The impact of the 1926 General Strike on Welsh coalfield communities

Photo credit: Leonard Raven-Hill, Punch Magazine, 19 May 1926.   

The General Strike began on 3 May 1926 and lasted until 12 May 1926. The purpose of the strike which was implemented across the UK was to force the British government to prevent wage reductions and worsening conditions for miners. The TUC (Trades Union Congress) called for the strike and around 1.7 million men in transport and heavy industry took part. When the TUC called off the strike on 12 May and other industries were calling their workers back, the miners were left to continue the struggle by themselves. The lockout that started as a result of the strike became a war of attrition, which unfortunately, the miners were destined to lose. The British government had sensed that there was a strike brewing several months before it did in May 1926, and during that time had been stockpiling supplies and called on middle-class volunteers to pick up some of the essential work of those who took part in the strike. There were a number of reasons why the strike took place, most related to the drop in coal exports as a result of the First World War and the subsequent wage reductions for coal miners as a result.  

The General strike of 1926 had a major impact on the coalfield communities in south Wales with thousands of men taking part. The coalfield in south Wales was the largest in Britain in terms of the number of miners, which made the effects of the strike in 1926 on these communities extremely significant. The localised nature of the south Wales coalfields was a big factor in how the communities dealt with the strike and its impact on the population, as virtually everyone in these coalfield communities was affected by the General Strike of 1926 and the lock-out that continued for several months after the strike had ended. However, it has to be noted that other areas in Wales, workers also took part in the strike, with areas in the north coming to a standstill in solidarity with the cause. As Kenneth O. Morgan has stated, the social demonstration had been peaceful in Wales.  

 

As a result of other industries being unable to develop in south Wales, the majority of the those living in coalfield communities had occupations that related to coal. As a result, a large proportion of the population of these communities did not have a regular, or any, income during the strike and the subsequent lock-out. According to Chris Williams, 74 per cent of the male workforce in the Rhondda Urban District was comprised of coal miners and similar percentages of coalminers could be found in a number of districts in Glamorgan and Monmouthshire. Such high percentages demonstrate the dependence on the coal industry for employment in South Wales. Simply from the sheer number of men employed in the coal industry it can be deduced that the General Strike in 1926 had a major impact on the communities in south Wales, due to such a large proportion of the wage-earners being on strike, but also because of the strong bonds between the miners and the pressure of being rejected by the community if the men did not take part in the strike. Hywel Francis and Dai Smith have suggested that the miners were so overwhelming in numbers and influence in coalfield communities that the ‘totality of commitment to the miners’ cause was a form of class consciousness which translated itself into a community consciousness’. It can therefore be inferred that the General Strike of 1926 brought coalfield communities together in solidarity with the miners and their cause because they made up the majority of the working male population in the community, and thus, a significant proportion of the community was directly affected by the strike. 

The way in which the strike affected mining families in coalfield communities financially can be seen in increasing pressure that was being put on the Poor Law Guardians during the strike and lock out in 1926. An example of this can be seen with the Pontypridd Guardians who were ‘[c]aught between popular pressure and financial crisis’ and had very little room to manoeuvre as a result. Access to relief through the Poor Law was an important feature of the lock-out for the mining families. The Merthyr Tydfil judgement of 1900 allowed relief for the dependents of the strikers, but not for the strikers themselves. This is significant especially when considering the lock-out because the relief given to the dependents of the strikers would have been the main source of income for many families which can be argued to change the dynamics of the family as the wife would have to collect the relief money. Relief only being given to the dependents of the strikers would have had the biggest impact on the young single men living in the coalfield communities as they would not be able to claim any relief leading some to leave the community in search of work. Despite the sense of community and common cause that came as a result of the strike, coalfield communities were also affected by disagreements, thus showing that although communities came together to support each other, there were times when tensions became too much.

Social activities for the miners on strike were often organised from the miners’ hall or institute, and so was the weekly cinema. These institutions were also where the majority of communal soup kitchens were located. Solidarity with the miners’ cause can also be seen in the wider community with the introduction of soup kitchens specifically for the miners. Sue Bruley has stated that despite the numerous problems surrounding the funding for soup kitchens, most ‘remained open until the end of the dispute and even beyond it’. This demonstrates that even though coalfield communities were deeply affected financially by having soup kitchens, for the miners they were a way of coming together and supporting each other as well as a way for others in the community to show their solidarity with the miners’ cause. David Gilbert argues that during strikes, communities like those in the south Wales coalfield, were strengthened, ‘whether measured systematically in terms of the characteristics of social networks or in terms of popular consciousness’. Bruley has stated that communal eating for adults in 1926 was ‘a male experience’ in coalfield communities. There were attempts in places such as Bedlinog and Maerdy to include women in communal eating, but they were unsuccessful. It can therefore be suggested that the General Strike strengthened the gender divide in coalfield communities to a certain extent because women taking part in communal eating would have removed ‘meal preparation almost entirely from the home’, thus resulting in a fundamental change to the sexual division of labour in communities that held strong views on the roles of men and women. Where communal feeding for adults was concerned, there was no public funding as was the case for children, and so it was dependent on huge fund-raising efforts in local communities. Due to such a large proportion of the coalfield communities taking part or being directly affected by the strike a lot of pressure was put onto those in the community who continued working in other occupations for financial support to ensure the soup kitchens could keep running. In parts of west Wales this support came from farmers where ‘lambs and tons of vegetables were presented to communal kitchens by farmers who knew that they would in any event eventually be stolen’. It has been argued by some historians that this indicates that for some coalfield communities, the General Strike of 1926 had a positive effect, as some people lived better during the lock-out than they had before. It also shows that for some who were indirectly effected by the strike, they would rather provide for the strikers and their families rather than have produce stolen.

Support from those not taking part in the strike can also be seen in rent being ‘withheld for the duration of the dispute’ and in some areas ‘credit arrangements were made with local tradesmen for essential items such as flour, sugar and tea’. This majorly affected the economic situation of the coalfield communities as debts were increasing and grocers were facing bankruptcy because of the amount of credit that had been extended. This added to the growing tensions during the dispute. An example of this is the shopkeepers in the Rhondda who ‘were faced with a loss of custom and a rates burden said to be increasing at nine pence in the pound with every week of the strike’. This demonstrates that the strike not only affected the families of those who were part of the strike, but also the wider community and resulted in severe financial implications for the whole coalfield society. It can however be inferred that those in the wider community wanted to show their support for the miners cause despite the financial problems that were incurred as a result.

Prior to and during the 1920s, women in coalfield communities, especially in the south Wales valleys, had been marginalised and an emphasis was put on their domestic role in the home. In the coal mining areas like Rhondda, there was a very obvious gender divide between the roles of men and women, with the men taking on the role as the breadwinner and the women having more domestic roles. Gilbert argues that ‘women were more than a motivating force as the 1926 strike proceeded’ because women were brought into the strike organisation as they bought and prepared food and became involved in the kitchens. As a result, communal eating meant that some of the gender divides and segregations that had been predominant in these communities were affected and to some extent were reduced, because in many cases, men and women worked together in the communal kitchens.  

Bruley has suggested that the General Strike had a positive impact for some women in coalfield communities because wives and mothers temporarily did not have to service the miners for work or battle to keep on top of the coal dust that the miners brought home. It can be argued that for some women in coalfield communities, the General Strike of 1926 provided them with a freedom that they had not experienced before as they could be away from the home during the day. As a result, these women were leaving the private sphere for the public sphere where ‘[m]en and women worked together in public life as never before’. Despite men and women working together in some areas of the coalfield during the strike, Bruley states there was still a gender divide in the work that took place with men taking responsibility for providing coal and ‘making sure that the fires were lit for the cooking’ and women taking charge of the cooking. It can therefore be deduced that the General Strike of 1926 altered and blurred the gender divides to some extent in dominantly patriarchal coalfield communities, therefore allowing women to have a more active role in the community, at least for the duration of the strike and lock-out. 

It can also be argued that as a result of the men on strike not being able to claim relief, their wives became the ‘breadwinner’ in the family because they were able to receive relief which became the family’s main source of income during the lock-out. This was significant because the coalfield communities in south Wales were extremely patriarchal. This was one of the major ways that the General Strike affected the coalfield communities in south Wales because the women did not have to service the men in the same way and could spend their time doing other activities, while the men were no longer able to provide for their family in the same way that they had been before the strike. These general relations were majorly affected because the wives of the miners on strike were often no longer ‘invisible’ as they started to have a bigger role in the wider community during the lock-out as they did not have to spend as much time servicing the miners or completing household chores. 

The General Strike of 1926 was unsuccessful for a number of reasons, one being that the government had been preparing for a strike for nine months before it happened and was able to outlast the strikers. The failure of the strike and its harsh impact on young single men especially, can be argued to be one of the reasons for a decline in the appeal of community, both in terms of local community and the community of South Wales. This decline had a fundamental impact as there was an increase in migration from coalfield communities after the strike. As a result of the failure of the strike, when the miners returned to work after the lock-out they had to accept ‘humiliating terms of the settlement’ that included longer work hours for lower wages. Gilbert argues that the recovery of the coalfield communities after the General Strike was long and unsteady due to the ‘huge debts owed to shopkeepers, landlords and the Poor Law Unions’ thus ensuring that the crisis in coalfield communities ‘continued long after the general return to work’. According to Gilbert the complete defeat of the strike was also a partial defeat for the Welsh communities as the ‘precise social order of post-war South Wales was broken’. Francis and Smith argue that ‘[t]he most profound effect the events of 1926 had on the coalfield was the way in which they clarified and then polarised class loyalties’. Social class polarisation and political consciousness both deepened and developed greatly during the lock-out and had a long-lasting impact on the coalfield communities. An example of the impact this had can be seen in the large number of miners that turned away from ‘quasi-syndicalism of industrial action’ in support of the Labour Party. As a result of this change in political leaning, the Labour Party strengthened its support to the extent that in the 1931 General Election, the ‘South Wales coalfield was the only big coalfield to hold all of its mining seats’. While this is not necessarily a negative effect of the 1926 General Strike it does demonstrate how its failure influenced fundamental change in coalfield communities with the shift away from more radical politics to conventional politics.

To conclude, it can be deduced that the General Strike of 1926 had a major impact on the families of those striking, but also those in the wider community who were not part of the strike. Despite there being both positive and negative effects of the strike on the coalfield communities, it has been suggested that the failure of the strike resulted in a lack of enthusiasm for both local community and the community of south Wales which had previously been one of the distinctive features of the coalfield society in south Wales. The financial implications of the strike for the whole community and not just the families on strike is one of the main ways that these communities were affected. However, there were more positive effects for some of the women in these communities as a result of the strike as they were able to spend their time out of the home and be part of the public sphere to a certain degree. It can therefore be argued that while some members of the community may have been effected more by the strike than others, virtually everyone in the community was effected to some extent.

---

Sources:

Kenneth O. Morgan, Rebirth of a Nation A History of Modern Wales, (Oxford, 1981). 

Chris Williams, Capitalism, Community and Conflict The South Wales Coalfield 1898-1947, (Cardiff, 1998).

Hywel Francis and Dai Smith, The Fed A History of the South Wales Miners in the Twentieth Century, (Cardiff, 1998).

David Gilbert, Class, Community, and Collective Action Social Change in Two British Coalfields, 1850-1926, (Oxford, 1992). 

Sue Bruley, ‘The Politics of Food: Gender, Family, Community and Collective Feeding in South Wales in the General Strike and Miners’ Lockout of 1926’, Twentieth Century British History, (2006).

Sue Bruley, The Women and Men of 1926 A Gender and Social History of the General Strike and Miners’ Lockout in South Wales, (Cardiff, 2010).