This shows that Trade Unions were becoming militant and powerful before the war, and the government were already introducing welfare reforms, and that the war did not start, but merely increased these factors.
The Defence of the Realm act of 1914 gave the government control by nationalising the main industries, such as the coal industry. This shows a change from the Liberal’s traditional laissez faire approach. This act was also intended to help improve the health of the nation, by making it illegal to sell cigarettes to under 14’s and illegal to let them enter a pub, restricting pub-opening hours, and introducing licensing laws. This shows the war acting as a catalyst for change, as it was because of the war that the government were so desperate to try to improve the health of the nation, so that the country would have stronger soldiers. Another example of government intervention, moving away from the laissez faire approach was the Rent and Mortgage Interest Act 1915, where landlords’ rents were restricted. The “Homes fit for Heroes” plan also demonstrates government intervention, when the government promised to (but never quite did) build 500 000 homes for the soldiers to come home to. Unemployment insurance became compulsory for the majority of jobs in 1916.
In 1918, following on from its health policies seen in the Defence of the Realm Act and the Children’s Act, the government built hundreds of infant welfare centres, where children could be taken to see a doctor for free, and receive free vaccinations. This was again working on the theory that children were the future of the country. This also led to the government increasing school leaving age to 15, and even funding the policy, so that the country would have more skilled workers.
Because of the horrific casualties of the First World War, a Widows and Orphans fund was set up in 1916. This was to ensure those that had lost husbands or parents were looked after properly after the war. This was again another huge example of state intervention.
More evidence of the war acting as a locomotive can be seen in the war pensions, which gave injured soldiers’ disability benefits. Introduced in 1916, this links back to the Workmen’s Compensation Act, but now gave injured soldiers the chance to claim as well.
The government saw that health and safety in factories was a large concern, and the government began to employ safety inspectors in 1918. Around this time, cheap factory meals were introduced through internal canteens.
The government relied heavily on industry during the First World War to provide everything needed for a war, and so the power of trade unions was increased. They were less threatened as well, as there was no army to break up strikes, as it had been done in Russia in 1917. A huge leap forward for the Trade Unions was the Defence of the Realm Act, as it promised wage increases, showing the huge power the trade unions had over the government.
Some workers, however, seemed to feel they didn’t even need the trade unions backing to help them bargain during strikes at this point. In Clydeside, there were many unofficial strikes. Workers knew how heavily the government was relying on them during the war, and in 1915 a group of workers took advantage of this fact by striking for higher pay without the backing of their union. The government was left with no choice but to comply. These ‘unofficial’ strikes just gave trade unionists greater confidence, as they saw how easily the government had given in.
The coalition government saw the introduction of a war cabinet, which included labour MP’s and trade union leaders. This shows how strong trade unions were at this point, due to the war acting as a locomotive for them. During the war the trade unions started to heavily influence the government, as David Lloyd George liked to hear their views.
After the war, the majority of the government’s acts and policies, such as the pub licensing laws, infant welfare centres, etc stayed firmly in place. This shows that the dropping of the laissez faire approach was not just for the war, but appeared to be for good, proving the war not just to have influenced changed, but to continue to influence change, in this sense acting as a locomotive.
The boom shortly after the war lead to low levels of unemployment, securing the trade unions power, as businesses and industries couldn’t find unemployed to replace the striking workers with. The levels of power of the unions after the war were in fact so high that they felt confident enough to have many strikes for increased pay i.e. the miners in Glasgow 1919. This economic boom meant that the trade unions were powerful, but also meant that their power would fall sharply if the economy were to become fragile.
When the property franchise was extended to all men over 21, to reward all the working class soldiers, the trade unions power was further increased, as it lead to a large increase in Labour votes. The fact that the soldiers were mostly working class meant that the government had to extend the franchise, and this is yet another good example of the war acting as a locomotive for domestic change.
Other historians however, disagree with Clive Emsley’s view that the war was a locomotive for domestic change. Gerald de Grout argues that there were large limitations on the reforms introduced. He says that some of the reforms and policies were abolished after the war, a prime example of this being that not even half of the 500 000 homes promised for the “heroes” were ever to be built, and another being that the government failed to raise school leaving age to 15, as it failed to supply the funds needed. Also the nationalised businesses were less tightly controlled after the war.
When their was the “bust” in 1921 after the “boom” of 1919, the number of union strikes declined incredibly, and it was also in this year that the Triple Alliance split, showing a loss of the trade unions power. This was because of high unemployment; the railway men and transport workers did not want to support the miners strike for fear of their jobs being given to the unemployed.
Despite the few reversals on policies, and the small loss of power by trade unions after the war, I still agree with Clive Emsley’s view that the war was a locomotive for domestic change, as it influenced so many new reforms and policies, and made the trade unions more powerful than ever before, and completely changed the governments laissez faire approach. The First World War acted as a catalyst to speed up the growth of the unions, and several welfare reforms that helped the working class, and in this sense I do believe it acted as a locomotive for domestic change.
