The loss of foreign markets, the fall of world commodity prices and the decline in the competitiveness of British coal in foreign markets due to the Gold Standard all exacerbated existing poor relations between mine owners and mine workers. When productivity fell in the mines due to lack of modernisation and reinvestment, mine owners responded by proposing a reduction in wages and an increase of hours.
For miners, however the idea was neither conceivable or acceptable, they were already working in miserable conditions- two in every hundred miners were killed and twenty-five in every hundred were injured or crippled by industrial disease- there was also a large amount of discontentment because nationalisation had not occurred as promised in the 1919 Sankey Commission. This latest proposition was just felt to be adding insult to industry.
Until this point the Trade Union Congress had remained uninvolved in the conflicts between the mine owners and the miners. But following the mine owners latest proposition they felt they had to intervene to prevent the exploitation of the miners spreading to other industries. This is why it can be argued that the Coal industry was the catalyst or main contributing factor to the General Strike because it took the extreme exploitation of the miners for the Trade Union Congress to decide to act, and it was their involvement that signalled a turning point for the workers.
The government initially decided that the conflict between the mine owners and miners was not of their concern. But in 1925, the Trade Union Congress became involved and threatened a lock-out. In order to maintain control and appease the miners, the government responded by providing a twenty three million pound subsidy. A strike was temporarily avoided because both the miners- who were not receiving pay cuts- and the mine owners -who still had a reduction in the wages they paid the miners- were contented. But the subsidies were only for nine months. During this time the government set up the Samuel Commission to investigate the problems of British mining and discuss how best to increase its productivity.
The report was published in 1926, it rejected nationalisation but recognised a need for modernisation, it also recommended that subsidies should be withdrawn and miners' wages cut. The government agreed to accept the report if both sides agreed with its findings. This was unrealistic as the report made suggestions which neither party were willing to agree to. So the report was no help to the situation at all and the conflict returned to the same position as before the government intervened.
In the same month as the Samuel report was published the mine owners published a new report themselves, including the following terms of employment: an extension of the seven hour working day; a wage agreed for each district; and a reduction in all wages by ten to twenty five percent. The mine owners made it clear that if the miners did not agree to the new terms then they would lock the miners out.
In response to this on 1st May, the Trade Union Congress announced a General Strike to take place on 3rd May. However leaders of the Trade Union Congress were not totally happy about the proposed strikes and spent the next two days negotiating with the Government and mine owners. It was felt that the talks were close to agreement when Baldwin called them off. Allegedly Baldwin ended the negotiations because it was reported to him that printers at the Daily Mail already taken industrial action.
The Daily Mail's lack of co-operation was extremely convenient for Baldwin, as he was under increasing pressure from other Conservative ministers to end the negotiations. Some ministers, including Churchill, felt that accepting the Trade Union Congress' conditions would show a weak government. Baldwin could certainly have done more to avoid a General Strike because the Trade Union Congress clearly did not want one and were extremely willing to compromise. Baldwin, however, chose to prioritise the unity of the Conservative party.
Another criticism of Baldwin was that he did not take the opportunity the Samuel report created to resolve the conflict. It can be argued that if he had enforced its findings the situation would never have deteriorated to the extent where a general strike was inevitable.
However, if the Samuel report had been enforced it would have just added further chaos to the dispute between miners and mine owners as neither side agreed with its findings. Baldwin was really in a no win situation. Therefore the government's response was more of a hindrance to the avoidance of a general strike than a cause, because by the beginning of May it can be argued that a general strike was inevitable.
The combination of an economic crisis, a crippled coal industry and a poor government response led to the General Strike of 1926. British industry at that time was moribund and the government could have reacted more responsibly to the needs of the workers. But these were just additional problems to the underlying conflicts of the Coal industry rather than causes.
The miners were already extremely unhappy because of their dire working conditions and because nationalisation had not taken place as promised, so when the mine owners proposed wage cuts they refused to co-operate. The poor treatment of the miners motivated the Trade Union Congress to act, without whom a General Strike would have been impossible.
