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.

ESSAY - “What started promisingly ended in disappointment.” (Tony Blair)

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

“What started promisingly ended in disappointment.” How true is this of Tony Blair’s time as Prime Minister? (45 marks)

Tony Blair’s time in office most certainly started promisingly. He was at the height of his popularity during his first term with Labour’s landslide victory of 1997 ending eighteen years in opposition. The combination of a huge majority in parliament, his cautious approach towards economic policies and his own “New Labour” campaign resulted in high expectations of Blair’s government. Unfortunately, Blair failed to live up to these expectations. His “adventurous” attitude towards the economy between 2001 and 2007, coupled with internal tensions and his unholy alliance with George W. Bush stemmed the decline in his popularity and eventually in his government.

Tony Blair’s fortunes began as he arrived in office with a favourable economy. Between 1997 and 2001, inflation was at 2.5% and employment was starting to rise; by 2007, the number of people working was 2.5 million more than 1997. Additionally, Gordon Brown’s decision to give the Bank of England full control over interest rates proved to be an ingenious move and highly praised among the public and press alike since the government were no longer seen as responsible for interest rates. The increase in spending in the public sector, the housing boom and the introduction of minimum wage in 1999 all demonstrated Blair’s capability in economic affairs, to the point where Labour overtook the Conservative party in economic competence and generally maintained the public’s high opinion of the Labour government. As a result, success in the 2001 General Election came to the Labour Party relatively easily.   

Yet despite the economic optimism, problems were beginning to build. Due to Blair’s shift from cautious to adventurous from 2001, there was a huge surge in government spending in the public sector with the claim that public services needed to be improved. Since taxation alone could not fund Blair’s ambitious objectives, large sums of money were borrowed from foreign bankers. This would only lead to further problems in the future and was, quite aptly, a “recipe for recession” which promptly arrived in 2008. The fact that 37% of those who were working were employed in the public sector has also been highly criticised as, according to Rowe, it undermined democracy, lost the incentive to work and allowed Britain to become a client state, all of which only added to the government’s public spending bill. The people’s faith in Labour’s economic competency continued to decline as the consequence of Gordon Brown’s decision to sell half of Britain’s gold reserves led to the loss of a massive £3 billion, a mistake that China vastly benefitted from. Brown’s mistakes did not end there; he effectively began a raid in people’s pensions which resulted in a loss of £8 billion due to the drastic drop in the value of pensions. Evidently, the relative economic stability that the Labour party inherited was completely turned around by 2007.

Furthermore, Blair’s impact in British society was one that began positively. His charismatic and persuasive nature appealed to many, including young people who became more interested in politics. The British economy was profiting from mass immigration as the immigrants took unpleasant but essential jobs and the subsequent diversity in cultures from immigration encouraged multiculturalism in Britain. By passing the Human Rights Act in 1998 and the Race Relations Act in 2000, Blair also succeeded in reinforcing racial equality into British society. Another issue that was concerning to people living in rural areas was Britain’s urbanisation and the loss of the farming business. To prevent this, Blair provided subsidies to get a better transport network running from cities to the countryside and build cheaper local houses which showed that the government’s excessive spending was perhaps beneficial for the country. There were additional attempts to promote farmer’s markets and organic farming in order to get away from the stronghold of supermarkets which, of course, contributed to retaining the Labour party’s supporters.

However, these measures only made a marginal difference. By 2007, Britain’s urbanisation was still growing at alarming rates. With regards to immigration, Blair’s government was to be remembered for their embarrassment of stating the number of Polish immigrants coming to Britain was to be around 500,000, when in reality it was almost double that figure. This only highlighted the fact that the government may not have had an immigration policy at all. The uncontrollable amount of immigrants also built up tensions within communities as many immigrants, including the masses of Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and people from the Caribbean that were settling in Britain, failed to integrate within the British culture, therefore Blair’s encouragement of multiculturalism was essentially an abject a failure. The drop in wages, living standards, increase in crime and the stretch on the NHS and education all have been associated with the mass immigration and have only added to the building tensions. What is more, Britain under Blair had seemed to become a “greying society.” For the first time, there were more people over the retirement age than people under 16, thanks to the vast increase in life expectancy. This, combined with more pressure for medical treatment and more people depending on pensions for longer, cost the government billions of pounds. Yet Tony Blair appeared to disregard this issue, consequently it was clear that the greying of Britain would continue to have a big impact on British society in the future.

Moreover, many would agree that Blair’s relationship in Europe was a positive one. Unlike previous Prime Ministers, Blair had a powerful role within key events in Europe such as the Treaty of Nice in 2001 and took a leading position on EU initiatives including climate change and combating terrorism. Blair also managed to build a sturdy bridge between the US and Europe due to his good relationship with other European leaders such as Nikolas Sarkozy and Angela Markel. His “liberal interventionism” was praised highly as it helped resolve the Yugoslavia issue and put Britain back on the map. Most of all, after his predecessors tried and failed, Tony Blair achieved to bring relative peace in Ireland. The signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 was a monumental moment in British history and this, along with his success with Yugoslavia, took Blair’s public image to great heights.

It was in 2003, once again after his shift from cautious to adventurous, that Blair’s positive image plummeted. The Iraq War had intense opposition from the word go. Blair was convinced that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, so allied with the USA and eventually invaded Iraq in March 2003. He has since been accused by critics of being a “war criminal” for his role in the conflict which ultimately cost the lives of 179 British soldiers and an estimated 100,000 civilians. The fact that no weapons of mass destruction were ever found only diminished Blair’s credibility further as it confirmed that the war was neither necessary nor morally justified and was an influential political factor that remained right to the end of Blair’s time in office. Blair’s relationship with Europe seemed to be deteriorating as a consequence to the Iraq war as deep divisions were opened up between some European countries and Britain. There was also the matter of the EU introducing up to 3000 new regulations in 2006 without the consent of parliament and the refusal of a referendum over the Constitutional Treaty. Eurosceptics vehemently argue this to be undemocratic and left many in Britain feeling that cheated by their own government.  What is more, Blair’s failure to reform the Common Agricultural Policy on several occasions and even after he negotiated away the UK’s rebate in 2006 raised Britain’s annual contribution into the EU to £7 billion. This proved a German newspaper correct; that the British Prime Minister “began as a tiger and ended up a doormat.”

Therefore to conclude, Tony Blair’s time in office did indeed start promisingly and end in disappointment. It is clear that between 1997 and 2001, Blair’s cautious approach to politics was appropriate as his economic policies benefited the country, the Good Friday Agreement finally brought peace into Ireland, relations with the US and Europe were good, so British society was generally at a satisfactory place and Blair’s popularity within the public and press was relatively sound. Yet as soon as he was elected for his second term, Blair’s reputation nose-dived, especially after the Iraq war. Relations with Europe continued to decline and excessive spending led to a recession in 2008. By his resignation in 2007, Blair had gone from one of the most popular Prime Ministers in British political history, to one of the least.