they’ll make the repayments or cover the debt. Except, in these days of socialised risk, you’ve all got a stake in them doing so.
Ian B
Only of a small proportion of the bourgeoisie â the left-liberal elite and sympathizers. So your argument is flawed.
Not so, in can be found across the new upper class- politicians, third sector, the corporate world. “The people who run the country”, are Progressives. It is their common value system. The only (relatively minor) quibble between the notional right and left of them is in the details of how to pay for it. This is why people who think they can get any significant change by voting Tory are mistaken. It’s gone far too far for that.
Theophrastus
But the people who run the country are not the whole of the bourgeoisie. So your argument flops, IanB.
Ian B
The question of who truly owns land is easily resolved: Can you by choice deny the government’s (which is in our case Constitutionally the monarch) authority over that land? Can you refuse them access? Can you declare yourself sovereign and not subject to their laws?
No? They own it then, not you.
Ian B
Theo-
The people who run the country are by any reasonable definition the bourgeoisie. If you disagree with that, you should nonetheless read my comments as using the terms interchangeably.
Every ruling class (there is another term) has some shared value system. In Britain, that used to be God, King and country, to put it simply, and a set of social values and taboos that are now derided as conservative, bigoted, etc. That has now been replaced by the Progressive value system.
How about restricting the vote to those who pay more in taxes than they collect from the state? That should be reasonably stable, as government employees couldn’t vote, tax cuts would reduce the number of qualified voters, and welfare cuts would increase it.
Dongguan John
The progressives, imo, are only so because they see it as a route to power and control. If you took the vote away from their clients i.e. the poor, disabled and public sector employee, they would stop giving a fuck about those people overnight.
Theophrastus
IanB
All the people who run the country may be members of the bourgeoisie; but most members of the bourgeoisie are not people who run the country. You may wish to claim the two groups are co-extensive, but they aren’t – unless, by an unjustifiable linguistic fiat which goes against established usage, you define them as such.
So, a property qualification for the franchise would not seal in progressivism forever, and you need to study a logic primer to avoid making these elementary non sequiturs.
Surely the more land you ‘own’ the more financial stake in society therefore the more votes. A vote per acre owned – people with less than an acre of land are clearly undeserving of a whole vote, their financial stake isn’t worth talking about (perhaps we will permit the little people to ‘club together’ for a vote between them). For example, the Duke of Buccleuch & Queensberry with 240,000 acres would have 240,000 votes. And it shouldn’t be limited to people; entities such as trusts also ‘own’ land and therefore have a financial stake in society. The pension funds have some 550,000 acres between them; the utilities, 500,000 acres; The National Trust for Scotland 192,000 acres; the RSPB, 321,237 acres.
Or, thinking about it further, perhaps the greater the value of the land the more votes? Then the Duke of Buccleuch & Queensbury would have fewer votes than the Duke of Westminster, who has just over half the land area with several billion pounds more in value.
bloke (not) in spain
@ Theo: âProgressivism is the new post-Christian religion of the bourgeoisieâ
Only of a small proportion of the bourgeoisie â the left-liberal elite and sympathizers. So your argument is flawed.
– – – – – – – –
Do you regard yourself as left-liberal, Theo? Because trumpeting “property ownership is taking a stake in society” is very much a left-liberal concept. As is “stake in society”.
When you’re discussing finessing the franchise to mitigate the effects of a redistribution-by-taxation system, by any means, you’re already working in a left-liberal paradigm. Redistribution-by-taxation is left-liberalism.written large.
I think what Ian’s trying to get at is the contemporary bourgeoisie have almost universally bought into left-liberal redistributive paradigm & certainly no one who hasn’t* is likely to be elected to government. Government being largely about managing the redistribution.
*The “no one who hasn’t”, here, not only excludes red in tooth & claw entrepreneurs but large portions of the hard-grafting working class. Who have much more robust views on “redistribution” than the effete middle-classes.
Mr Ecks
Theo–“All the people who run the country may be members of the bourgeoisie; but most members of the bourgeoisie are not people who run the country. You may wish to claim the two groups are co-extensive, but they arenât”
It doesn’t matter Theo–the elements who hold the power are proggies. And their humourless poison is now widespread.They are numerous proggies on here who exhibit a small amount of economic sense but still parrot leftist doctrinal cant in other areas–who would shit their pants in outrage at a joke at the expense of other ethnic groups or homosexuals etc. And even amongst the ones–perhaps as you say a majority of the middle class– who aren’t outright progs they are still insufficiently observant and dumb enough to think that voting Tory will “conserve” the worthwhile elements of the past. The past 5 years will show anyone with two brain cells the reality of that.
Theophrastus
Bnis:
‘…trumpeting âproperty ownership is taking a stake in societyâ is very much a left-liberal concept’
What’s your evidence for this assertion? Salisbury’s “villa conservatism” and Mrs Thatcher’s (pbuh) encouragement of home ownership were hardly left-liberal.
The bourgeoisie – the ordinary middle classes – have not bought into any left-liberal redistributive “paradigm”. You evidently don’t know a broad spectrum of middle class people. The vast majority of middle class people I know are more concerned about welfare dependency than inequalidee. For example, a recent survey by Theos showed that c.75% of those in the CofE’s pews are more concerned about welfare dependency than inequality, though the proportions were almost exactly reversed among the clergy.
“certainly no-one who hasn’t is likely to be elected to government”
Yes, which is why I think we should have a property qualification to vote.
Theophrastus
UKL
“Surely the more land you âownâ the more financial stake in society…”
The stake I refer to it is not simply financial. It involves awareness of opportunity and a sense of belonging to an opportunity-rich polity.
“…therefore the more votes.”
No, the aim is to create a property-owning democracy (free from socialism, parasitism or welfare dependency) – not a property-owning oligarchy.
Ian B
The bourgeoisie aren’t the “ordinary middle classes”, they’re the petit bourgeois. The bourgeoisie are the ruling class, not somebody with a semi-detached and a conservatory.
Ian B
You also seem to be confused between socialism (economic management, redistribution) and Progressivism, which is the modern managerialist/moralist State, predicated on lifestyle controls and thoughtcrimes.
â[the more land / value of land]âŚtherefore the more votes.â
No, the aim is to create a property-owning democracy (free from socialism, parasitism or welfare dependency) â not a property-owning oligarchy.
Someone ‘owns’ less than an acre…
Ian B
Theophrastus-
Another way to put it is that when I use a phrase like bourgeois (and admittedly that is partly because it’s fun apeing marxists) I mean this class of people-
They are less common in long term renters. Visit some ‘social’ housing, if you doubt this. Home ownership does have positive effects on outlook and behaviour.
Theophrastus
IanB
The standard non-marxist use of ‘bourgeoisie’ is to mean the middle class. The marxist use is to mean those who control the means of production and so are the ruling class. You are now attempting an ostensive definition of ‘bourgeoisie’ by linking to a DM article about NHS fatcats.
While you continue to equivocate, I am waiting to hear you explain how introducing a property qualification for voting would “seal us into progressivism forever”.
They are less common in long term renters. Visit some âsocialâ housing, if you doubt this
Well, I’d rather you support your claims with evidence.
Theophrastus
UKL
“Well, Iâd rather you support your claims with evidence.”
I suspect the evidence is available online, if you wished or I had time to look. I worked in ‘social’ housing for 10 years, and I recall studies into the area. And, of course, the anecdata was readily available.
And conversely, other questions not in the Guardian we can answer with a yes would be:
Millions of women do vote. Did the suffragists suffer in vain?
Was it the right to vote the suffragists suffered for or the obligation to vote?
One interesting fact about the Suffragette movement which has been buried deep was their bellicosity against Germany on the outbreak of war. I think the “white feather” thing originated with them, goading men into getting themselves killed fighting the Bosche.
An example of an early 20th century ideology filtered and misrepresented to suit a late 20th century one.
“An example of an early 20th century ideology filtered and misrepresented to suit a late 20th century one.”
An early 21st ideology. Do keep up!
I w0uld have tried t0 get feathers f0r a new pill0w.
Have never underst00d this trying t0 change 0thers pr0blem certain pe0ple have.
Rob – the white feather thing fell into a certain amount of disrepute when one young man in civvies was given one – while he was on his way to to the palace to receive the VC he’d just won đ
White feathers was a suffragette/feminist campaign. Most were given to men who did not have the vote either. Pankhurst’s WSPU disafilliated from the Labour Party as a protest when they adopted the Universal Franchise as a policy, as they did not want suffrage for lower class women or men; they wanted it restricted to bourgeois women with the property qualification, who with their superior social purity values could be expected to vote the “right” way.
1st Wave Feminism/Suffragism was simply the militant wing of the social purity movement. Their campaign for the vote was not motivated by a desire for universal representation and democracy, but to enable (bourgeois) women- who have a superior moral nature, you see- to vote for and maintain their other, primarily social purity, policies.
Not for the first time, I fail to keep up. When did Suffragette become Suffragist?
The more pertinent question to ask is “did the suffragists suffer?”.
Ian B
April 18, 2015 at 12:18 pm
Well put.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qIndoWEkaU
The universal franchise has been a disaster. Bring back a property qualification, or disqualify those who receive more than 50% of their income from the state.
A property qualification now would just put the country entirely in the hands of the “Metropolitan Elite” or whatever we’re currently calling them.
“A property qualification now would just put the country entirely in the hands of the âMetropolitan Eliteâ…”
Why? Surely it would place more power in the hands of those who have a financial stake in society, rather than in the hands of the parasitic. And the disenfranchised would be incentivised to acquire property.
Anyway, I’m pleased to see that your only objection concerns only your alleged consequences, not the principle.
Theo-
No, it’s not my only objection. But it’s a big one. A property qualification would put the franchise, in this day and age, in the hands of the shareholders in Big Government PLC and seal us into Progressivism forever.
“Surely it would place more power in the hands of those who have a financial stake in society, rather than in the hands of the parasitic. And the disenfranchised would be incentivised to acquire property.”
If you’re talking about holders of unencumbered freeholds, fair’nuff. But restricting the vote to general “property owners” would be giving the franchise to the biggest bunch of welfare scroungers of the lot. For what else is the current mortgages via credit creation at artificially low interest rates – may property value increases be neverending – but State Financial Welfare on a massive scale?
For “those who have a financial stake in society,” read “for those who society has a financial stake in”
In what sense is not voting a failure?
While we’re turning back the clock, let’s restrict the property qualification to the ultimate owner of all land in England, Wales and Northern Ireland – the Crown – and whomever owns Scotland.
This isn’t actually true. Rather large amounts of land are now held “freehold”. Which means rather what it says on the tin.
B(n)IS:
‘For âthose who have a financial stake in society,â read âfor those who society has a financial stake inâ’
Meaningless waffle. ‘Society’ – which is a people and the institutions they create or inherit – cannot have a collective financial stake in some of its members. It doesn’t make sense; it’s conceptually incoherent.
Yes, property ownership gets indirect subsidies from the state, but that is a good thing insofaras that helps people to be more independent of the state and to have a stake in the future of society. Unlike benefit dependency, which is degrading and a form of freeloading.
IanB
“…and seal us into Progressivism forever.”
How exactly?
Because Progressivism is the new post-Christian religion of the bourgeoisie, Theo.
“Progressivism is the new post-Christian religion of the bourgeoisie”
Only of a small proportion of the bourgeoisie – the left-liberal elite and sympathizers. So your argument is flawed.
And the horny-handed sons of toil may be anti-PC, but they love the welfare fruits from the progressive tree.
Tim,
No, it’s more complicated than what it says on the tin. A “freehold” is a type of “estate in land”, the rights and duties in relation to the piece of land. You don’t own the land, you own the estate in land.
The Crown is the ultimate owner of all land in England and Wales (including the Isles of Scilly): all other owners hold an estate in land.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090211/text/90211w0027.htm
“..to have a stake in the future of society.”
Jeez how I detest these vacuous politician’s expressions.
People buying a house on a mortgage aren’t “taking a stake in the future of society”. Not more than the extent of their meager little deposit, anyway. The major stake’s being taken by the lenders & their depositors that they’ll make the repayments or cover the debt. Except, in these days of socialised risk, you’ve all got a stake in them doing so.
Not so, in can be found across the new upper class- politicians, third sector, the corporate world. “The people who run the country”, are Progressives. It is their common value system. The only (relatively minor) quibble between the notional right and left of them is in the details of how to pay for it. This is why people who think they can get any significant change by voting Tory are mistaken. It’s gone far too far for that.
But the people who run the country are not the whole of the bourgeoisie. So your argument flops, IanB.
The question of who truly owns land is easily resolved: Can you by choice deny the government’s (which is in our case Constitutionally the monarch) authority over that land? Can you refuse them access? Can you declare yourself sovereign and not subject to their laws?
No? They own it then, not you.
Theo-
The people who run the country are by any reasonable definition the bourgeoisie. If you disagree with that, you should nonetheless read my comments as using the terms interchangeably.
Every ruling class (there is another term) has some shared value system. In Britain, that used to be God, King and country, to put it simply, and a set of social values and taboos that are now derided as conservative, bigoted, etc. That has now been replaced by the Progressive value system.
How about restricting the vote to those who pay more in taxes than they collect from the state? That should be reasonably stable, as government employees couldn’t vote, tax cuts would reduce the number of qualified voters, and welfare cuts would increase it.
The progressives, imo, are only so because they see it as a route to power and control. If you took the vote away from their clients i.e. the poor, disabled and public sector employee, they would stop giving a fuck about those people overnight.
IanB
All the people who run the country may be members of the bourgeoisie; but most members of the bourgeoisie are not people who run the country. You may wish to claim the two groups are co-extensive, but they aren’t – unless, by an unjustifiable linguistic fiat which goes against established usage, you define them as such.
So, a property qualification for the franchise would not seal in progressivism forever, and you need to study a logic primer to avoid making these elementary non sequiturs.
Was it the right to vote the suffragists suffered for or the obligation to vote?
The obligation to vote left, I believe.
Surely the more land you ‘own’ the more financial stake in society therefore the more votes. A vote per acre owned – people with less than an acre of land are clearly undeserving of a whole vote, their financial stake isn’t worth talking about (perhaps we will permit the little people to ‘club together’ for a vote between them). For example, the Duke of Buccleuch & Queensberry with 240,000 acres would have 240,000 votes. And it shouldn’t be limited to people; entities such as trusts also ‘own’ land and therefore have a financial stake in society. The pension funds have some 550,000 acres between them; the utilities, 500,000 acres; The National Trust for Scotland 192,000 acres; the RSPB, 321,237 acres.
Or, thinking about it further, perhaps the greater the value of the land the more votes? Then the Duke of Buccleuch & Queensbury would have fewer votes than the Duke of Westminster, who has just over half the land area with several billion pounds more in value.
@ Theo: âProgressivism is the new post-Christian religion of the bourgeoisieâ
Only of a small proportion of the bourgeoisie â the left-liberal elite and sympathizers. So your argument is flawed.
– – – – – – – –
Do you regard yourself as left-liberal, Theo? Because trumpeting “property ownership is taking a stake in society” is very much a left-liberal concept. As is “stake in society”.
When you’re discussing finessing the franchise to mitigate the effects of a redistribution-by-taxation system, by any means, you’re already working in a left-liberal paradigm. Redistribution-by-taxation is left-liberalism.written large.
I think what Ian’s trying to get at is the contemporary bourgeoisie have almost universally bought into left-liberal redistributive paradigm & certainly no one who hasn’t* is likely to be elected to government. Government being largely about managing the redistribution.
*The “no one who hasn’t”, here, not only excludes red in tooth & claw entrepreneurs but large portions of the hard-grafting working class. Who have much more robust views on “redistribution” than the effete middle-classes.
Theo–“All the people who run the country may be members of the bourgeoisie; but most members of the bourgeoisie are not people who run the country. You may wish to claim the two groups are co-extensive, but they arenât”
It doesn’t matter Theo–the elements who hold the power are proggies. And their humourless poison is now widespread.They are numerous proggies on here who exhibit a small amount of economic sense but still parrot leftist doctrinal cant in other areas–who would shit their pants in outrage at a joke at the expense of other ethnic groups or homosexuals etc. And even amongst the ones–perhaps as you say a majority of the middle class– who aren’t outright progs they are still insufficiently observant and dumb enough to think that voting Tory will “conserve” the worthwhile elements of the past. The past 5 years will show anyone with two brain cells the reality of that.
Bnis:
‘…trumpeting âproperty ownership is taking a stake in societyâ is very much a left-liberal concept’
What’s your evidence for this assertion? Salisbury’s “villa conservatism” and Mrs Thatcher’s (pbuh) encouragement of home ownership were hardly left-liberal.
The bourgeoisie – the ordinary middle classes – have not bought into any left-liberal redistributive “paradigm”. You evidently don’t know a broad spectrum of middle class people. The vast majority of middle class people I know are more concerned about welfare dependency than inequalidee. For example, a recent survey by Theos showed that c.75% of those in the CofE’s pews are more concerned about welfare dependency than inequality, though the proportions were almost exactly reversed among the clergy.
“certainly no-one who hasn’t is likely to be elected to government”
Yes, which is why I think we should have a property qualification to vote.
UKL
“Surely the more land you âownâ the more financial stake in society…”
The stake I refer to it is not simply financial. It involves awareness of opportunity and a sense of belonging to an opportunity-rich polity.
“…therefore the more votes.”
No, the aim is to create a property-owning democracy (free from socialism, parasitism or welfare dependency) – not a property-owning oligarchy.
The bourgeoisie aren’t the “ordinary middle classes”, they’re the petit bourgeois. The bourgeoisie are the ruling class, not somebody with a semi-detached and a conservatory.
You also seem to be confused between socialism (economic management, redistribution) and Progressivism, which is the modern managerialist/moralist State, predicated on lifestyle controls and thoughtcrimes.
And renters don’t possess either?
Someone ‘owns’ less than an acre…
Theophrastus-
Another way to put it is that when I use a phrase like bourgeois (and admittedly that is partly because it’s fun apeing marxists) I mean this class of people-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3046054/
UKL
“And renters donât possess either?”
They are less common in long term renters. Visit some ‘social’ housing, if you doubt this. Home ownership does have positive effects on outlook and behaviour.
IanB
The standard non-marxist use of ‘bourgeoisie’ is to mean the middle class. The marxist use is to mean those who control the means of production and so are the ruling class. You are now attempting an ostensive definition of ‘bourgeoisie’ by linking to a DM article about NHS fatcats.
While you continue to equivocate, I am waiting to hear you explain how introducing a property qualification for voting would “seal us into progressivism forever”.
Well, I’d rather you support your claims with evidence.
UKL
“Well, Iâd rather you support your claims with evidence.”
I suspect the evidence is available online, if you wished or I had time to look. I worked in ‘social’ housing for 10 years, and I recall studies into the area. And, of course, the anecdata was readily available.