Trade Unions - Why did the General Strike fail to influence the Conservative Government Flashcards
(39 cards)
What are the 6 reasons why the General Strike failed
- strength of the govt response
- failure of the TCU leadership
- lack of public support
- unsympathetic media
- miners union
- a threat?
Is the media the reason the general strike failed?
-Government newspaper
- The British Gazette was published throughout the strike as the government’s newspaper - it was edited by Churchill
- It did deliberately raise fears that the strike posed a revolutionary threat to constitutional government by unelected trade unionists
Is the media the reason the general strike failed?
-BBC
- The newly formed BBC refused to publish content that damaged the government —>
- avoiding a sympathetic tone to the strikers, perhaps to avoid Churchill’s call for it to be taken over by the government
Is the media the reason the general strike failed?
-TUC’s own media
- The TUC’s newspaper - the British Worker - had to reduce its publication to just four pages when Churchill requisitioned its printing paper.
What are the key points of the TUC’s weaknesses
- Lack of Commitment and unity
- Didn’t ever believe it would succeed
- Divisions existed since Black Friday
- It should never have allowed the strike to begin
- Once it started, the General Council shouldn’t have given in so easily
- Poor organisation
- Failure to prepare adequately (despite there being plenty of time)
- Scope
- technically not a General Strike -, only industrial workers, many rural areas unaffected i.e. there was a limit to the scope of any TUC action.
What were the strengths of the TCU’s action
-how widespread it was?
- Bevin’s influence in charge of the Strike Organisation Committee
- There was a strong response to the strike in cities such as Bradford and Leeds, yet there was also an impressive response in more rural areas, e.g. in Torquay (Devon).
Is the TCU’s failed leadership the reason for failure
-who did the union movement blame
- Many in the union movement blamed the TUC not the government:
- The Miners’ view:
- a sudden capitulation
- a betrayal
- a loss of nerve
Is the TCU’s failed leadership the reason for failure
-missed opportunity?
- Crucially, perhaps, an opportunity missed - gave up quickly and easily which raised the question, again, as to why they allowed the strike to commence
- could it have been more productive had they maintained the strike for longer?
- At least in securing some concessions?
What were the strengths of the TCU’s action
-arguably the scale?
Yet during the nine days of industrial militancy (3-12 May 1926),
Especially in the early days - 2.5 million workers on strike on 4th may (1 million miners, 1.5 million others) - all transport workers, printers, iron and steelworkers, gas and electricity workers —> In many ways this is a triumph
What were the strengths of the TCU’s action
-solidarity
- Solidarity sustained for most of the strike, there were very few workers who broke the strike - even with the supposedly less committed railwaymen,
- 98% stayed on strike until it was called off
- This could only have been achieved with effective organisation- Bevin and his Strike Organisation Committee oversaw the distribution of food and health services.
- Outside of the largest cities local committees were chaotic but still effective to a degree.
Is the TCU’s failed leadership the reason for failure
-how well was the strike organised
- The organisation and extent of the strike was far from perfect
- Bevin’s Strike Organisation Committees were effective in London but less so elsewhere, and in local areas chaos reigned
- scope of the strike was also limited - Many London power stations remained in operation, whilst many workers refused to strike
- Merseyside, 25 out of the 92 ships in port left during the strike, + 50 new arrivals.
Is the TCU’s failed leadership the reason for failure
-What action did the TUC take in the 9 months rest bite after Red Friday
- In contrast to the Government, The TUC however was completely inactive - only began detailed planning for a strike less than a week, partly due to continued disagreement amongst unions about whether to strike or negotiate
- Distrust between the unions still existed since Black Friday
- Some historians assert that many on the General Council never believed it could succeed in securing higher wages for the miners
When did the TUC call off the strike
- 12 May
TCU’s failed leadership reason for failure? -TCU’s capitulation
How did its leadership lead to the General Strike’s capitulation
- Figures such as Arthur Cook of the MFGB blamed James Thomas and the leaders of the TUC for never fully supporting militancy
- The TUC’s leadership were certainly not willing for the protest not to escalate beyond an industrial dispute, so when hardliners such as Churchill alleged that a revolution was unfolding, the General Council of the TUC grew increasingly keen to cut a deal
TCU’s failed leadership reason for failure? -TCU’s capitulation
At what opportunity did the CDU seize the chance to withdraw
- The TUC therefore seized the chance to withdraw when Herbert Samuel, chair of the Coal Commission, proposed that the coal industry be reorganised and miners’ wages be cut for a year
- The mines rejected this, and the TUC suggested a wage reduction after reorganisation
- The MFGB rejected this but the following day, on 12 May the General Council of the TUC met Baldwin to announce the end of the strike -a betrayal?.
- Bevin failed in his attempt to get Baldwin to promise no workers would be victimsied for striking
TCU’s failed leadership reason for failure? -TCU’s capitulation
What did the General Council of the CDU do on the 12th May
- The MFGB rejected this but the following day, on 12 May the General Council of the TUC met Baldwin to announce the end of the strike -a betrayal?.
- Bevin failed in his attempt to get Baldwin to promise no workers would be victimsied for striking
TCU’s failed leadership reason for failure? -TCU’s capitulation
Why did the TUC’s lack of belief ensure the failure of the strike, regardless of govt action
- While workers had supported the strike, and the government had organised an effective response, it seems the TUC never believed wages could be protected.
- Despite miners refusing the Samuel Memorandum, it’s unlike Baldwin would have been able to support this compromise anyway - after Red Friday the government could not be seen to sustain wages, particularly in the context of their recent success in resisting the strikers.
Was the government’s antistrike action responsible for its failure
How was the government’s preparation useful
- The government used the 9 month respite after Red Friday to effectively organise counter-strike measures overseen by the STC:
- Resources were stockpiled and local networks of volunteers were established
- The Economic League, and the Organisation for the Maintenance of Supplies (OMS) both recruited middle and upper class volunteers to keep public services running in the event of a strike.
- By February 1926 the government believed it was ready to face a general strike, and troops were deployed to sensitive areas
Was the government’s antistrike action responsible for its failure
What was the government’s priorities for responding to the General Strike
(i) maintaining food supplies and essential services
(ii) preserving law and order.
In both areas, it was highly organised.
Was the government’s antistrike action responsible for its failure
How did the govt maintain food supplies
- Volunteers were mobilised on May 3rd, govt recruited over 300,000 volunteers but few were ever needed
- manned power stations, dockyards and transport- this ensured good food distribution and transport maintenance.
- local authorities kept food and coal supplies flowing, particularly in Liverpool which was responsible for 1/5 of the nation’s imports.
- London Underground was even operated by 2000 Cambridge University undergraduates
Was the government’s antistrike action responsible for its failure
How did the govt ensure law & order
- The government formed a body of reserve policemen drawn from former soldiers & members of the Territorial Army, thus wisely preventing the use of armed forces
- There was no breakdown in order as the government had feared
- The limited violence and use of the army show that the government did not believe a revolution was ever likely
Was the government’s antistrike action responsible for its failure
The govt also successfully & effectively controlled the ……
media - British Gazette was published throughout the strike as the government’s newspaper - it was edited by Churchill.
It did deliberately raise fears that the strike posed a revolutionary threat to constitutional government by unelected trade unionists.
The newly formed BBC refused to publish content that damaged the government - avoiding a sympathetic tone to the strikers, perhaps to avoid Churchill’s call for it to be taken over by the government.
The TUC’s newspaper - the British Worker - had to reduce its publication to just four pages when Churchill requisitioned its printing paper
Was the government’s antistrike action responsible for its failure
What is evidence of the government’s consistent preparation
The govt had also prepared before Red Friday too - Supply and Transport Committee (STC) set up in 1919 emergency powers act 1920
Was the government’s antistrike action responsible for its failure
What are the limitations to the government’s effectiveness
- Use of volunteers especially middle-class and Cambridge undergraduates did increase tension in some areas
- Whilst law and order was maintained, there were several disturbances in Plymouth and London, and some violence around a few coalfields
- In Glasgow miners clashed with police
- The one area which the government struggled to maintain were the railways - it was difficult to move freight throughout the strike