The Formation of the Triple Alliance

 1912 Trades Union Congress had already revealed a split in the MFGB, and in the SWMF, on syndicalism. Noah Ablett - one of the representatives of the South Wales Miners, and one of the authors of the Miners’ Next Step - defended syndicalism against a hostile audience, and against his colleagues like W. Brace (Member of Parliament, and President of the SWMF) and Smillie. His  influence was  doubtful, as was the influence of the Miners' Next Step on a resolution on  co-operative action, that was proposed by the SWMF at  the 1913 MFGB Annual  Conference. 

The spokesman for the SWMF, Frank Hodges, said:
…we are perhaps the most perfect organisation that exists in the Trade Union World, our organisation from the point of view of members numerically, can be classified as perhaps the mightiest in the world, and at the same time in comparison with the  general working class movement, our organisation and its methods  are  planless in the sense of the wider working class  movements (…)  We  feel  that  the  time  has  come  when we ought to alter the method. We are convinced that the  railway men have a program  for an  eight  hours  day, and for a minimum wage,   the  dockers  are   formulating a program, we  are formulating a program, for in 1915 each district’s  agreement terminates, we shall be busily engaged between now and then formulating our  proposals, but are we to formulate them knowing that the other big trade unions were  formulating such programs, without any regard to those trade unions. (...) I agree that in theory the Trades Union Congress can  be  the Parliament  of the workers, can be the body to control this movement of  ours for better conditions in  the industrial world, but these  theories, we believe cannot  be carried into practice.The Trades Union Congress decides on various resolutions with respect   to all affiliated members, but there should be some method adopted  in order that a state of affairs as I have outlined can be brought about. If this  were put upon a more solid, a more scientific basis, I think the  great struggles of the workers will be considerably lessened because  they are organised.

Hodges’ statement quite clearly reflected the experience of the 1911 and 1912  strike waves. The 1911 strikes of transport workers and railwaymen threw thousands of miners out of work, because the facilities for transporting coal from the pit-head were no longer available. The reverse happened in 1912 during the miners’ strike. Thousands of transport workers and railwayrnen were laid off, because there was no coal to transport, and those that were not laid off, conveyed the reserves of coal, and thus acted as strike-breakers. The 1911 and 1912 strikes revealed a certain inconsistency, a certain weakness in the British trade union movement, while it was acknowledged that the organisation of employers was improving. Therefore Hodges wanted this lack of co-ordination to disappear, and since the TUC - in theory the body that should have taken the initiative - did not do so, individual unions had to do it themselves. The proposed co-operation between trade unions did not necessarily mean - it was argued - a general strike. On the contrary - as Burton (Northumberland), the seconder of the resolution pointed out - it would do more than anything else ever instituted to prevent strikes.

The same kind of statements could be heard at the first conference of the Executive Committees of the MFGB, the NUR and the NTWF, 23 April 1914. In his opening speech, Smillie pointed out, that he did not wish to suggest that as a result of this meeting, and all the meetings to come, the three unions were going to revolutionize the world all at once. But he believed, that - since the unions had so much in common - they could be more effective if they were more closely joined together, They could consult together, exchange views with each other, and - if possible -enter into, at some further time, either an alliance of some kind, or a co-operative partnership of some kind, by which they might assist each other. A close co—operation between the three bodies - Smillie argued - would secure many useful industrial reforms without having any stoppage at all. Besides that, he hoped, that it would enable them to secure a larger direct representation of the working class in the House of Commons, and secure more attention than they had secured up to that time.

J.H. Thomas, one of the NUR-leaders, agreed with him on the point of political action. He argued that collective industrial action of the three bodies must always hit the community. Therefore, he said, that they had always to keep in mind that side by side with their movement industrially, they wanted political action in order to strengthen their position.

The alliance which the three bodies entered into, was neither revolutionary nor syndicalistic, as NUR-president A. Bellamy pointed out. It would be a force which was not intended to be used indiscriminately or frivolously. It was not to be used like a 'steam hammer to crack a nut', but was a solidifying  movement for mutual co-operation in times of national emergency.