ESSAY - "It was the 'Falklands factor' that won the 1983 General Election for Thatcher."

Note: these are essays written by me and have not been marked, so may contain mistakes. Please use for revision purposes only :) 

"It was the 'Falklands factor' that won the 1983 General Election for Thatcher." To what extent do you agree with this? (45 marks)

Margaret Thatcher was undoubtedly one of the most formidable Prime Ministers in British Political history. Her first term (1979-1983) saw Labour take a dramatic left turn, the emergence of a third political party and, of course, the Falklands War of 1982. The so called “Falklands factor” has often been highlighted as the principle reason for the Conservatives winning the 1983 General Election with the largest majority since the Second World War. However, the 1983 election may in fact have been the result of weaknesses of the opposition and divisions in political parties, rather than a “Falklands factor.” Labour disunity and the role of the SDP-Liberal Alliance have been commonly overlooked as factors which contributed to Thatcher’s victory; therefore the importance of these will be assessed to come to an overall conclusion on whether the “Falklands factor” was indeed the main influence for the winning of the 1983 General Election.

Firstly, Thatcher was facing a number of issues prior to the Falklands war. Her stern monetarist policies left 3 million people unemployed by late 1981 which included half of all industrial workers. There was a sharp decrease in production output at 2.5% between 1979 and 1981, compared with other European countries that had a rising output of 5.3%. Granted, Thatcher did eventually succeeded in achieving the goal of decreasing inflation; however with riots erupting in inner cities, a damaging civil service strike and a recession in 1981, it is almost predictable that government standing in the opinion polls fell to 27%.

Thus, the Falklands war could not come soon enough in Thatcher’s eyes. The Argentinian dictator, General Galtieri, instructed the seizure of the Falklands in April 1982 in order to make himself acceptable to his nation. Mrs Thatcher responded diplomatically, but when the compromise was rejected, she was adamant in taking action. A number of islands were soon recaptured; an Argentinian ship sank under Mrs Thatcher’s orders and 255 British lives were lost until Argentina finally surrendered in June 1982.

It is true that “Falklands factor” did have a phenomenal impact on the outcome of the election, so must not be dismissed. This is clearly evident as Mrs Thatcher’s popularity shot up 11% between February and July 1982 and with the defeat of the Argentinian threat on the Falkland Islands, came the transformation of Thatcher’s image. The 1960s and 1970s had seen Britain’s position in world affairs decline rapidly. Past events have proved to the British public as well as the rest of the world that Britain could no longer take on military ventures without the assistance and financial support of the USA. In this way, Thatcher’s resistance to Argentine aggression would inevitably give her a nationalist boost in support. The crisis provided her with an opportunity to reveal herself as an arduous war leader, of which people began to compare with the likes of Winston Churchill. National pride, as argued by Andrew Marr, was inevitably restored along with Thatcher’s new political image which led to her overwhelming victory in 1983.

Yet, the “Falklands factor” may not have been the only explanation to the Conservatives’ triumph. The Labour party, led by Michael Foot, were far from appealing to the voting public. Their radical and ill-thought-out manifesto was the result of the party’s sudden veer left. The document called for unilateral nuclear disarmament, the abolition of the House of Lords, the re-nationalisation of recently privatised industries such as British Telecom and for Britain to withdraw from the EEC. The ambitious manifesto completely backfired, with a Labour MP at the time Gerald Kaufman describing it despairingly, if not accurately, as the “longest suicide note in history.”  It is unsurprising then that the manifesto proved to be very unpopular and criticised heavily, and so contributed to the Conservative landslide victory.

Furthermore, Labour’s apparent pacifism during the Falklands war did nothing to improve their already diminishing popularity. While people were celebrating the end of a national crisis, Labour decided to condemn it. From the manifesto, it was quite clear that the Labour party were in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament. This, in the context of the Falklands war, made Labour look unpatriotic which turned even traditional supporters against them. Had Labour held a different, pragmatic view towards military conflict, the “Falklands factor” may have been questioned more thoroughly. But alas, unilateralism became another element in Labour’s growing pile of mistakes that allowed Conservative dominance in the 1983 elections.

What is more, the rise of a third political party can also be argued to be an underlying reason for Mrs Thatcher’s victory. The SDP-Liberal Alliance significantly shook electoral prospects for Labour as they managed to gain 26% of the national vote compared to Labour’s 28%. Polling data shows that for every one vote the SPD would take from the Conservatives, they would take two from Labour. This was a massive advantage for Thatcher as the new political party not only prevented Labour from being a more competitive force against the Conservatives, but it also splintered the vote, which would have perhaps allowed Thatcher to win the election even without the aid of the “Falklands factor.”  

Likewise, the SDP was initially formed by the “Gang of Four” due to failure of Labour leadership and policy. The fact that four key members of the Labour party decided to disband (including Roy Jenkins who had a significant role in previous Labour governments) and form a third political party exposed Labour’s weaknesses. It sent an obvious message that Labour was no longer competent in running the country so this, combined with Labour disunity, made Thatcher seem much more appealing than she otherwise may have been.

Moreover, Michael Foot led the Labour party and the 1983 election campaign in a doddering manner and failed to inspire the public. One would even say that he radiated weakness as he unsuccessfully tried to reunite his splitting party. Margaret Thatcher on the other hand, projected an image of strong leadership and control over her government, a feat that Foot most certainly was not; hence Thatcher was logically more suited for the job of Prime Minister.

Also prior to the dispute, the British economy had begun to recover. Britain experienced a long period of economic expansion after the 1981 recession which could be said to have left the Conservatives on the good side of public opinion. Thatcher’s policies, including the reduction of tax from 33% to 30%, carried support of 63% of the public, which is further evidence that the success of Thatcher’s economic policies may have been the driving force to her re-election.

Finally, Labour’s poor record of government continued to haunt them and may have been a cause to their spectacular defeat. It is difficult to forget Thatcher’s predecessors who sent Britain’s inflation to double digits, major industrial action and the infamous Winter of Discontent in 1979. The criticisms of the Conservatives were tame compared to the failures of the previous Labour party; therefore people may have been reluctant to vote Labour due to their aforementioned disasters in the past.   

To conclude, it is fair to conclude that the “Falklands factor” was not the only influence that determined the outcome of the 1983 election. Labour weaknesses and the formation of the SPD both gave Thatcher a substantial political advantage, one which could be argued to have led to her re-election even without the Falklands crisis. Although Thatcher faced a number of issues with regards to unemployment, riots, and her decreasing popularity in opinion polls, we must not ignore the fact that that the “Falklands factor” did indeed boost Thatcher’s popularity and managed to gain her a huge majority over the opposition; but when looking at chaos of the opposition, some would say that Thatcher’s victory was nothing but inevitable.