General Strike of 1926 and Its Treatment by Newspapers - Literature review Example

General Strike of 1926 and its treatment by Newspapers: New Statesman, the Nation and Athenaeum and the Saturday Review. Newspapers and periodicals today have gained increasing importance in the world today. Since time immemorial, newspapers have served as a means of disseminating information about both national and foreign affairs. The significance of newspapers lies in the fact that they provide a detailed coverage of the events. Moreover, they are regarded as a reliable and credible source of information and their word is considered by peoples as the truth. Subsequently, newspapers and related print media, like magazines and periodicals, can have a major influence on the way the public perceives a particular event. For many people, such print media is the only means of gaining knowledge about the outside world, and the repercussions of what the media reports via the print media can be widespread and resonating. The General Strike of 1926 was one such event where the media responded differently. There were discrepancies in the way the event was reported by various types of print media, with each company voicing out their own opinions. This paper explores the historical context of the General Strike. It attempts to deliberate on the differences in its treatment by the New Statesman, the Nation and Athenaeum and the Saturday Review and the causes for the differences in their treatment. The paper also reviews the history of these newspapers periodicals and provides analysis of the role that they played in relation to the General Strike. There were many newspapers that were in circulation when the General Strike of 1926 happened. Many had different stands regarding the Strike. Pro-government newspapers like the Times kept on operating during the Strike and did not cease publications. Those like the Daily Mirror, Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail kept on publishing during the Strike, with some publishing in a different country and then flying in the copies to UK. Newspapers like the New Statesman, the Nation and Athenaeum and the Saturday Review did not publish during this time. The stances of the newspapers on the General Strike differed: some were supportive of the Government while some newspapers showed solidarity to the cause of the miners and went on strike;.however, despite their support for the government, no publications of Pro-Government newspapers appeared. The Nation and Athenaeum was founded a few years before the Strike. It was a weekly political paper, founded in 1921 from the merger of the Athenaeum with the Nation. The Athenaeum was a very old magazine that was in circulation since 1828 and had attracted a lot of influential writers of the century like Thomas Hardy and T. S. Eliot. The Nation on the other hand had emerged recently, in the start of the 1900s. In 1923, Maynard Keynes, along with a group of Liberals from Summer School, bought the progressive weekly, the Nation and Athenaeum. The newspaper had a Liberal point of view. Keynes was the president of its Board of Directors. He appointed Hubert Henderson as the editor-in-chief and Leonard Woolf as the literary editor (Moggridge, 1995). The weekly newspaper combined together both economics and politics. As discussed later, Keynes wrote a number of articles in the newspaper and played a part in the General Strike. In 1931, Nation and Athenaeum was absorbed into the New Statesman and the New Statesman was now named as the New Statesman and Nation for many decades after that. The New Statesman was originally founded in 1913 and is still published today. It promotes the socialist cause in the contemporary world. Initially there were a lot of professional hostility between the New Statesman and the Nation. Kingsley Martin had a control over The Nation and when he became the editor of the New Statesman, he suggested merger of the two. John Freeman was the editor after Kingsley Martin. As Maynes himself said, the newspaper was an advocate of the Left-wing of the Labor Party (Moggridge, 1995). Another newspaper that was in circulation during the General Strike was the Saturday Review. Its full name was the The Saturday Review of politics, literature, science, and art; founded by A. J. B. Beresford Hope in the year 1855 but has ceased to exist today. J. D. Cook was the first editor of the weekly newspaper. The paper supported Conservatism and many renowned wirers like George Bernard Shaw and Max Muller wrote for it. It discontinued circulation in 1938. It was famous for its sarcastic tone, as noted by the Herald that the richest thing about the Saturday Review was its critique (Twain, 2008). The General Strike of 1926 took place in England. It was a strike where the miners and industry laborers united together to a work stoppage by refusing to work. It is one of the gravest industrial issues to occur in the UK (Simpson, 2005) although it persisted for only ten days, from 3 May 1926 to 13 May 1926. In an article by Robert Taylor, printed in the New Statesman, he wrote (2006) that four million people joined the two million miners. An ILP activist quoted in John Paton’s Left Turn, “There's never been anything like it. If the blighters o' leaders here... dinna let us down we'll have the capitalists crawlin' on their bellies in a week. Oh boy, it's the revolution at last!” (Mitchinson, 2001). The Strike was called by the General Council of the Trade Union Congress (TUC). The Scottish Worker, the official organ of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, aimed to give the working class in Scotland reliable news about the Strike, blared headlines like “STAND FAST! The Greatest Response in History” and “England aroused and Alert- Enthusiasm Everywhere Prevails” (Radical Glasgow, 2006). The Strike was a vain attempt by the TUC to persuade the British to accept their demands. However despite the fact that it failed to coerce the British government into taking steps to improve the working conditions of the coal miners, the Strike sent waves of tremor into the well-established setup of British capitalism, bringing it to a precarious position. The Strike was able to command considerable authority and power since industrial work was brought to a halt all over the country and was a major turning point in the history of the Labor Movement (Pipkin, 2005). However, it was unable to achieve its goals, the reason for which is greatly attributed to repercussions of World War I. Describing the cause of the General Strike of 1926, the New Statesman once published an article titled Martyrs, miners and matchgirls, where it was stated that industrial action was a regular feature of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, culminating in the General Strike of 1926 (New Statesman, 2010). During times of such economic fluctuations, the coal miners wanted to stabilize their wages. Usually what was happening was that as the country was plunging into deeper economic crisis, the wages of the workers were being cut down to compensate for the loss. Winston Churchill was notorious for his activities against the working class of the country, and ever since his appointment in 1925, he put a halt to the subsidies being given to the industry and there were rumors rife that the workers were going to be made to work for more hours. The Report published by Samuel’s Royal Commission on the state of the coal industry in the country proposed these reductions and longer working hours. Mine workers, as a result, decided to take matters into their own hands and to step up for their rights. They asked for the government to redo the reductions. MFGB (the Miners' Federation of Great Britain) also came forward to show their support to the cause of the workers. In January, 1926, the General Council of the TUC had meetings with the miners; and, as stated by Dutt (1926), according to the Daily Herald, the prevailing view was that “conflict was not inevitable”; the Chairman of the General Council, Pugh, declared that “no special significance need be attached to the Conference. No steps of any kind could be taken until the Report of the Coal Commission had been issued” (January 20, 1926).The negotiations that took place in March and April were unfruitful. The strong resistance by the workers caused the owners to lock out the workers on Friday, 30 April, 1926. This resulted in the miners going to strike under the slogan of “Not a penny off the pay, not a minute on the day” (Barberis, McHugh & Tyldesley, 2005). In a manifesto published by the Sunday Worker on 2nd May 1925, it was stated that, “The General Council's request for power to call out every industry will not move the Government unless accompanied by action. Such action can only be an immediate embargo on transport of coal or blacklegs and a stoppage of the lying capitalist press” (Murphy, 1926). In the months leading to the General Strike, newspapers were significant in disseminating the news to the general public, with each one presenting their own views regarding the proposed reductions and solutions to the crisis. One of the newspapers to propose solutions was the Nation. Maynard Keynes only wrote one article regarding such measures that could appease the distraught working class. This article appeared in the Nation on the 28th of April, a few days before the Strike. He suggested that “the 3s. per ton increase in net proceeds required for profitable operations come in equal shares from wages, the pooling of earnings from export sales and industrial reorganization, spurred by a tapering Government subsidy per ton raised” (Moggridge, 1995). This demonstrates that the Nation had a liberal approach. The role of the print media is important in the General Strike. The workers of the Daily Mail were the first one to go on strike. It was an unofficial walkout staged by these people by not publishing one of the most important anti-strike editorials, For King and Country, of the newspaper.( Mitchinson, 2001). Taylor (2006) writes in the New Statesmen that other industries in the UK followed suit. Railway, transport and print systems closed down. There were no trains being operated. Out of 2000 trams, only nine were being run. There were no machines at work in factories, no gas and electricity being produced by the workers. Dockers, iron, steels and chemicals workers refused to work. In Taylor’s article he wrote of how the entire industry was shut down. The circulation of the newspapers came to a halt; printing unions were shut down and no newspapers were published. There was a stark unavailability of telephones; communication systems were also down. As a response, the government decided to publish its own newspaper. This was done to keep the public informed about the ongoing political process and to coerce the workers into going back to work. Winston Churchill was appointed as its editor. The newspaper was named the British Gazette. However it did little to defuse the tensions. It was a pro-government newspaper, and started an agenda of promulgating anti-strike measures. Churchill spoke in the House of Commons with a militant language regarding the Strike, “In the event of a struggle, whatever its character might be, however ugly the episodes which marked it, he had no doubt that the national State would emerge victorious in spite of all the rough and awkward corners that it might have to turn. But if they were going to embark on a struggle of this kind, let them be quite sure that they had decisive public opinion behind them. As the struggle widened, and it became, as it must, a test whether the country was to be ruled by Parliament or by some sort of other organisation not responsible by our elective processes to the people as a whole, new resources of strength would come to the State, and all sorts of action which we should now consider impossible would, just as in the time of the war, be taken with general assent as a matter of course” The BBC radio also stood in line with the government agenda, and refused to even let the Archbishop of the Canterbury Cathedral to broadcast an appeal to settle the strike. The New Statesman reports in its article by Taylor (2006) that the Baldwin used BBC to control the information released to the public about the Strike, and did not let the Labor Party broadcast either. The two special newssheets published during the General Strike were the British Gazette and British Worker (Gregg, 2007). The government utilized the press of the Morning Post in order to publish the British Gazette. The TUC retorted to this act by publishing their own newspaper, which they referred to as a strike bulletin. It was published in the afternoon, and was named the British Worker. It published more number of copies than its government counterpart, but its views were not infused with anti-government propaganda. Henry Hamilton Fyfe contributed to some review work for the British Worker during the Strike. He observes that Churchill ran his newspaper British Gazette in a flamboyant style, while the British Worker was absolutely matter-of-fact (Simpkin, n.d.). Every issue of the British Worker had the statements, “THE GENERAL COUNCIL DOES NOT CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTION. IT IS NOT SEEKING TO SUBSTITUTE UNCONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT. NOR IS IT DESIROUS OF UNDERMINING OUR PARLIAMENTARY INSTITUTIONS. THE SOLE AIM OF THE COUNCIL IS TO SECURE FOR THE MINERS A DECENT STANDARD OF LIFE. THE COUNCIL IS ENGAGED IN AN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE. THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS” (Murphy, 1926). The British Worker asserted repeatedly in its issues that, “Do make every one understand that this is an industrial, not a political dispute. It concerns wages, decent conditions of life, fair methods of negotiation; not the Constitution, nor the Government, nor the House of Commons” (Dutt, 1926). The British Gazette did not have enough worker force. Not only was it understaffed, it was also alleged of printing from other newspapers. Churchill remarked in the British Gazette, “I do not agree that the TUC have as much right as the Government to publish their side of the case and to exhort their followers to continue action. It is a very much more difficult task to feed the nations than it is to wreck it”. The TUC retorted to the comment in the British Worker, “We are not making war on the people. We are anxious that the ordinary members of the public shall not be penalized for the unpatriotic conduct of the mine owners and the government” (Reference.com, 2006). This demonstrates that the TUC did not have any intentions of political war; they only wanted the miners to get their due rights whereas the British government under Churchill was running a more opinionated propaganda. The government promulgated the propaganda that the country was nearer to Civil War; the British Worker retorted bleakly to it, “Is it fair?” (Murphy, 1926). Taylor (2006) wrote in the New Statesmen that a large majority of the people who supported the Liberals regarded the Strike as an industrial affair, rather than a political one. He further observes in his article that Baldwin and his colleagues provoked the conflict at a time when it could have been settled; Baldwin used the call by Daily Mail workers as an excuse to break off the talks, but it needs to be noted here that the call by these workers was unofficial. The article quotes in favor of the Left-wing cause, as it expresses the concerns of Citrone, the TUC General Secretary at that time, “There was a general feeling that the government had forced war upon us and that there would be no drawing back on the part of our people”. the government accused the General Council of being revolutionaries; however the opposite was projected in the British Worker, “You have done splendidly, but keep quiet, keep quiet, keep quiet; fold your arms, stand still, or go to bed. Take a holiday. Do only that which is emphatically legal. Don’t develop the struggle. Have patience. Trust us, we will get you out of this as quickly as possible—with honour of course” (Murphy, 1926). However, there were still some newspapers that opposed the strike and sided with the government. In the last issue of the Daily Herald just before the onset of the Strike, the newspaper blared headlines that “TRUST YOUR LEADERS! Heed none who speak ill of those in command. Any who try to sow distrust are the worst foes of Labour, worse than any Capitalist” (Dutt, 1926). Despite the nation-wide shut down of newspapers, these pro-British newspapers continued to operate; one of the big names was the Times. Although the Times experienced the brunt of the resistance caused by the shutdown of transport, gas, electricity etc. and was understaffed, it still managed to print a small-font poorly organized copy everyday. However, though the Times did not vouch for the strike, it did not make any biases in reporting the events. The Daily Mail published during this time as well; it was a right wing newspaper and accused the miners and workers as revolutionaries and subversives. Give examples of this ffrom the newspapers, It also had problems publishing in the country, so it published in Paris and brought the copies to UK via plane. The Daily Telegraph also published during the General Strike, although the format was smaller and the pages less (Bosch, n.d.). It was seen that the New Statesman had a more pro-Liberal stance. It was supportive of the strike, and amongst many other newspapers that closed down their publications, the New Statesman too reacted by closing down during the time of the General Strike. Baldwin declared a state of emergency in the country. Troops were deployed in high risk areas thought to attract trouble. The Saturday Review differed from the New Statesman in its views. New Statesman was Liberal, whereas the Saturday Review was pro-Conservative. During the time of the General Strike, the editor of the New Statesman was Kinsley Martin. The newspaper wrote against the government. In one of the issues published after the strike had ended, the New Statesman gave an account of the negotiations and the shattered hopes of the left-wingers, and published an article “The British General Strike” on 22 May 1926. The article was written by Nearing. The article gave details about the politics that ensued in the top political circles, between the Prime Minister and his Cabinet Members. Many of the members, including Bridgman, Amery, Chamberlain, Churchill etc. were in favor of war and taking strict action against the left-wingers. In it Nearing wrote that Winston Churchill was the villain of the piece. He based his analysis on Churchill’s statement that a “little blood-letting would be all to the good” (Simpson, 2005). The pro-Liberal stance of the New Statesman is illustrated by the fact that it wrote the strike was a victory of the Cabinet War party. The committed Left gathered around the New Statesman for support (McCarthy, 2002). During the General Strike, Maynard Keynes, the editor of the Nation, wrote some part of the Symposium that was published later in the Nation. He held the General Strike responsible for chaos. He did not see the Strike as an effective means of forcing the government to accept the demands of the miners. He proposed that settling the dispute would have been a better option (Moggridge, 1995). The newspaper supported the Liberal cause throughout the Strike and after it, as one of its slogans chanted, “It matters what Liberals are thinking. Read the Nation” (Dimand, 1988). On May 6th, Stanley Baldwin wrote in the British Gazette, “Constitutional Government is being attacked. Let all good citizens whose livelihood and labour have thus been put in peril bear with fortitude and patience the hardships with which they have been so suddenly confronted. Stand behind the Government who are doing their part confident that you will cooperate in the measures they have undertaken to preserve the liberties and privileges of the people of these islands. The laws of England are the people's birthright. The laws are in your keeping. You have made Parliament their guardian. The General Strike is a challenge to Parliament and is the road to anarchy and ruin” (Nearing, 1926). This quote renders the General Strike as anarchist movement meant to overthrow the government. The Taylor (2006) in the New Statesman portrays the picture that the TUC leaders were confused about their tactics, and were divided now; the confidence and spirit exhibited by the TUC had diminished and there was increasing dislike against the leaders of the Miner’s Federation by the TUD leaders. The General Strike ended on 12 May when the TUC leaders agreed to accept the Samuel Memorandum. The British Worker, the strike bulletin of the TUC, blared the headlines Thursday, 13th May “GREAT STRIKE TERMINATED” and “HOW PEACE CAME”; the bulletin read that the TUC General Council was satisfied that the miners will now get a fair deal. The bulletin reported that telegrams had been sent to all Unions to instruct their branches at once that miners have called a delegate conference. The article also reported that the General Strike was called off by the TUC yesterday after having reached agreements with Sir Herbert Samuel that a satisfactory basis of settlement in the mining industry can now be formulated. The report said that the official announcement had been made by Mr. Arthur Pugh after the General Council had been received by Baldwin (British Worker, 2009). The calling off of the Strike was seen as a betrayal of the leaders of the TUC to the left-wing cause, as published by Taylor (2006) in the New Statesman. The miners could not get their demands met and were forced to capitulate (Columbia Encyclopedia, 2004); the popularity of the TUC declined steadily after that. The headlines blaring in the British Gazette by Churchill infuriated the workers; the newspaper published, “Unconditional withdrawal of notices by TUC. Men to return forthwith. Surrender handed to Premier in Downing Street” (Mitchinson, 2001). The capitalist press announced the Strike as an “abject failure” (Murphy, 1926). The Patrick Strike Committee said, “We protest against and deplore the calling off of the general strike and, furthermore, we call upon the Scottish TUC to issue an immediate call for the resumption of the strike until such time as a definite basis for a settlement is forthcoming and an assurance given that there will be no victimisation as a result of the general strike” (Radical Glasgow, 2006). On 14th May, the British Worker, called out to the workers to not to go back: “You must not sign any document or accept any conditions for resumption of work except the conditions obtaining before the dispute. The men must all go back together. The E.C. of the three railway unions are meeting to discuss the question of reinstatement. Throughout the country the men are solid in their attitude not to resume work under the companies’ conditions. Men urged to stand solid and await the decisions of the joint executives which will be sent at the end of the conference” (Murphy, 1926). After the General Strike ended, articles appeared in newspapers regarding the effects of the Strike and solutions to the indecisions of the talks that ensued between the political leaders. In Lansbury’s Labor Weekly, a group of strikers wrote, “The bosses in all trades felt...that now they had the trade union movement at their feet, and all they had to do was to stamp on it” (Mitchinson, 2001). Maynard Keynes, editor of the Nation and Athenaeum, stressed the importance of negotiations by the top political leaders, supporting the idea that the wages should be high enough with the closure of less efficient and low profit pits and more co-operation and cartelization in the international market (Moggridge, 1995). Another consequence of the General Strike was that it sharpened class antagonism. Baldwin himself stated that the fact that there are powerful organizations on both side could lead to violence; when the Conservative press was involved in promulgating the dictatorial desires of the workers, two Liberal periodicals the Nation and the New Statesmen were carrying on debates about the class war. On 19 August 1926, the Times wrote that resistance of the mine owners to national agreements with the Miner’s Federation stems primarily from the realization that the Federation had become the main agent in in carrying out the political aims of the workers. The Nation on 11 September 1926 wrote about the ideologies of the Mining Association, citing the leader of the mineowners, Evan Williams, “The moment you have set tip a national agreement with a National Board, you bring every question that is relevant to that Board forward as a political issue, with debates in the House of Commons, and you get the Government involved…”. Moreover the popularity of the government had lessened considerably over time, as the New Statesmen quoted on 30th October 1926, “everybody, both inside and outside the House of Commons, knows that since May 1st there has been throughout the country a defection of Conservative voters that amounts to a landslide. If the Government were to go to the country today it would have difficulty in holding even one half of the seats it holds at present”. Although the miners were betrayed by the leadership at the TUC, the humger and anger that they felt did not solve the question, as the Nation quotes, “The present struggle is not likely to come to a clean end. It will tend rather to assume a new form, and to keep our coalfields in a condition of unceasing trouble and confusion, until we succeed in securing the atmosphere of a new regime”. However the consequences of the Strike led to the Labor Party winning the elections in 1929. The Nation particularly was very active in this regard, with numerous columns discussing the leadership of the Party and if Lloyd George was a right-winger or a left-winger. Keynes’ articles also appeared in the Times, New Statesman and The Guardian, siding with the Liberals (Wood, 1994). The New Statesman (2010) quotes in favor of the Left-wing cause, “History will ultimately write that it was a magnificent generation that was ready to do it”-Ernest Bevin, trade unionist and later Minister of Labour, on the General Strike, 1926. The Saturday Review on the other hand, supported the government and favored Baldwin since it wrote once that the strike had significantly promoted the reputation of Baldwin. However, it is notable that no publication of the Saturday Review appeared during the Strike. There was no publication of Nation and Athenaeum either during this time. One of the publications of the New Statesman, namely the “The New Statesman: A Weekly Review of Politics and Literature” was stopped during the Strike. The Review was supposed to be published on the 8th and 15th of May, 1926. The Nation and Athenaeum was also a Pro-Liberal. It had merged with the New Statesman a few years after the General Strike. However, before the merger, Maynard Keynes wrote articles that supported the Liberal cause. In one of such articles that he wrote in an issue of Nation and Athenaeum in November 1923, when tensions were rising regarding the coal industry, he showed optimism and hoped that the Liberals could win the elections (Dostaler, 2007). Considering the effects of the General Strike, the New Statesman in its article by Taylor (2006) reported that TUC went to great lengths to lessen the effects of the Strike, including measures like not shutting down essential services e.g. hospitals and schools, proposing to help the government protect movement of food, not involving the Civil service unions and asking its members and the miners to carry out the strike in an exemplary way that does not give any opportunity for the forces of law to intervene. The article also reflected that the TUC never threatened the state with any violence and was sought a way out of the impasse. In the article, Milne-Bailey stated that “There was a very deep and widespread sympathy felt by all classes of labour with the miners in their desperate fight against impending disaster. This was the supreme and perhaps the only motive of the majority of trade unionists”; he concluded that the General Strike “must rank as one of the most remarkable and impressive events in world labour history. There has never been a more amazing display of labour solidarity and the effect of such a demonstration must inevitably be deep and enduring. Workers have learnt a new sense of their oneness and their power”. The article ending sentence was that this is a “lesson that trade unionists, employers and the government would do well to remember today”. This demonstrates that the New Statesman expressed the views of the Liberals and the TUC openly, and delineated the Strike from the outlook of the Liberals and the TUC rather than the government. In another article published in the New Statesman, Mary Davis (2006) asserts that, “The greatest significance of the 1926 General Strike lies not in its duration or success, but in the fact that it posed the strongest challenge in the 20th century to the power of capitalism and, by implication, to the labourist ideology that had always shrunk from such confrontation” Hence in conclusion, the General Strike of 1926 impacted the newspapers as well. When the coal miners decided to go on strike action as a protest for the reductions in their wages, other workers belonging to different industries united with the coal miners to express their support and solidarity. It was not regarded by the workers as an overtly political issue, rather they tried to contain it within regional boundaries (Barron, 2009). The workers of the publishing presses went on strike too, and except a couple of pro-government newspapers, there were no newspapers in circulation during the ten days of the Strike. Although the Strike failed, power of the press in this regard can not be denied and is significant to the mass effect that the Strike produced on the economic activities of the country. Reference List Barberis, P., McHugh, J. & Tyldesley, M., 2005. Encyclopedia of British and Irish Political Organizations: Parties, Groups and Movements of the 20th Century. New York (NY): Continuum International Publishing Group. Barron, H. 2009. The 1926 Miners' Lockout: Meanings of Community in the Durham Coalfield. Oxford: Oxford University Press. British Worker, 2009. British Worker. [Online] Available at: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_eGQlhH60Qv8/Sgq-7Qy5crI/AAAAAAAAAjU/XjiP7BcTCWk/s400/General+Strike+1926.jpg [Accessed 9 June 2010]. Columbia Encyclopedia, 2004. The General Strike. [Online] Available at: http://www.questia.com/library/encyclopedia/general-strike.jsp [Accessed 4 June 2010]. Dimand, R. W., 1988. The origins of the Keynesian revolution: the development of Keynes' theory of employment and output. Stanford University Press. Dostaler, 2007. Keynes and his battles. Glasgow: Edward Elgar Publishing. Dutt, R. P. (1926). The Meaning of the General Strike. [Online] Available at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/dutt/pamphlets/strike.htm#f1 [Accessed 9 June 2010]. Gregg, R. B., 2007. The Power of Non-Violence. READ BOOKS. Bosch, J., n.d. The British General Strike of 1926. [Online] Available at: http://www.josepbosch.net/1926_STRIKE.pdf [Accessed 4 June 2010]. Mary, D. (2006). The Great Divide. [Online] (Updated 11 September 2006) Available at: http://www.newstatesman.com/200609110062 [Accessed 4 June 2010]. McCarthy, P., 2002. Language, politics, and writing: stolentelling in Western Europe. New York (NY): Palgrave Macmillan. Mitchinson, P., 2001. Britain 1926 General Strike: On the Verge of Revolution. [Online] Available at: http://www.marxist.com/History-old/british_gen_strike_1926.html [Accessed 7 June 2010]. Moggridge, D. E., 1995. Maynard Keynes: an economist's biography. Routledge. Murphy, J. T., 1926. The Political meaning of the Great Strike. [Online] Available at: http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/subject/general_strike/index.htm [Accessed 9 June 2010]. Nearing, S., 1926. The British General Strike: An Economic Interpretation of Its Background and Its Significance. New York (NY): Vanguard Press. New Statesman, 2010. Martyrs, miners and matchgirls. [Online] Available at: http://www.newstatesman.com/forum_view.php?newDisplayURN=300000026522 [Accessed 4 June 2010]. Pipkin, C. W., 2005. Social Politics and Modern Democracies, Volume 2. USA: Kessinger Publishing. Radical Glasgow, 2006. The General Strike, 1926. [Online] (Updated 9 January 2006) Available at: http://www.gcu.ac.uk/radicalglasgow/chapters/general_strike.html [Accessed 7 June 2010]. Reference.com, 2006. General Strike. [Online] (Updated 9 October 2008) Available at: http://www.reference.com/browse/general+strike [Accessed 7 June 2010]. Simpson, W., 2005. Twentieth Century British History: A Teaching Resource Book. 2nd ed. New York (NY): Routledge. Simpkin, J., n.d. General Strike. [Online] Available at: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUgeneral.htm [Accessed 6 June 2010]. Taylor, R., 2006. The Revolution That Never Was. [Online] Available at: http://www.newstatesman.com/200609110061 [Accessed 6 June 2010]. Twain , M., 2008. The 30000 Dollar Bequest and Other Stories. BiblioBazaar, LLC. Wood, J., 1994. John Maynard Keynes: Critical Assessments, Second Series. London: Routledge. Read More