Removing Elizabeth Fry from the five pound note isn't a small fry issue

Mervyn King's decision to put Winston Churchill on our five pound notes rather than Elizabeth Fry might seem trivial, but by not commemorating any women on our cash, we're encouraging the perception women are secondary to men, says Stella Creasy.

Money can’t buy you love. But it can offer recognition both in pay and in print. That's why most countries use currency to celebrate those figures of history whose legacy is designed to inspire and evoke national pride. The outgoing Bank of England Governor Mervyn King’s decision to nominate Churchill for immortalisation on a fiver is therefore entirely fitting. Yet the consequences of this reveal the bigger barriers we face in making our country a place where everyone succeeds.

Philanthropist and prison reformer Elizabeth Fry has been on our smallest bank note since 2002. While the Queen remains on all legal tender, King’s decision, whether consciously or not, removes the only historical female commemorated in this way. The decision is out of kilter with protocol as, while no figure remains in perpetuity, Darwin has featured since 2000 and thus could be considered first in line for replacement. It’s also out of step with other countries - Scotland has two series of five pound notes, each with one woman on, the Norwegians and Swedes who have five-value notes with two women on each and the Australians who have fifty-fifty representation.

Many will shrug and say so what. The Bank itself cannot see the big deal. They argue the choice of people on bank notes is not an "equality matter". After all, women face widespread and perpetual violence in their lives, pay equality has stalled and representation in the media, politics, judiciary, academia and business remains stubbornly lopsided. In such an unbalanced world, whose face we see on our banknotes when we buy a pint of milk can feel like a sidebar issue. Yet the absence of everyday celebration of women’s capabilities is as influential as their objectification in creating a society in which inequality flourishes. Little things like this add up to produce a context where the big things like pay gaps and violence seem more palatable and inevitable, as they encourage the perception women are secondary to men.

Modernity is a plethora of small battles that if won could all help nurture movement on bigger changes too- whether the persistence of Page 3, Facebook’s accountability for its depiction of women to the reconfiguration of cartoon heroines to be sexually alluring and the decline of women on screen in talking roles. When women are not seen or heard in their own varied and distinctive voices, its easier for others to define their worth - from those who argue rape victims can held be culpable or who claim concern for gender equality encourages a lack of femininity. Conversely when men and women interact, they help each other achieve. Making public female success doesn't just make women feel good. It makes us all expect more of each other- and in turn ask why it isn't happening, so encouraging us to search harder for all the talent that resides within our shores.

If Britain is to be a place where potential is realised, we need to be willing to confront these speedhumps on our road to equality; becoming a country in which women from all walks of life are seen and speaking out as well as spoken about and shown. Even if Fry's time is up, the range of women who could be acknowledged is immense; from Mary Seacole to Mary Wollstencraft, Emily Davison to Rosalind Franklin. In showcasing them we generate an anticipation of future success for 51 per cent of the population that helps build a more just, more equal and so more prosperous world for all.

Mervyn and his fellow members of the Court of Directors of the Bank of England - gender balance of one woman out of twelve - need to hear deleting Elizbeth Fry isn’t a small fry issue. That’s why I’m backing the Women’s Room who have until the 24 June to raise the remaining £7,000 required for a judicial review – please help by donating a Darwin this week to send a message it matters that women are on the money.  

Stella Creasy is the Labour and Co-operative MP for Walthamstow

The absence of everyday celebration of women's capabilities is more influential than many will think.
Getty
Show Hide image

Everyone's forgotten the one issue that united the Labour party

There was a time when Ed Miliband spoke at Momentum rallies.

To label the row over the EU at Thursday’s Labour leadership hustings "fireworks" would be to endow it with more beauty than it deserves. Owen Smith’s dogged condemnation of John McDonnell’s absence from a Remain rally – only for Corbyn to point out that his absence was for medical reasons – ought to go down as a cringing new low point in the campaign. 

Not so long ago, we were all friends. In the course of the EU referendum, almost all of the protagonists in the current debacle spoke alongside each other and praised one another’s efforts. At a local level, party activists of all stripes joined forces. Two days before polling day, Momentum activists helped organise an impromptu rally. Ed Miliband was the headline speaker, and was cheered on. 

If you take the simple version of the debate, Labour’s schism on the EU appears as an aberration of the usual dynamics of left and right in the party. Labour's left is supposedly cheering a position which avoids advocating what it believes in (Remain), because it would lose votes. Meanwhile, the right claims to be dying in a ditch for its principles - no matter what the consequences for Labour’s support in Leave-voting heartlands.

Smith wants to oppose Brexit, even after the vote, on the basis of using every available procedural mechanism. He would whip MPs against the invocation of Article 50, refuse to implement it in government, and run on a manifesto of staying in the EU. For the die-hard Europhiles on the left – and I count myself among these, having run the Another Europe is Possible campaign during the referendum – there ought to be no contest as to who to support. On a result that is so damaging to people’s lives and so rooted in prejudice, how could we ever accept that there is such a thing as a "final word"? 

And yet, on the basic principles that lie behind a progressive version of EU membership, such as freedom of movement, Smith seems to contradict himself. Right at the outset of the Labour leadership, Smith took to Newsnight to express his view – typical of many politicians moulded in the era of New Labour – that Labour needed to “listen” to the views Leave voters by simply adopting them, regardless of whether or not they were right. There were, he said, “too many” immigrants in some parts of the country. 

Unlike Smith, Corbyn has not made his post-Brexit policy a headline feature of the campaign, and it is less widely understood. But it is clear, via the five "red lines" outlined by John McDonnell at the end of June:

  1. full access to the single market
  2. membership of the European investment bank
  3. access to trading rights for financial services sector
  4. full residency rights for all EU nationals in the UK and all UK nationals in the EU, and
  5. the enshrinement of EU protections for workers. 

Without these five conditions being met, Labour would presumably not support the invocation of Article 50. So if, as seems likely, a Conservative government would never meet these five conditions, would there be any real difference in how a Corbyn leadership would handle the situation? 

The fight over the legacy of the referendum is theatrical at times. The mutual mistrust last week played out on the stage in front of a mass televised audience. Some Corbyn supporters jeered Smith as he made the case for another referendum. Smith accused Corbyn of not even voting for Remain, and wouldn’t let it go. But, deep down, the division is really about a difference of emphasis. 

It speaks to a deeper truth about the future of Britain in Europe. During the referendum, the establishment case for Remain floundered because it refused to make the case that unemployment and declining public services were the result of austerity, not immigrants. Being spearheaded by Conservatives, it couldn’t. It fell to the left to offer the ideological counter attack that was needed – and we failed to reach enough people. 

As a result, what we got was a popular mandate for petty racism and a potentially long-term shift to the right in British politics, endangering a whole raft of workplace and legal protections along the way. Now that it has happened, anyone who really hopes to overcome either Brexit, or the meaning of Brexit, has to address the core attitudes and debates at their root. Then as now, it is only clear left-wing ideas – free from any attempt to triangulate towards anti-migrant sentiment– that can have any hope of success. 

The real dividing lines in Labour are not about the EU. If they were, the Eurosceptic Frank Field would not be backing Smith. For all that it may be convenient to deny it, Europe was once, briefly, the issue that united the Labour Party. One day, the issues at stake in the referendum may do so again – but only if Labour consolidates itself around a strategy for convincing people of ideas, rather than simply reaching for procedural levers.