Estelle Sylvia Pankhurst, 1882-1960, was a woman in the long tradition of radical English non conformity which stretches back through English history to Tom Paine, and before him the Levellers. A life long socialist and feminist, her comfortable middleclass upbringing was typical of many Victorian progressive families. Herfather, Dr Richard Pankhurst, was a successful radical barrister in Manchester. Meanwhile her mother Emmeline became involved in the Independent Labour Party or ILP, and as such, she knew many of the leading intellectual and political figures of the day.

From her early days in Manchester through to her suffragette activities, her relationship with Labour leader Keir Hardie, and her support for Haile Sellassie the Emperor of Ethiopia, Sylvia remained, in many ways, an outsider in public life to the end, and a woman who attracted admiration and exasperation in equal measure. Today, she remains an enigmatic and controversial figure, who’s deeply held socialist convictions looked upon with scorn by the Westminster establishment, and with despair by many of her socialist colleagues. George Bernard Shaw perhaps summed this view up best when he wrote to her in 1929

“Sylvia. You are the queerest idiot genius of this age- the most ungovernable, self interested, blindly and deadly wilful little rapscallion-condottiera that ever imposed itself on the infra red end of the revolutionary spectrum as a leader”

Shaw’s comments encapsulate the many paradoxes of Sylvia’s long and varied life. In 2006, almost half a century after her death, her ability to cause controversy is undiminished. The latest example of this is the recent decision, by the House of Lords Administration and Works Committee, to refuse permission for a statue of Sylvia to be erected in the groundsof the Palace of Westminster. This seems a strange, given that her mother Emmeline and sister Christabel already have their statues outside the House of Lords. Also, that Sylvia’s statue has been ready for six years, awaiting its rightful place as a monument one of the most significant campaignersfor women’s rights and social justice in British history.

Baroness Dean, one of Sylvia’s most vocal supporters said: “there are discussions going on in the Lords to get the decision changed”, but until then Sylvia’s statue will remain in its protective wrapper, despite having been granted planning permission by Westminster Council more than six years ago. There is a groundswell of opinion to get this illogical decision changed.

Vera Baird MP argues that Sylvia was the greatest democrat of all the suffragettes, aruging:



In deference to Vera Baird, it is not just women who would gain, for Sylvia’s ideals, and the issues for which she fought, are as much part of our age as they were of the Edwardian era. It is astonishing, for example, that the gap between rich and poor is still as wide as it was in Pankhurst’s day, despite more than a hundred years of social progress, and the safety net of the Welfare State.

Secondly, Mrs Thatcher’s labour reforms undid much of the progressive consensus which Pankhurst and others had spent much of their working life constructing. In many ways, we have almost come full circle, to a point where people of Sylvia’s generation would be able to recognise all too easily the struggle for such basic human rights as trade union recognition.

Lastly, as someone who lived through the First World War, and was a confirmed pacifist, Pankhust would have been astonished, were she alive today, to see the wanton disregard for human life shown in Iraq; but reassured, perhaps, by the million or so people, who took to the streets of London in February 2003, in protest against the war in Iraq . Sylvia was opposed to violenceof any sort: not only that shown by mine owners to their work force, but also domestic violence, and ultimately the violence done by one nation to another.

The entropy of social justice is such that we need figures like Pankhust to remind us how far we have still to go. Perhaps this is what is troubling the conscience of their Lordships. A spokesperson for the House of Lords said.

“It is certainly not because she was a radical feminist, but because the committee was advised that because Pankhurst had no connection to the House of Lords, the statue should not stand in grounds in such proximity."

If this is the case, then why put up statues of Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst, but not Sylvia? In truth neither Emmeline nor Christabel had much connection with the Lords; they were to argue their case in the Commons for many years, without success. It may well be because both women eventually joined the Conservative party that their memory is more to the establishment’s liking. If this a case of the Lords asserting its ingrained conservatism, then it shows how little has changed since David Lloyd George went into battle with their Lordships, almost 100 years ago, over his legislation that laid the groundwork for the modern welfare state. In his own words Lloyd George promised to "lift the shadow of the workhouse from the homes of the poor", a sentiment with which Sylvia would, undoubtedly, have agreed. As the daughter of a radical Manchester barrister she became aware of, and involved in, most of the progressive campaigns of her time. One of her biographers,Patricia W Romero, has said:

“The children grew up amidst the turmoil of political campaigns, along with crusades which included all the major radical issues of the day. Dr Pankhurst, joined by his wife opposed oppression where ever he found it. He was an early proponent of Indian independence, and welcomed the birth of socialism as a means to conquer all Britain’s ills, foreign and domestic.”

In this context, it is not at all surprising that Sylvia became involved with what later became known as the Suffragette movement. From the early days of the movement, however, it was clear that there were simmering tensions as to tactics and strategy, differences which were reflected in ideology as much as in personality. To quote Romero again:

“A weary ordeal of chatter about women’s suffrage from 10.00 pm to 1.30 am. Mrs and Christabel Pankhurst belabouring me as chairman of the party (ILP) for its neglect of the question. Really the pair are not seeking democratic freedom, but self importance. They want to be ladies, not workers, and lack the humility of self heroism.”

This, in short, was the difference between what later became the WSPU (Women’s Social and Political Union) founded by Emmeline Pankhurst in 1903, and Sylvia’s own organisation, founded in 1915: The East London Federation of Suffragettes. Increasingly, Emmeline Pankhurst came to rely on wealthy benefactors to fund her campaign, while Sylvia believed that it was necessary to take the campaign to the people of London’s east end and beyond, in the process covering wide areas of social concern, such as maternity and child allowances.

What exactly is Sylvia Pankhurst’s legacy to the country? I would argue that it is threefold. Firstly, she was ahead of her time, in an age when the equality of all people was socially unacceptable Sylvia provided a vision, which was inspiring to people facing poverty, malnutrition and hardship, on a scale unmanageable today. Her legacy was to show working people that a better life was within their grasp. In this context, Sylvia can be seen as a standard bearer for much of the achievementthat characterised the progressive liberal left in the twentieth-century. Secondly, the extension of universal education, the founding of the NHS and humanitarianreforms such as the abolition of the death penalty can be traced to Sylvia’s,and others’, vision of a fairer and more just society.

Lastly, Sylvia’s support for women’s suffrage marked her out at a time when the Labour party was lukewarm about the idea. Her belief in a humanitarian socialism lead her to argue that it was morally wrong to deny civil rights to people, simply on account of their gender. To a generation reared on individualism and the pursuit of self, Sylvia’s life reminds us that there is a better way; and that her legacy not only endures, but is waiting to be taken up. It is wrong, therefore, to deny Sylvia a lasting monument to her life and work.