Hubbry Logo
Three-Day WeekThree-Day WeekMain
Open search
Three-Day Week
Community hub
Three-Day Week
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Three-Day Week
Three-Day Week
Three-Day Week
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The Three-Day Week was one of several measures introduced in the United Kingdom from 1973 to 1974 by Edward Heath's Conservative government to conserve electricity, the generation of which was severely restricted owing to industrial action by coal miners and railway workers.

From 1 January 1974, commercial users of electricity were limited to three specified consecutive days' consumption each week and prohibited from working longer hours on those days. Services deemed essential (e.g. hospitals, data centres, supermarkets and newspaper printing presses) were exempt.[1] Television companies were required to cease broadcasting at 22:30 to conserve electricity,[2][3] although this restriction was dropped after a general election was called. The Three-Day Week restrictions were lifted on 7 March 1974.

Background

[edit]

Throughout the 1970s the British economy was troubled by high rates of inflation. To tackle this, the government capped public sector pay rises and publicly promoted a clear capped level to the private sector. This caused unrest amongst trade unions as wages did not keep pace with price increases. This extended to most industries, including coal mining, which provided the majority of the country's fuel and had a powerful trade union.

By the middle of 1973, the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) – drawn from a workforce who almost wholly worked for the National Coal Board – were becoming more militant with the election of Mick McGahey as vice-president. The national conference passed resolutions for a 35% wage increase, regardless of any government guidelines, and for the election of a Labour government committed to "true socialist policy" including nationalisation of land and all key monopolies.[4]

As inflation increased, miners' wages fell in real terms and, by October 1973, average wages were 2.3% lower than recommended by the Wilberforce Inquiry, which reported on miners' pay in 1972. In November 1973, the national executive committee of the NUM rejected the pay offer from the NCB and held a national ballot on a strike. The vote was rejected by 143,006 to 82,631. However, an overtime ban was implemented with the aim of halving production. This action hurt the coal industry and was unpopular amongst the British media, although the Trades Union Congress supported the NUM's actions.[4]

The Three-Day Week

[edit]
Electricity (Industrial and Commercial Use) (Control) (No. 2) Order 1973
Statutory Instrument
Parliament of the United Kingdom
CitationSI 1973/2172
Dates
Made21 December 1973
Laid before Parliament21 December 1973
Commencement31 December 1973
Other legislation
Made under
Text of statute as originally enacted

In the 1970s, most of the UK's electricity was produced by coal-burning power stations.[5] To reduce electricity consumption, and thus conserve coal stocks, the Conservative Prime Minister, Edward Heath, announced a number of measures under the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973 (c. 67) on 13 December 1973, including the 'Three-Day Work Order', the Electricity (Industrial and Commercial Use) (Control) (No. 2) Order 1973 (SI 1973/2172), which came into force at midnight on 31 December. Commercial consumption of electricity would be limited to three consecutive days each week.[1] The Labour Party, the opposition party at this time, strongly opposed the 3-day week.[6][7] Heath's objectives were business continuity and survival and to avoid further inflation and a currency crisis. Rather than risk a total shutdown, working time was reduced to prolong the life of available fuel stocks. Television broadcasts were to shut down at 22:30 each day, and most pubs were closed; due to the power surges generated at 22:30, the Central Electricity Generating Board argued for a staggered shutdown on BBC and ITV, alternating nightly, and this was eventually introduced.[4] The television broadcasting restrictions were introduced on 17 December 1973, suspended for the Christmas and New Year period, and lifted on 8 February 1974.[8]

Strike vote

[edit]

On 24 January 1974, 81% of NUM members voted to strike, having rejected the offer of a 16.5% pay rise.[9] In contrast to the regional divisions of other strikes, every region of the NUM voted by a majority in favour of strike action. The only area that did not was the Colliery Officials and Staff Association (COSA) section. Some administrative staff had joined another union, APEX, to distance themselves from the increasing militancy of the NUM. APEX members did not strike, which led to resentment amongst NUM members.[4]

In the aftermath of the vote, there was speculation that the army would be used to transport coal and man the power stations. McGahey called in a speech for the army to disobey orders, and either stay in the barracks or join picket lines, if they were asked to break the strike. In response, 111 Labour MPs signed a statement to condemn McGahey. He responded "You can't dig coal with bayonets."[4]

Results by NUM area

[edit]

Taken from John Douglass' Strike, not the end of the story (National Coal Mining Museum for England publications), p.24:

Voting figures for strike action (NUM)
Area / Groups Total votes Votes for strike action % of total votes Votes against strike action % of total votes
Yorkshire 54,570 49,278 90.30 5,292 9.70
Nottinghamshire 28,284 21,801 77.08 6,483 22.92
South Wales 26,901 25,058 93.12 1,843 6.85
Durham 17,341 14,862 85.70 2,479 14.30
C.O.S.A. 15,368 6,066 39.47 9,302 60.53
Scotland 16,587 14,497 87.40 2,090 12.60
Midlands (West) 12,309 9,016 73.25 3,293 26.75
North Derbyshire 10,679 9,242 86.54 1,437 13.46
North-West 8,637 7,084 82.02 1,553 17.98
Northumberland 8,420 7,075 84.03 1,345 15.97
Durham mechanics 5,937 4,590 77.31 1,347 22.69
Group no 2 (Scotland) 4,834 3,929 81.28 905 18.72
Cokemen 4,583 3,076 67.12 1,507 32.88
Power Group 3,981 2,239 56.24 1,742 43.76
South Derbyshire 2,604 1,827 70.16 777 29.84
Leicestershire 2,519 1,553 61.65 966 38.35
Kent 2,360 2,117 89.70 243 10.30
Northumberland mechanics 2,191 1,816 82.88 375 17.12
North Wales 1,200 952 79.33 248 20.67
Power group no 2 1,164 681 58.51 483 41.49
Durham enginemen 896 543 60.60 353 39.40
Cumberland 880 775 88.07 105 11.93
Yorkshire enginemen 370 316 85.41 54 14.59
Total 232,615 188,393 80.99 44,222 19.01

Election call

[edit]

The strike began officially on 5 February and, two days later, Heath called the February 1974 general election while the Three-Day Week was in force. His government emphasised the pay dispute with the miners and used the slogan "Who governs Britain?". Heath believed that the public sided with the Conservatives on the issues of strikes and union power.[4]

On 21 February 1974, the government's Pay Board reported that the NUM's pay claim was within the Phase 3 system for claims and would return miners' wages to the levels recommended by the Wilberforce Inquiry in 1972.[4][10]

NUM control of picketing

[edit]

There had been some violence on miners' picket lines during the unofficial strike of 1969 and the official strike of 1972.[4] Aware of the damage that could be done to the Labour Party's electoral prospects by media coverage of picket-line violence, the NUM instituted strict controls over pickets.[4] Pickets had to wear armbands saying "official picket" and had to be authorised by areas.[4] Unlike in 1972, students were discouraged from joining miners' picket lines.[4] Every picket line had to be authorised by the local NUM area with a chief picket to ensure that no violence took place.[4]

Media

[edit]

Most of the media were strongly opposed to the NUM strike.[11] An exception was the Daily Mirror, which ran an emotive campaign to support the NUM. Its edition on election day in 1974 showed hundreds of crosses on its front page to represent the miners who had died since nationalisation in 1947, accompanied by the message, "Before you use your cross, remember these crosses".[4] Labour Weekly, the Labour Party's official newspaper, also supported the NUM strike and heavily criticised the government's policies.[12]

Election result

[edit]

The election resulted in a hung parliament: the Conservative Party took the largest share of the vote, but lost its majority, with Labour having the most seats in the House of Commons. In the ensuing talks, Heath failed to secure enough parliamentary support from Liberal and Ulster Unionist MPs; and Harold Wilson returned to power in a minority government. The normal working week was restored on 8 March, but other restrictions on the use of electricity remained in force.[1] A second general election was held in October 1974 cementing the Labour administration, which gained a majority of three seats.[13]

The new Labour government increased miners' wages by 35% immediately after the February 1974 election.[14] In February 1975, a further increase of 35% was achieved without any industrial action.[15]

In the campaign for the 1979 general election, following the Winter of Discontent running into that year, Labour reminded voters of the Three-Day Week, with a poster showing a lit candle and bearing the slogan "Remember the last time the Tories said they had all the answers?"[16]

21st century

[edit]

In the 21st century, those such as Anna Coote, the head of social policy at the New Economics Foundation and British sociologist Peter Fleming, among others, have proposed the re-introduction of a three-day work week. The arguments for its re-introduction include a better work-life balance, more family time, improved health and well-being, greater sustainability (such as via reduced carbon emissions), increased work productivity, and a reduction of overwork, unemployment and over-consumption.[17][18][19]

Notes

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Three-Day Week

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Three-Day Week was a British -imposed restriction on commercial electricity consumption, enacted from 31 December 1973 to 8 March 1974, which limited non-essential industrial and business operations to three consecutive days per week in an effort to avert widespread blackouts amid acute shortages. Introduced by Heath's Conservative administration, the measure responded directly to an overtime ban and subsequent strike by the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), which reduced coal production and threatened power generation, compounded by the triggered by Arab exporters' embargo following the . Heath's refusal to grant the miners' demanded 47% pay increase—exceeding anti-inflation guidelines—escalated the industrial dispute, as the government prioritized curbing union influence over immediate capitulation, leading to emergency powers under the Emergency Powers Act 1973 to enforce energy rationing. The policy resulted in darkened streets, candlelit homes, curtailed television broadcasts after 10:30 p.m., and significant economic disruption, with GDP contracting by an estimated 1.5% in the first quarter of , while like hospitals and police were exempted. It concluded after Heath called a snap in 1974 on the question of "who governs Britain," which his government lost to Labour under ; the new administration swiftly settled with the miners, granting substantial pay rises and restoring normal working hours.

Historical and Economic Context

Britain's Post-War Economic Challenges

Britain's coal industry, nationalized in 1947 under the , formed the backbone of the economy, supplying approximately 90% of needs and powering the majority of through the and . Despite initial productivity gains, with output per manshift rising from 1.25 tons in to 2.1 tons by due to efforts outlined in the 1950 Plan for Coal, total production peaked at around 230 million tons in before declining amid aging infrastructure, geological challenges in remaining pits, and resistance to widespread closures. These structural weaknesses in the state-run sector fostered dependency on domestic supply, rendering the economy vulnerable to disruptions in mining output. Recurrent balance-of-payments crises plagued the from the late 1940s onward, including severe pressures in , (prompting a 30% of sterling), , , and culminating in the 1967 devaluation, driven by persistent current account deficits averaging 1-2% of GDP annually in the , weak export competitiveness relative to recovering European economies, and stop-go fiscal policies under successive Labour and Conservative administrations. Attempts at industrial modernization, such as rationalizing uneconomic pits and shifting to alternative fuels, faltered due to political commitments to employment in traditional sectors and union opposition, perpetuating inefficiencies in nationalized industries like and railways that required ongoing government bailouts. Inflation accelerated from low levels of about 1% in to 4.7% by 1968 and 9.4% in 1971, fueled by wage-price spirals in union-dominated sectors and expansionary monetary policies to sustain , while the post-war welfare state—expanded via the 1948 National Insurance Act and —drove public spending upward, reaching over 40% of GDP by the early 1970s and straining finances through subsidies to loss-making state enterprises. This combination of fiscal rigidities, including propping up inefficient industries with transfers estimated at billions annually, contributed to emerging stagflationary pressures by inhibiting supply-side reforms and amplifying vulnerability to cost-push shocks.

Expansion of Union Influence and Nationalized Industries

Following the Labour government's victory in the 1945 general election, the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 transferred ownership of the UK's coal mines to public control effective January 1, 1947, creating the (NCB) to manage production, processing, and distribution as a . This structure eliminated private ownership incentives for cost control, fostering overmanning—where employment levels exceeded productive needs—and resistance to technological reforms, as the NCB absorbed loss-making pits without the threat of closure or . The National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), formed in 1945 from the Miners' Federation of , capitalized on this setup, evolving from wartime production solidarity into a dominant force with strategic control over the nation's primary energy source—, which supplied over 70% of by the early 1970s. Under presidents like Joe Gormley, elected in 1971, the NUM enforced closed-shop agreements requiring non-union workers to join or face dismissal, consolidating membership density above 90% and enabling coordinated militancy across coalfields. Tactics such as secondary , targeting coal delivery points beyond struck mines like power stations, amplified disruptions to downstream industries, exploiting the integrated nationalized chain from extraction to energy supply. Legal frameworks further entrenched union leverage; the Trade Disputes Act 1906 granted broad immunities from civil liability for strikes and picketing, which the failed Industrial Relations Act 1971—intended to register unions and curb secondary action—could not override before its effective nullification by union non-compliance and the 1974 Labour repeal via the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act. These protections allowed the NUM to wield de facto veto power over wage settlements and production targets, as government reliance on subsidized nationalized sectors like , , and removed market-driven efficiencies or alternative suppliers, rendering the economy acutely vulnerable to labor stoppages without redundancies or competitive pressures to mitigate shortages.

Preceding Miners' Disputes and Incomes Policy

The , initiated by the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) on 9 January, stemmed from demands for wage increases exceeding the Conservative government's informal 8 per cent ceiling, intended to restrain inflationary pressures amid rising living costs. Lasting seven weeks until 28 February, the action caused widespread electricity blackouts and fuel shortages, forcing Prime Minister to declare a on 9 February and deploy troops to maintain essential services. The government ultimately capitulated, implementing the Wilberforce Commission's recommendations for pay rises averaging 27 per cent—ranging from 27.1 per cent for surface workers to 31.6 per cent for underground miners—effectively reversing its wage restraint stance and setting a precedent for union leverage over . This outcome directly influenced the Heath government's shift to a formal statutory , announced on 6 November 1972 with an initial 90-day freeze on wages, prices, rents, and dividends to halt accelerating inflation, which had reached approximately 7 per cent annually. Subsequent phases relaxed the freeze incrementally: Phase I permitted increases of £1 per week plus 4 per cent (capped at £250 annually for salaries); Phase II allowed £2 plus 4 per cent; and Phase III introduced threshold payments tied to price rises, aiming to curb from wage spirals while preserving . However, provisions for exemptions and special negotiations with "key workers"—such as miners, whose strategic role justified deviations—undermined the policy's credibility, signaling uneven enforcement and inviting further challenges to uniform restraint. The strike's success, funded through subsidies to the loss-making nationalized coal sector—bolstered by the Coal Industry Act 1972, which provided government backing to restore financial viability—highlighted systemic inefficiencies, with taxpayers absorbing costs for above-inflation settlements in an industry reliant on state support. More critically, it exposed the unheeded risks of coal's dominance in energy production, where coal-fired power stations accounted for over 80 per cent of electricity generation in 1970, creating a chokehold that amplified the NUM's despite the evident disruptions to supply reliability. This capitulation emboldened subsequent union demands, illustrating the limits of wage controls when confronted with monopolistic control over essential .

Precipitating Events

NUM Overtime Ban and Strike Preparations

On November 12, 1973, the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) imposed a ban on voluntary overtime working across Britain's coalfields as a tactical measure to pressure the government and National Coal Board over wage demands exceeding the 7% limit set by the Heath administration's incomes policy. This action, short of an all-out strike, immediately reduced weekly coal production by approximately 20%, with losses estimated at 750,000 tons per week, accelerating the drawdown of stockpiles at power stations that relied heavily on coal for electricity generation. By mid-December, the ban had further curtailed output to around 40% below normal levels, exacerbating vulnerabilities in the energy supply chain independent of external factors. Within the NUM, the overtime ban reflected internal tensions between moderate national leadership and more militant regional branches, particularly in coalfields like and where grassroots pressure for escalation was stronger. President Joe Gormley, a pragmatic figure seeking to avoid an immediate national strike that could alienate public support, endorsed the ban as a calibrated step to build leverage while negotiating, despite criticisms from left-wing factions advocating bolder action. Gormley's strategy aimed to unify disparate area unions—some of which, like those in , showed less enthusiasm for disruption—by framing the ban as a disciplined response to perceived inequities in pay relative to and gains. The (CEGB), tasked with monitoring power generation reserves, reported that the reduced coal inflows from the ban would deplete operational stockpiles at fossil-fueled stations to critically low levels by early , forecasting widespread blackouts without remedial measures such as demand . These projections, based on daily stock audits and projected winter demand peaks, prompted urgent government contingency planning, highlighting the ban's role in shifting the from potential to imminent threat. The NUM's preparations also included contingency discussions for a full strike ballot if the ban failed to yield concessions, with area ballots showing strong support in militant regions to sustain momentum.

Impact of the 1973 Oil Crisis

The 1973 oil crisis stemmed from the embargo initiated on October 17, 1973, following the , which targeted nations supporting , including the ; this led to coordinated production cuts by Arab members of and a quadrupling of global crude prices from approximately $3 per barrel to over $12 by early 1974. While the shock disrupted global supply chains and inflated energy costs, its direct impact on the was moderated by the country's energy composition, where accounted for a minority share of total consumption—estimated at around 30-40% overall, with nearly all needs met through imports—contrasting with coal's dominance in , which comprised roughly 70-80% of power station fuel in 1973. Britain's vulnerability was further tempered by nascent domestic potential in the , where significant oil discoveries had occurred since 1969, yet commercial production remained negligible in due to technological challenges, high development costs, and regulatory hurdles under the Continental Shelf Act 1964, which delayed large-scale extraction until 1975 with fields like the Forties beginning output at modest levels. The embargo thus exerted indirect pressure through elevated import costs for transport fuels and industrial uses, contributing to inflationary pressures that reached double digits in the UK by late , but had limited bearing on supply, as oil-fired stations represented only about 10-15% of capacity and could be substituted with where stocks permitted. This exogenous shock served primarily as an amplifier to pre-existing domestic vulnerabilities in supply, heightening perceptions of scarcity and enabling the invocation of ; the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act, enacted on December 18, 1973, granted the government broad powers to regulate fuel production, distribution, and consumption in response to the compounded , though indicates the oil disruption was not the proximate driver of power shortages, which hinged more on interruptions in . The event underscored causal distinctions between global price volatility and internal production rigidities, with the latter proving more determinative for the 's energy constraints during the period.

Government Measures and Implementation

Declaration of Emergency and Three-Day Week Rules

On 13 December 1973, Prime Minister declared a under the Emergency Powers Act 1920 and the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973, citing critically low coal stocks at power stations due to the National Union of Mineworkers' overtime ban and reduced oil imports from the ongoing crisis. In his address to , Heath emphasized the necessity of immediate to prevent total supply collapse, projecting that without intervention, generating capacity would fall short by levels risking nationwide blackouts as winter demand peaked. The policy invoked directives from the Electricity Council to limit commercial and industrial users—encompassing factories, offices, and shops—to three specified consecutive days of consumption per week, effective from midnight on 31 December 1973. Users were further barred from operating extended shifts on those days, enforcing a strict cap aligned with available supply physics to conserve coal-fired generation amid stockpiles estimated at only weeks' worth for full operation. Essential services, including hospitals, the steel industry for , and emergency responders, received priority exemptions or uninterrupted supply to safeguard and . This targeted allocation reflected a calculus prioritizing sectors where supply interruption would cause irreversible harm, while non-essentials bore the demand reduction to match the empirical constraint of reduced inputs. Heath framed the measures as a temporary bridge to sustain output until stocks could be replenished or alternatives scaled, underscoring that full-week operations would deplete reserves faster than generation capacity could recover. Supplementary regulations complemented the core restriction by curtailing peripheral loads: television broadcasts by and ITV were prohibited after 10:30 p.m. starting 17 December 1973 (suspended over Christmas and New Year), and non-essential space heating in government offices, shops, and public buildings was banned, alongside illuminated and decorative . These rules targeted low-priority consumption to eke out marginal savings in kilowatt-hours, grounded in the thermodynamic reality that even small aggregate reductions could avert system-wide failure given the razor-thin margins in coal-dependent baseload power. Enforcement fell to the Electricity Council, with penalties for violations including fines or disconnection, ensuring compliance amid the forecasted 4 GW demand-supply gap during peak hours without such controls.

Operational Details and Enforcement

The Three-Day Week was enforced through emergency legislation enacted under the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973, which empowered the government to impose restrictions on electricity use for commercial consumers. Implementation involved allocating specific three consecutive working days per week to factories and businesses, monitored via electricity meters and on-site checks by Department of Trade and Industry officials and area electricity board inspectors to ensure compliance with consumption limits. Violations, such as exceeding allocated power or operating beyond designated days, carried penalties including fines and potential disconnection of supply, as stipulated in the restrictive orders. Exemptions were granted to essential sectors to minimize economic damage, including hospitals, , printing, , and the , , and distribution industries to safeguard supply chains. Certain export-oriented operations received flexibility to prioritize foreign orders, allowing some firms to maintain production for international markets despite overall restrictions. Continuous-process industries, such as chemicals and automobiles, faced a targeted 35% rather than strict day limits, balancing conservation with operational continuity. The policy achieved an estimated 20% reduction in industrial electricity consumption by compressing operations into fewer days and supplementing with measures like halved street lighting and curtailed television broadcasts after 10:30 p.m., averting widespread blackouts while stretching limited stocks that supplied 70% of power generation. This fell short of a potential 40% drop from a full five-day halt, as workers intensified output per day, but resulted in uneven burdens across sectors, with smaller firms facing disproportionate administrative hurdles in scheduling and exemption applications. Compliance challenges included unauthorized use of private generators to bypass restrictions and instances of via unofficial connections between sites, complicating monitoring efforts. These evasions, alongside the logistical strain of reallocating workdays, highlighted the adversarial dynamics between regulators and industry amid fuel shortages.

Immediate Societal and Industrial Disruptions

The Three-Day Week, enforced from January 1 to March 7, 1974, resulted in sharp declines in industrial production as commercial electricity users were restricted to three consecutive days of operation per week, with prohibitions on and non-essential lighting or heating. bore the brunt, with output falling by up to 20% in impacted sectors, though the overall drop was mitigated by preemptive stockpiling and shifts to alternative energy sources in some facilities. Unemployment surged temporarily due to layoffs and short-time working, climbing to 2.5% of the workforce—equivalent to approximately 600,000 individuals—during the first quarter of 1974, up from a pre-crisis low of 2.2%. This reflected the rapid scaling back of operations in energy-dependent industries, with over 1.5 million workers initially placed on short time or redundancy in the days following implementation. Macroeconomic strain manifested in a 0.8% quarter-on-quarter contraction in GDP for the first quarter of , driven by stalled production amid the miners' ban and supply constraints. On the societal front, factories halted operations beyond allotted days, while schools in affected regions closed intermittently due to power shortages, disrupting education and childcare routines. Households faced colder interiors from bans on non-essential heating, resorting to candles, torches, and fires for illumination and warmth during frequent blackouts, which strained daily activities and elevated risks from improvised . Public adaptations included early boiling of kettles and reduced appliance use, contributing to widespread inconvenience and lowered morale amid the unlit streets and subdued commercial activity.

Union Actions and Escalation

Strike Ballot Outcomes

On 24 January 1974, the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) held a national ballot on , with results announced shortly thereafter showing 81% support for an all-out strike among those who voted, in rejection of the National Coal Board's 16.5% pay increase offer under the government's Stage III . This outcome reflected heightened compared to the 1972 miners' strike ballot, which had passed with a narrower 58.8% majority amid greater regional divisions, such as opposition in moderate coalfields like . The 1974 vote demonstrated stronger perceived unity driven by frustration over the government's refusal to negotiate beyond statutory wage limits, despite the NUM's initial claims exceeding 40% in some reports, underscoring how militancy constrained moderate influences within the union's democratic process. Regional variations persisted, with lower support in traditionally moderate areas such as Scotland, where the pro-strike margin was narrower or marginally opposed, highlighting limits to nationwide consensus even as the overall mandate enabled escalation. The ballot's endorsement led to a strike commencing at midnight on 9 February 1974, involving approximately 260,000 NUM members and halting virtually all coal production across the United Kingdom's collieries. This paralysis of output, affecting over 95% of deep-mined coal supply, intensified energy shortages and validated the union's strategy of leveraging ballot legitimacy to press pay demands amid economic pressures from the 1973 oil crisis.

Picketing Strategies and NUM Discipline

The National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) implemented coordinated strategies during the 1973-1974 dispute, focusing on blockading supplies to power stations, depots, and major industrial users to exacerbate electricity shortages and pressure the government. Following the overtime ban initiated on 31 October 1973, picketers targeted coal-fired power stations and ports, employing —mobile groups dispatched to reinforce lines—and mass picketing to halt movements, rendering stockpiles largely inaccessible despite existing reserves. The NUM executive centralized national coordination, limiting picket sizes to six members per group to maintain order while authorizing lines through local areas, which prevented widespread violence and ensured targeted disruptions. This approach built on tactics from the 1972 strike, prioritizing the immobilization of except for essential priority uses, thereby intensifying the that prompted the Three-Day Week on 31 December 1973. NUM discipline was characterized by high and compliance, underpinned by a national ballot on 7-13 that approved an all-out strike by 81% (with 58.8% turnout), transitioning from the overtime ban to full stoppages starting 9 1974. Local NUM branches enforced participation through chief pickets responsible for oversight, fostering near-universal rank-and-file adherence without significant internal or , as evidenced by the sustained closure of most pits. This cohesion contrasted with fragmented actions in prior disputes, enabling effective escalation amid the oil crisis, though it drew criticism from opponents for intimidating non-striking workers at peripheral sites like steelworks. The union's structure, including area-level authorization, minimized legal vulnerabilities under emerging laws, contributing to the strike's leverage in forcing concessions.

Political and Media Dynamics

Heath Government's Stance and Election Decision

Edward Heath's government maintained a resolute stance against capitulating to the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) demands for wage increases exceeding the limits set by the statutory , which sought to restrain driven by excessive settlements across sectors. This policy, introduced in 1972, capped pay rises at around 7% for most workers to prevent a wage-price spiral amid rising oil prices and domestic unrest, with Heath viewing concessions as undermining broader . Negotiations in failed when union leaders rejected offers aligned with these guidelines, prompting Heath to extend the three-day week rather than yield, as preemptive surrender would signal vulnerability to other unions. Internal Cabinet discussions reflected divisions between advocates for compromise to avert further disruption and proponents of firmness to reassert parliamentary over unelected union power, but Heath prioritized the latter to defend the incomes framework as a bulwark against 1970s-style . Key figures like Employment Secretary William Whitelaw urged sticking to principles, arguing that negotiation without productivity-linked reforms would exacerbate , already at 9% by late , and erode government credibility. Heath's refusal to preemptively concede, even as coal stocks dwindled, stemmed from a that short-term pain would vindicate long-term discipline, avoiding the 1972 precedent where miners secured a 27% rise after striking. On 7 February 1974, Heath requested and obtained the Queen's approval for Parliament's dissolution via telegram, bypassing an impending opposition confidence motion tabled over . This move positioned the 28 February election as a direct on governance, with Heath's rhetoric—"Who governs Britain?"—challenging voters to choose between elected authority and union veto power, amid blackouts and factory closures that had begun eroding initial public sympathy for the miners. Contemporary polls, such as a mid- London Weekend Television survey, showed Conservatives leading Labour 37% to 33%, reflecting shifting opinion as three-day week hardships—cold homes, job losses, and television curfews—turned sentiment against prolonged disruption. Heath's calculus hinged on this perceived momentum, betting that voters would prioritize state control over industrial chaos rather than endorse NUM militancy.

Media Portrayals and Public Opinion

Media coverage of the Three-Day Week reflected deep divisions in British journalism, with conservative-leaning outlets portraying the miners' actions as tantamount to economic blackmail that threatened national stability, while left-leaning publications emphasized workers' grievances amid rising inflation and stagnant wages. Tabloids such as the Daily Mail highlighted government efforts to avert collapse, framing the restrictions as necessary responses to union intransigence that risked blacking out the economy, whereas the Daily Mirror often sympathized with the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), critiquing the Heath administration's confrontational policies as exacerbating hardships for ordinary families. Emergency regulations mandating early closedowns for and ITV broadcasts at 10:30 p.m. daily intensified public perceptions of severity, as the abrupt end to evening programming disrupted routines and symbolized broader power shortages, fueling debates over whether elected or unelected union leaders held effective control. These measures, enforced from , , to conserve , were not content censorship but operational limits that amplified a sense of national vulnerability without altering journalistic output directly. Public opinion, as captured in contemporaneous polls, initially favored the government's firm resistance to union demands, with surveys in late showing widespread backing for Heath's stance amid fears of unchecked wage inflation spiraling into economic ruin. By early , however, support eroded to near parity as the tangible disruptions of limited workdays, candlelit evenings, and cold homes mounted, though no emerged of mass , societal breakdown, or unmanageable supply failures—contrary to some alarmist narratives in sympathetic press. Gallup polling data from the period underscored this shift, reflecting pragmatic public fatigue with prolonged confrontation rather than outright endorsement of striker positions.

Campaign Narratives in the February 1974 Election

Heath's Conservative campaign centered on portraying the miners' strike and resulting three-day week as a direct threat to parliamentary democracy and national governance, encapsulated in the slogan "Who governs Britain?" The party's manifesto criticized the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) for causing "great damage" through that necessitated electricity rationing, rejecting any "abuse of industrial power" to secure privileged wage settlements beyond the National Coal Board's standing offer. Conservatives pledged to uphold the core of the Industrial Relations Act, with amendments for union member ballots on leadership to curb extremism, while emphasizing law and order to prevent economic chaos from unchecked union demands. In contrast, Labour leader Harold Wilson's campaign appealed to working-class voters by advocating over confrontation, promising an "honourable settlement" to the mining dispute without prolonging the three-day week as a political tool. The Labour manifesto committed to resolving the conflict through talks, abolishing the Industrial Relations Act and Pay Board, and establishing a tripartite commission involving the NUM, , and government to reassess the coal industry's future within three months, implicitly aiming to secure jobs and avoid closures. Wilson positioned Labour as aligned with unions via a "" for voluntary , framing Heath's approach as divisive and the strike's root causes in failed Conservative industrial policies. While membership featured in debates— with Conservatives defending entry and Labour pledging renegotiation and a — the and union power dominated narratives, overshadowing other issues amid blackouts and shortages. reached 72.8 percent, lower than peaks in prior decades and indicative of public disillusionment with the ongoing industrial strife. In mining-heavy regions like , Durham, and , Labour's pro-negotiation stance resonated, yielding swings toward the party of approximately 10 to 15 percent in affected constituencies, bolstering support among NUM members and sympathizers.

Resolution and Short-Term Outcomes

General Election Results

The United Kingdom general election of 28 February 1974 produced a , with the Labour Party under securing a plurality of 301 seats in the 635-member , four more than the Conservative Party's 297 seats led by incumbent . Despite the Conservatives receiving a marginally higher share of the national vote—37.9% to Labour's 37.2%—the first-past-the-post system translated Labour's more efficient distribution of support into the slimmest of parliamentary majorities, leaving no party with an overall majority and underscoring the absence of a clear electoral mandate on the core "Who governs?" question posed by Heath amid the miners' dispute and .
PartyVote Share (%)Seats
Conservative37.9297
Labour37.2301
Liberal19.314
Others5.623
Heath initially refused to concede, attempting negotiations with Liberal Party leader for a to retain power, but these talks collapsed by 4 March , prompting his resignation and allowing Wilson to form a minority Labour government reliant on tacit Liberal or other support. The result was widely viewed as a repudiation of Heath's confrontation with the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), whose overtime ban and strike had precipitated the three-day week, effectively handing the union an indirect triumph by ousting the government that had enforced emergency measures against it.

Lifting of Restrictions and NUM Victory

Following the Labour government's formation after the 28 February 1974 general election, announced the end of the Three-Day Week restrictions effective midnight on 7 March 1974, allowing industries to resume normal five-day operations from 8 March. This rapid unwind was tied directly to a settlement with the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), as miners returned to work to replenish depleted stocks at power stations, which had fallen critically low during the overtime ban and strike. The NUM executive accepted a pay deal on 6 March 1974, granting miners a 35% increase—more than double the 16.5% offered under the prior Conservative government's Stage III —along with additional productivity bonuses and allowances that effectively exceeded the formal limit. This concession, negotiated in urgent talks, breached statutory pay guidelines designed to curb but signaled the new government's prioritization of industrial peace over fiscal restraint, weakening the bargaining position of employers and future negotiators. Electricity supplies normalized swiftly post-8 March, with commercial and domestic users no longer facing widespread blackouts or , providing immediate relief to households and businesses strained by months of enforced shutdowns. However, stockpiles at power stations remained insufficient for full operational buffer into the summer of 1974, as miners focused on recovery work amid ongoing vigilance against production shortfalls, underscoring the fragility of the resolution. The NUM's triumph established a for union militancy in bypassing national pay norms, emboldening subsequent wage claims across sectors and highlighting the leverage gained from disrupting essential energy supplies during economic vulnerability.

Long-Term Consequences and Analysis

Economic Repercussions and Inflationary Pressures

The imposition of the Three-Day Week from 1 January to 7 March 1974 led to an estimated £1.5–2 billion in lost industrial output, equivalent to roughly 1.5% of annual GDP at the time, as commercial usage was restricted to three consecutive days per week, forcing widespread shutdowns and reduced across sectors. This immediate disruption compounded existing pressures from the 1973 oil embargo, stalling overall economic activity and contributing to GDP growth of just 0.4% for the year, down sharply from 7.3% in 1973, as production halted amid shortages and power . The government's settlement with the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), awarding a 35% pay increase effective from March 1974—far exceeding the prevailing rate—exacerbated wage-push inflation by signaling tolerance for union militancy, which encouraged subsequent demands across sectors and perpetuated a cycle of cost-pass-through pricing. This dynamic, rooted in unchecked rather than mere external shocks, played a role in driving retail price to a peak of 24.2% by mid-1975, as miners' gains above norms eroded fiscal discipline and amplified monetary expansion to cover idle capacity costs. Fiscal strains intensified, with the policy necessitating over £1 billion in emergency subsidies and support for stockpiling fuels, alongside foregone tax revenues from curtailed operations, which widened the borrowing requirement and strained amid rising import bills for alternative energy. output, already vulnerable, saw accelerated contraction as firms grappled with erratic supply chains and underutilized plants, hastening the sector's share of GDP decline from 30% in to under 25% by decade's end, with the Three-Day Week's disruptions underscoring how episodic militancy eroded competitive resilience over sustained output losses. The causal linkage from union concessions to entrenched inflationary expectations undermined monetary credibility, as evidenced by the of England's subsequent struggles to anchor prices without deeper recessionary measures.

Shifts in Energy Policy and Industrial Relations

Following the February 1974 general election, the incoming Labour government under endorsed the National Coal Board's 1974 Plan for , committing an additional £600 million in capital investment through 1985 to develop 42 million tons of new annual capacity by replacing obsolete collieries with modern, high-output mines. This initiative aimed to stabilize and expand production amid the recent miners' dispute, prioritizing as a core energy source despite evidence of structural inefficiencies, including high labor costs, frequent disruptions from , and declining productivity per worker compared to alternatives like imported oil. The plan reflected a short-term pivot toward bolstering domestic output to avert immediate shortages, but it deferred broader diversification, with licensing rounds proceeding cautiously under state oversight rather than the more aggressive private-sector incentives of the prior Conservative administration. Empirical data underscored the limits of this approach: deep-mined production, which stood at approximately 147 million tonnes in 1970 before the 1972 strike's impacts fully materialized, had slumped to 114 million tonnes by the mid-1970s and failed to recover pre-1972 levels without subsequent market-driven pressures such as from cheaper fuels. Sustained propped up the industry temporarily, yet output stagnated around 120-130 million tonnes annually through the decade, hampered by overmanning—estimated at 20-30% excess labor in many pits—and vulnerability to union-enforced bans, which halved effective supply during disputes. In , the Labour government swiftly eroded remnants of the Conservative Industrial Relations Act 1971 by enacting the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, which repealed key provisions for legally enforceable collective agreements, mandatory strike ballots, and penalties for secondary or closed shops. This reversal restored broad trade dispute immunities akin to the pre-1971 status quo under the 1906 Trade Disputes Act, effectively nullifying attempts to impose external discipline on union militancy demonstrated in the miners' actions. The policy shift delayed comprehensive reforms to bargaining structures or dispute resolution, fostering a permissive environment for wage demands and work-to-rule tactics that escalated into widespread strikes during the 1978-79 , where over 29 million working days were lost across sectors. Overall, these changes entrenched short-term stasis, preserving coal dependency and union leverage without addressing causal drivers of inefficiency like wage-price spirals untethered from productivity gains.

Contribution to Subsequent Political Reforms

The Three-Day Week crisis exemplified the capacity of trade unions, notably the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), to impose severe economic constraints through coordinated industrial actions such as overtime bans, which reduced coal output by approximately 20% and triggered widespread power shortages. This vulnerability to union leverage in essential sectors fostered a broader political consensus on the necessity of legislative curbs to restore governmental authority over and ensure . Cumulative public frustration with such disruptions, evident from the 1974 election where dominated voter concerns, intensified by 1979 amid recurring strikes, propelled Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives to victory on May 3, 1979, with 43.9% of the vote and a 44-seat majority. The episode's legacy informed Thatcher's reform agenda, emphasizing the breakage of symbiotic ties between nationalized industries and unions that had repeatedly endangered . Her administration's Employment Act 1980 prohibited most secondary action unless it directly advanced a trade dispute's objectives, narrowing protections that had enabled sympathetic strikes across unrelated firms during the 1973–1974 crisis. The Employment Act 1982 extended this by holding unions vicariously liable for damages from unlawful industrial actions, including secondary picketing and strikes, with provisions for sequestration of assets to enforce compliance. These reforms directly addressed the cascading effects of NUM tactics that had amplified the Three-Day Week's impact, reducing the feasibility of economy-wide leverage through indirect pressure. The crisis also highlighted perils in state-subsidized dependence on monopolies vulnerable to union militancy, setting precedents for decoupling energy production from such dynamics. Post-1979 preparations, including stockpiling informed by shortages, enabled the government's victory in the 1984–1985 NUM strike, facilitating pit closures from 175 operational collieries in 1983 toward rationalization and eventual privatization of in 1994, thereby prioritizing market-driven efficiency over politically insulated overcapacity.

Controversies and Viewpoints

Debates on Causal Responsibility

Conservative analysts and government officials at the time attributed primary causal responsibility for the energy shortages precipitating the Three-Day Week to the National Union of Mineworkers' (NUM) industrial militancy, emphasizing the predictability of such actions following the union's successful 1972 strike. In that earlier dispute, from January 9 to February 28, 1972, the NUM secured a 27% pay increase—exceeding the government's anti-inflation guidelines—after widespread halted supplies to power stations, forcing Heath's administration to declare a and concede via . This outcome, critics argued, incentivized further demands, as evidenced by the NUM's rejection of a 16-17% offer in and imposition of an overtime ban starting November 12, which immediately reduced output by 20-25%. Prior to the ban, stocks at power stations stood at approximately 18-20 million tons, sufficient for several months under normal consumption, underscoring domestic supply decisions as the key trigger rather than inherent scarcity. Opposing viewpoints, often aligned with Labour perspectives, countered that the 1973 OPEC oil embargo—triggered by the on October 6, 1973, and leading to a quadrupling of global oil prices—acted as the exogenous shock necessitating austerity measures, with miners' demands framed as a reasonable response to double-digit eroding . Proponents of this view, including subsequent Labour governments, downplayed the excessiveness of the NUM's 47% pay claim by attributing shortages to broader failures and Heath's confrontational policy, which they claimed escalated rather than contained the crisis. However, empirical comparisons reveal the UK's predicament as uniquely severe: while the experienced a 2.5% GDP contraction and inflation spike from the same oil shock, it avoided equivalent rationing due to diversified energy sources and absence of parallel domestic disruptions, with no mandatory workweek reductions imposed. In the UK, where generated over 70% of , the overtime ban's direct halving of production—compounded by stockpiling limitations from prior union actions—amplified vulnerabilities beyond the oil price surge alone. Data on pre-ban inventories further privileges domestic factors, as Central Electricity Generating Board reports indicated stocks adequate to avert crisis absent the NUM's voluntary output curbs, a pattern echoing the 1972 strike's demonstrated leverage over national energy security. Right-leaning assessments, drawing on official contingency planning reviews, maintain that union tactics exploited foreseeable government resolve against inflation-linked concessions, rendering the oil crisis a secondary accelerator rather than root cause. Left-leaning narratives, prevalent in union histories and academic retrospectives, often minimize this agency by emphasizing systemic energy import dependencies, though such accounts have faced critique for underweighting verifiable production data amid broader institutional tendencies to favor labor-side interpretations.

Criticisms of Government Policy

Critics accused the Heath government of excessive rigidity in its handling of the miners' dispute, particularly its insistence on capping pay awards at 7% under Phase Three of the statutory , despite the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) demanding increases of 21-35% to offset inflation-eroded . This stance, implemented through the Counter-Inflation Act 1973, precluded substantive pre-strike negotiations after the NUM's overtime ban began on November 12, 1973, thereby escalating tensions and contributing to acute electricity shortages that prompted the three-day week from January 1, 1974. Opponents, including Labour leaders, contended that earlier flexibility or exemptions for key industries like could have mitigated the crisis without undermining broader economic controls. Defenders of the policy emphasized its necessity to arrest , which had risen to 9.2% by amid settlements outpacing growth by over 10% in the prior year. Yielding to the NUM's demands, they argued, would have signaled the collapse of the incomes framework—abandoned after failed voluntary Phase One and Two efforts—inviting copycat claims across sectors and perpetuating the 1970s -price spiral, as evidenced by pre-1970 union-driven pay rounds that doubled rates. The three-day week nonetheless succeeded in averting a nationwide blackout by limiting commercial electricity use to three consecutive days per week, preserving reserves at power stations and ensuring uninterrupted supply to hospitals, emergency services, and . Economic analyses post-crisis confirmed the measure's resilience, with industrial output declining by approximately 5% in January 1974 but recovering without long-term structural damage, as firms adapted via stockpiling and shift rescheduling. While concessions might have forestalled the February 1974 general election defeat—following which Labour granted the miners a 35% rise, restoring full production—such a course risked entrenching inflationary expectations through indexed wage adjustments, contrasting the Heath administration's fixed-limit approach.

Assessments of Union Tactics and Militancy

The National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) employed militant tactics, including an overtime ban commencing on 12 November 1973 and a national strike ballot resulting in 81% support on 24 January 1974, to secure substantial increases amid a subsidized and contracting sector. These actions exploited the industry's monopoly on , where supplied over 70% of power stations' fuel, enabling the NUM to pressure the government into concessions exceeding statutory limits; the 1974 settlement granted miners an effective 35% rise, following a 27% gain from the 1972 strike, demonstrating short-term leverage in extracting gains from national economic dependencies. Critics, including economic analysts, assessed these tactics as coercive, with mass enforcing compliance by blocking non-striking miners and coal distribution, effectively wielding undemocratic monopoly power to impose sectional demands on unwilling participants and the broader . Such militancy disregarded productivity realities in an overmanned industry reliant on subsidies—where output per manshift had stagnated amid rising costs—and prioritized wage over structural reforms, contributing to operational disruptions that exacerbated shortages without addressing underlying inefficiencies. While yielding immediate victories, the NUM's repeated strikes in and correlated with accelerated industry contraction, as elevated labor costs in uneconomic pits deterred and modernization; employment fell from 291,000 in 1969 to 242,000 by 1979, with production declining amid competition from cheaper imports and alternatives, fostering public alienation through widespread blackouts and economic hardship that shifted opinion against perceived union overreach.

References

  1. https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-prime-ministers/edward-heath
  2. https://www.historyhit.com/when-the-lights-went-out-in-britain-the-story-of-the-three-day-working-week/
  3. https://archives.blog.parliament.uk/2024/04/10/1974-a-year-like-no-other/
  4. https://www.theconversation.com/three-day-week-50-years-on-lessons-from-a-previous-conservative-government-struggling-with-a-cost-of-living-crisis-219644
  5. https://ourworldindata.org/death-uk-coal
  6. https://research.manchester.ac.uk/files/28941250/POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS.PDF
  7. https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6498/uncategorized/the-decline-of-the-uk-coal-industry/
  8. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/pound-in-your-pocket-devaluation-50-years-on/
  9. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c8b07ed915d6969f459d1/ep2-government-policy-since-1945.pdf
  10. https://www.worlddata.info/europe/united-kingdom/inflation-rates.php
  11. https://ifs.org.uk/inequality/the-welfare-state-and-inequality/
  12. https://www.historytoday.com/archive/months-past/coal-industry-comes-under-public-ownership-britain
  13. https://etonomics.com/2021/04/27/the-effects-of-nationalisation-on-the-british-coal-industry/
  14. https://australianminingreview.com.au/legacy/headline/britain%25E2%2580%2599s-nationalisation-experiment/
  15. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/30696148.pdf
  16. https://www.bigredbook.info/joe_gormley.html
  17. https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/9827/1/369307.pdf
  18. https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/winter-1987/economic-significance-british-labor-law-reform
  19. https://journal.apee.org/999569
  20. https://hbr.org/1992/01/british-privatization-taking-capitalism-to-the-people
  21. https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/CC72_Renationalisation-back-to-the-future_web.pdf
  22. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/9/newsid_2515000/2515917.stm
  23. http://www.agor.org.uk/cwm/themes/events/1972_1974_strikes.asp
  24. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/6/newsid_2538000/2538623.stm
  25. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/have-controls-ever-worked.pdf
  26. https://warwicklightfoot.substack.com/p/the-economic-legacy-of-edward-heath
  27. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1972/dec/21/coal-industry-bill
  28. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/649c1c69b4d6ef0012039055/UK_Electricity_capacity_and_generation_by_fuel_between_1920_and_2020.pdf
  29. https://stories.workingclasshistory.com/article/11213/miners-overtime-ban-begins
  30. https://libcom.org/article/uk-coalminers-dispute-1973-4
  31. https://www.nytimes.com/1973/11/22/archives/miners-in-britain-reject-pay-offer-energy-crisis-worsens-as-revised.html
  32. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1973/dec/19/economic-and-energy-situation
  33. https://www.nytimes.com/1973/12/14/archives/miners-battle-heath-and-the-nation-loses-other-energy-news-program.html
  34. https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/FOMC19740301Memo02.pdf
  35. https://newleftreview.org/issues/i77/articles/anthony-barnett-class-struggle-and-the-heath-government
  36. https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/21747/1/267064.pdf
  37. https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/publications/the-1973-oil-crisis-three-crises-in-one-and-the-lessons-for-today/
  38. https://obr.uk/box/the-changing-impact-of-fossil-fuel-shocks-on-the-uk-economy/
  39. https://euanmearns.com/uk-electricity-generation-statistics-1920-2012/
  40. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP85T00875R001700040041-1.pdf
  41. https://engelsbergideas.com/essays/britains-energy-transition-in-the-shadow-of-the-1970s/
  42. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1973/67/enacted
  43. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/29/weatherwatch-freezing-nights-long-strikes-and-high-energy-costs-of-1973
  44. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1973/dec/13/energy-supplies
  45. https://www.nytimes.com/1973/12/14/archives/british-work-week-cut-to-3-days-for-most-industries-to-counter.html
  46. https://www.theblackoutreport.co.uk/2023/04/17/three-day-week-1974/
  47. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1973/2110/contents/made
  48. https://www.farnhamherald.com/news/peeps-into-the-past-fifty-years-since-the-three-day-weeks-of-early-1974-658610
  49. https://time.com/archive/6876592/britain-the-lights-are-going-out-again/
  50. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/1974-01-10/debates/c4dd11c8-886d-4894-bf4c-8b7eca739672/Three-DayWorkingWeek
  51. https://www.nytimes.com/1974/04/24/archives/britains-3day-week-special-to-the-new-york-times-economy-stood-up.html
  52. https://www.nytimes.com/1974/01/01/archives/threeday-weeks-begin-in-britain-to-save-power-program-is-expected.html
  53. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyn/ukea
  54. https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/proginfo/2016/28/archive-on-4-the-three-day-week
  55. https://www.nytimes.com/1974/02/05/archives/miners-in-britain-back-strike-81-a-date-may-be-set-todayheaths.html
  56. https://communist.red/who-runs-the-country-the-miners-strikes-of-72-and-74/
  57. https://www.nytimes.com/1974/02/11/archives/260000-miners-strike-in-britain-devastating-impact-on-the-nations.html
  58. https://www.britishpathe.com/asset/115013/
  59. https://theblackoutreport.co.uk/2023/04/17/three-day-week-1974/
  60. https://phm.org.uk/blogposts/miners-strike-1974-a-victory-for-workers/
  61. https://www.nytimes.com/1974/01/15/archives/heath-fails-to-end-dispute-with-miners-3day-week-to-continue.html
  62. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-22079887
  63. https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/1974-02-07/debates/6906739e-731e-477e-94e2-325bb1fbbc33/DissolutionOfParliament
  64. https://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/general-election-february-1974
  65. https://www.nytimes.com/1974/02/11/archives/260000-miners-strike-in-britain.html
  66. https://ukandeu.ac.uk/another-who-governs-election-with-no-answer/
  67. https://www.history.co.uk/articles/the-three-day-week-britains-failed-response-to-the-1970s-energy-crisis
  68. https://transdiffusion.org/2019/05/08/back-in-time-for-tv-1974/
  69. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Britain-at-the-Polls-1974_text.pdf
  70. http://www.conservativemanifesto.com/1974/Feb/february-1974-conservative-manifesto.shtml
  71. http://labourmanifesto.com/1974/feb/1974-feb-labour-manifesto.shtml
  72. https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-february-1974-election-a-hung-parliament-and-the-promise-of-a-referendum-on-europe/
  73. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8060/CBP-8060.pdf
  74. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/apr/04/electionspast.past9
  75. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/background/pastelec/ge74feb.shtml
  76. https://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/fw74f.htm
  77. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-26381917
  78. https://www.nytimes.com/1974/03/05/archives/wilson-is-prime-minister-as-heath-fails-in-effort-to-win-liberals.html
  79. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2024/02/1974-election-harold-wilson-colin-kidd
  80. https://www.nytimes.com/1974/03/08/archives/3day-work-week-ending-in-britain-but-curbs-on-heat-and-light-will.html
  81. https://www.nytimes.com/1974/03/07/archives/miners-in-britain-end-their-strike-get-raise-of-35-settlement-twice.html
  82. https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc383/index.html
  83. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/13/newsid_2541000/2541085.stm
  84. https://www.economicsobservatory.com/industrial-action-is-the-uk-going-back-to-the-1970s
  85. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1974-03-26/debates/a70f1fbb-588d-4daa-8c34-b6b574dc9a41/OtherPublicExpenditure
  86. https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/217380/economics/the-economic-crisis-of-the-1970s/
  87. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1975/jul/21/attack-on-inflation
  88. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/1974-06-18/debates/36c3596c-0cee-4c4a-b1a6-1be801ca1218/CoalIndustry
  89. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21582041.2024.2337672
  90. https://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/assets/icbh-witness/northsea.pdf
  91. https://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/dec/18/the-demise-of-uk-deep-coal-mining-decades-of-decline
  92. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6889f6eba11f859994409209/Coal_since_1853.xls
  93. https://academic.oup.com/book/3262/chapter/144236668
  94. http://www.unionhistory.info/timeline/1960_2000_4.php
  95. https://www.businessinsider.com/thacher-versus-the-unions-2013-4
  96. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/how-thatcher-transformed-british-politics/
  97. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/27339/CHP7.pdf?sequence=3
  98. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1973/nov/15/state-of-emergency
  99. https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/2967/HUGHESGoverningIn2012.pdf?sequence=1&mobile-app=true&theme=dark
  100. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/oil-shock-of-1973-74
  101. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1974/jan/09/fuel-situation
  102. https://theconversation.com/three-day-week-50-years-on-lessons-from-a-previous-conservative-government-struggling-with-a-cost-of-living-crisis-219644
  103. https://newleftreview.org/issues/i77/articles/anthony-barnett-class-struggle-and-the-heath-government.pdf
  104. https://capx.co/the-labour-lefts-inquiry
  105. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20735640
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.