The General Strike Of 1926 Essay, Research Paper

The General Strike of 1926

Essay submitted by Michael Funk

Why did the General Strike of 1926 fail and what were the effects the strike had

upon industrial relations in Britain?

The General Strike of 1926 lasted only nine days and directly involved around 1.8 million

workers. It was the short but ultimate outbreak of a much longer conflict in the mining

industry, which lasted from the privatisation of the mines after the First World War until

their renewed nationalisation after the Second. The roots of the General Strike in

Britain, unlike in France or other continental countries, did not lie in ideological

conceptions such as syndicalism but in the slowly changing character of trade union

organisation and tactics. On the one hand, unskilled and other unapprenticed workers

had been organised into national unions since the 1880s to combat sectionalism and to

strengthen their bargaining power and the effectiveness of the strike weapon. On the

other hand, at the same time and for the same reason trade unions had developed the

tactic of industry-wide and ’sympathetic’ strikes. Later during the pre-war labour unrest

these two forms of strike action, ‘national’ and ’sympathetic’, were more often used

together which in an extreme case could have meant a general strike. The symbol of

this new strategy was the triple alliance, formed in 1914, which was a loose, informal

agreement between railwaymen, transport workers and miners to support each other in

case of industrial disputes and strikes. As G.A. Phillips summarised:

The General Strike was in origin, therefore, the tactical product of a

pattern of in-dustrial conflict and union organisation which had developed

over the past twenty-five years or so in industries where unionism had

been introduced only with difficulty, among rapidly expanding labour forces

traditionally resistant to organisation, or against strong opposition from

employers.

Therefore, a large majority of the British Labour movement saw a general strike along

the traditional ‘labourist’ view, which emphasised the separation of the political and the

industrial sphere, as a purely industrial act. This notion was supported the

developments in the 1920s when the depression and the employers offensive weakened

the militant and revolutionary forces , whereas the success of the Labour Party and the

reorganisation of the TUC General Council further strengthened these ‘labourist’ forces.

The government’s and the employer’s view, of course, was a different one. Since the

French syndicalists in 1906 had drawn up the Charter of Amiens, reaffirming their belief

in direct political action and the general strike as a means of overthrowing the

Parliamentary system, governments and industrialists all over Europe saw a general

strike as a revolutionary challenge for the constitution and the economic system.

Although the British Labour movement had never been really committed to this idea,

during the post-war boom when it was on the offensive, there were two examples of

semi-syndicalist conceptions concerning the use of industrial action against the war

and British intervention against the Soviet Republic. Government and employers were

warned and did not hesitate to condemn every notion of nation wide industrial action

as unconstitutional and revolutionary.

The mining dispute which caused the General Strike emerged after the First World War

when the triple alliance broke and the miners were left to fight alone against the

government’s plans to privatise the mines. As a result the mines suddenly returned to

their private owners and the miners faced demands for very substantial wage cuts of

up to 50 per cent . The dispute escalated because the crisis was seen by all the key

players -the government, the em-ployers and the Trade Union Council (TUC)- as an

example for future industrial relations in Britain. The trade un-ion movement saw its

opportunity to challenge the notion that wage reduction could solve Britain’s economic

diffi-culties and decided therefore that a future united action in support of the miners

would take the form of a general strike. But as Margaret Morris emphasised. “It was the

absence of any possibility of finding an agreed solution to the difficulties in the mining

industry which made a confrontation on the lines of the General Strike almost

inevita-ble, not any generalised will to class conflict”.

The Conservative government, however, saw its role as a neutral, standing between

the contending parties and rep-resenting the British people as a whole. Its industrial

policy included the application of the principle of co-partnership in industry, in the hope

that workers and management would begin to see their interest as identical, a policy

which was ultimately challenged by a general strike. The Government was completely

aware that a trade union victory would have important political implications such as

government intervention in the coal industry as well as encouraging further industrial

action of a similar dimension. Moreover, in 1926 the government was very well prepared

for a major industrial dispute, whereas unemployment and uncertain economically

circumstances forced the trade union movement in the defensive.

Due to this, the scene was set for a nation-wide strike in May 1926, which was

condemned to fail from the outset. After five years of struggle the miners could not

accept any wage cuts while the mine owners did not see any possi-bility of running the

mines profitable without any. Furthermore, the owners’ case was supported by the

government, which did not want to interfere in industrial relations. Moreover, becouse

the government saw the strike as a revo-lutionary challenge to the constitution and

the economic system it demanded unconditional surrender from the be-ginning. But in

fact, as Magaret Morris emphasised, the General Strike was neither a revolutionary act

nor an industrial dispute. “Only if the Government had intervened by additional subsidies

or by coercing the coal owners could the difficulties of the coal industry have been

solved in some other way than at the expense of the miners. The General Strike,

therefore was a political strike and needed to be pursued as such if it was to make any

progress” . Therefore the General Council of the TUC, which always emphasised the

industrial character of the dispute, by the very nature of the General Strike was not

fighting the owners but the government, which was forced into taking part in

negotiations and put this pressure on the owners. As the government refused to

intervene and the TUC could not openly challenge the government there was no

chance for a successful end and the TUC had to call off the strike.

A general confusion on the side of the trade unions and a principal lack of

communication between the different parties surrounded the circumstances of this

surrender. Sir Herbert Samuel lead the final negotiations based on his memorandum, but

he did not have any authority from the government. The Negotiating Committee of the

TUC was well aware of this fact but nonetheless it expected Samuel to provide an

accurate reflection of what the gov-ernment was prepared to do. However, the trade

union side thought that the strike was in decline and was losing more and more of its

faith in its success, and therefore accepted the Samuel Memorandum without the

miners ac-cepting, which, of course, would have been crucial for the signing of a final

agreement. Therefore neither the government nor the miners, and of course, neither

the employers were involved in the negotiations which the Nego-tiating Committee

thought to have turned in its favour. Only after they had called off the General Strike

did they realised that they had nothing in their hands.

While the miners were left to fight alone until their humiliating defeat in November 1926,

the other workers re-turned to work where they faced their strengthened employers. In

some trades, such as railways and printing, work-ers suffered widespread victimisation .

The real extent of victimisation, however, is very difficult to estimate be-cause besides

the dismissal of militants and the replacement of workers by volunteers, there was also

an increase in redundancy due to the reduced circumstances of many trades.

Nevertheless most employers tried to reinstate their men under new conditions which

meant new bargaining arrangements and some times substantial wage cuts. In the long

term, however, employers did not exploit their victory and showed an increasingly

moderate behaviour and the willingness to collaborate. The symbol of this new climate

became the Mond-Turner talks where the General Council together with prominent

industrials discussed the future of industrial relations. This development was not only

the result of the General Strike but, as Phillips emphasised, also due to the “sectional

conflicts which took place in the early 1920s, which had been in many cases more

costly to the firms involved, and which certainly seemed a likelier mode of resistance to

further attack on wages now”.

After the end of the strike the Conservative government emphasised its industrial

neutrality again and continued to refuse any responsibility for managing the economy.

Nevertheless, after the General Strike it responded with a new Trade Dispute Act which

made general strikes illegal, tried to severe the financial link between trade unions and

the Labour Party and made picketing much more difficult. The government’s intentions

was to drive the trade unions back into their ‘labourist’ line, but because the trade

unions lost the General Strike, among other reasons, exactly because they were too

much committed to this ‘labourist’ line, this policy was highly superfluous and in fact the

new legislation had virtually no effect. The government, therefore, was never able to

capitalise on its victory, but as the history of the strike showed that was never its

intention.

Among historians the most controversial issue concerning the General Strike is its

impact on the development of the Labour movement. For Marxist historians, such as

Martin Jacques and Keith Burgess, the General Strike marked a central watershed in this

development. They emphasised a shift to the right of the whole Labour movement and

a further strengthening of traditional ‘labourist’ forces , whereas the left and especially

the Communist Party was isolated and lost its influence. Jacques described this new

direction as a general rejection of militancy and the use of industrial action for political

ends, the strict separation of the political and the industrial spheres, the notion of

solving Labours’ problems within the capitalist system and finally the acceptance of the

common interest between wage-labour and employers. For Burgess, the idea of class

collaboration which was symbolised in the Mond-Turner talks especially marked a sharp

watershed. “The extent to which the TUC as a whole was won over to these ideas

marked the final stage in the containment of the challenge of labour to the existing

social order”. Besides the impact of the General Strike both historians also emphasised

other factors for this shift, such as the changing eco-nomic environment , but as

Jacques suggested:

“Mass unemployment, structural chance and the rise in real wages do not

them-selves explain the politics and ideology of working-class movement

during the inter-war period. Nevertheless, they provide an essential

explanation. For they help to reveal what might be de-scribed as the

objective basis of the shift to the right on trade union movement”.

Although mass unemployment influenced the Labour movement from the beginning by

forcing the workers on the defensive, undermining multi-sectional consciousness and

weakening sectional solidarity, it was not until the Gen-eral Strike that it played a

crucial role in determining the politics and ideology of the trade union movement.

This notion of a watershed has been challenged by several other historians, above all

by G.A.Phillips. He suggested that the General Strike had “a significant short-term

effect upon union strength -measured primarily in terms of membership and its

distribution- but almost no lasting consequences. On industrial tactics, and especially

the use of the strike weapon, their impact was rather to provide a further restraining

influence where inhibiting factors were already in evidence, than to initiate any change

of conduct”. Furthermore he emphasised this the reinforced trend towards industrial

peace was happening anyway, as well as the long-established faith in a regulated

system of vol-untary collective bargaining. Thus he described the shift to the right of

the whole Labour movement and the isola-tion of the Marxist left more as a further

strengthening of already familiar principles than as a significant watershed. Moreover,

the strike itself and especially its failure was the result of the structural development of

the trade union movement along these familiar principles -especially the ‘labourist’ one-

over two generations. Altogether, from this point of view it seems that the pattern of

trade union activity and industrial relations was not altered by the General Strike. The

only thing that really changed was the Labour movement’s rhetoric style and as

Laybourn Emphasised, the isolation of the rank and file activists from the trade union

officials and therefore the final decline of the shop stewards’ movement.

However, there is little doubt that the 1920s saw a transition of the whole Labour

movement towards the separation of the political and the industrial spheres,

collaboration and moderation. At the end of the 1920s the Labour Party was much

stronger and even the trade unions, despite their defeat in the General Strike and their

reduction in both finances and members, were now much more effective. The General

Strike, of course, played an important role in this transition, but more for its final

consolidation than as a crucial watershed. Moreover, its origin and its failure seem

today like a paradigm of this transition. Nevertheless, in the long term the General

Strike left some marks upon the Labour movement, which determined its future fate.

Most importantly, after defeat the miners lost their crucial position within the Labour

movement and great bitterness and frustration emerged among the miners in particular,

but also within the Labour movement as a whole.

Bibliography:

Burgess, Keith: The Challenge of Labour. Shaping British Society 1850-1930, London

1980.

Clegg, Hugh Armstrong: A History of British Trade Unions since 1889. Volume II

1911-1933, Oxford 1989.

Jacques, Martin: Consequences of the General Strike, in: Skelley, Jeffrey (ed.): The

General Strike 1926, Lon-don 1976.

Laybourn, Keith: a History of British Trade Unionism. Ch. 5: Trade Unionism during the

Inter-War Years 1918-1939, Gloucestershire 1992.

Mason, A.: The Government and the General Strike, 1926, in: International Review of

Social History, XIV 1969.

Morris, Margaret: The British General Strike 1926, The Historical association 1973.

Phillips, G.A.: The General Strike. The Politics of Industrial Conflict, London 1976.

Renshaw, Patrick: The General Strike, London 1975.

Wrigley, Chris: 1926: Social Costs of the Mining Dispute, in: History Today 34, Nov.

1984.