Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-7qhmt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T12:36:30.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Debating the nationalisation of the cotton industry, 1918–50

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2010

Robert Millward
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
John Singleton
Affiliation:
Victoria University of Wellington
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Given the dire problems faced by the British cotton industry during the twentieth century, it is not surprising that nationalisation became a significant issue. Institutionalist economic historians have suggested that Lancashire was put at a disadvantage because it had no visible hand to remould the cotton industry and coordinate its production and marketing strategies (Lazonick 1981a, 1983, 1986, Mass and Lazonick 1991). The visible hand that Lazonick has in mind is the Chandlerian business corporation, with its long-term strategy and its sophisticated management structure. Advocates of the public ownership of the mills believed that the visible hand of a British Cotton Corporation would have been equally efficacious.

Nationalisation had considerable support among the cotton workers during the 1930s and 1940s and the Labour Party was not unsympathetic to their aims. Previous studies have dismissed the operatives' support for public ownership as a tactical ploy to chivvy the government and employers into drawing up a scheme for rationalising the industry (Barry 1965, p. 340, Edgerton 1986, p. 270). While the war cry of nationalisation was never as popular in the mills as it was in the pits, it is misleading to suggest that the issue was not taken seriously by the operatives. State ownership was one of a number of options under consideration in Lancashire during the 1930s and 1940s. When Labour came to power in 1945, dark threats were made by ministers about what might happen to the masters if they failed to toe the socialist line. The 1946 Board of Trade Working Party report on cotton acknowledged that many employers saw nationalisation as a ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over Lancashire (Board of Trade 1946, p. 157).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×