If the Falklands War in 1982 didn't happen at all, would Margaret Thatcher still have won the 1983 UK general election, albeit by a much narrower majority - if only because of the improving economy following the early 1980s recession? Or would she have lost, most likely to either Michael Foot of the Labour Party or David Steel/Roy Jenkins of the Social Democrat/Liberal alliance?
no 1982 Falklands War - fate of Margaret Thatcher in 1983 UK election in that TL
- Thread starter dovibear
- Start date
Tough one, from what I remember at the time, Thatcher was not all popular, however, the media universally hated Foot and tried every dirty trick in the book to rubbish his credentials. Also, I can't see the British people at that time voting for someone with his particular political views. So, i would imagine that there not being a 'credible' alternative that Thatcher would have got back in with a much reduced minority.
I was on the doorstep during that campaign, Foot was not a popular figure. Of course, that may have been because the constituency where I lived was definitely NOT a Labour heartland but there was enough self-inflicted damage to ridicule any suggestion that Foot was the victim of a 'dirty tricks' campaign.
There have been many debates since about the 'Falklands Factor' in that election but I'm not sure it was quite as big as later commentators make out. At the time the incompetent Labour/WetConservative governments of the '60s and '70s were still fresh in the memory. It wasn’t all sunlit uplands in 1982/3, but there were signs of improvement in many parts of the country. A Foot ministry would have taken us backwards and, whilst the alliance of Liberals/SDP/LabourDefectors was still a fractured coalition, it came very close to pushing Foot's Labour into third place in vote share.
Maybe the Thatcher government wouldn't have gained 58 seats without the Falklands, I can still see Labour losing 50 or more. Perhaps some of them would have been swept up by the Alliance and the final figures for the three main parties and combined 'others' have been 366/211/52/21 instead of 397/209/23/21. It's still a decisive win with an 82 majority, just not a landslide.
There have been many debates since about the 'Falklands Factor' in that election but I'm not sure it was quite as big as later commentators make out. At the time the incompetent Labour/WetConservative governments of the '60s and '70s were still fresh in the memory. It wasn’t all sunlit uplands in 1982/3, but there were signs of improvement in many parts of the country. A Foot ministry would have taken us backwards and, whilst the alliance of Liberals/SDP/LabourDefectors was still a fractured coalition, it came very close to pushing Foot's Labour into third place in vote share.
Maybe the Thatcher government wouldn't have gained 58 seats without the Falklands, I can still see Labour losing 50 or more. Perhaps some of them would have been swept up by the Alliance and the final figures for the three main parties and combined 'others' have been 366/211/52/21 instead of 397/209/23/21. It's still a decisive win with an 82 majority, just not a landslide.
For my tuppence worth, the Tories were starting to recover in the polls before the Falklands War and it probably did boost them electorally for a short period but I don't think the war itself was the direct factor that sustained it. More likely it was indirect as it took attention away from the socio-economic issues that had fed negative poll ratings as the opposition couldn't highlight those in the period of the war as it would appear unpatriotic. It gave the Tories breathing space.
Plus Foot was a continual target of right wing press derision and the Alliance didn't have an agreed singular leader to promote as an alternative PM. They also didn't have the ground troops or organisation to reinforce their national message as an alternative. They were more effective in dividing opposition votes against the Tories that helped deliver the landslide.
So I could see Tories winning again but maybe, and probably, with a smaller majority than OTL but still bigger than 1979.
Plus Foot was a continual target of right wing press derision and the Alliance didn't have an agreed singular leader to promote as an alternative PM. They also didn't have the ground troops or organisation to reinforce their national message as an alternative. They were more effective in dividing opposition votes against the Tories that helped deliver the landslide.
So I could see Tories winning again but maybe, and probably, with a smaller majority than OTL but still bigger than 1979.
The economy and the Tories polling was already turning the corner before the war and by the time of the next election, which could be as late as April 1984 when the Tories will be in a much better position then they were in in April 1982. Also the Labour Party under Foot is still going to be a complete rabble, split 7 ways from Sunday and the SDP is still going to divide the anti-Tory vote. I doubt the majority will be as large as OTL but they are going to win a comfortable majority, almost certainly gaining seats though probably not the 58 they gained in OTL.
What was life like the last time inflation was this high in 1982?
Margaret Thatcher was PM, the Duke of Cambridge was born and England was heading to the World Cup with Bryan Robson and Peter Shilton in the squad.
Things were getting better in 1983. Obviously, inflation affects the greatest number of voters, although people can easily envision themselves being unemployed if those numbers are growing.
****************
PS I’m a Yank. But I’m thinking things are too different between our two country yes. For example, we in the U.S. had a big recession in 1982
Garrison
Donor
The key factor in 1983 wasn't the Falklands but the split in the Labour vote after the creation of the SDP. With the First Past the Post electoral system in the UK that guaranteed a victory for the Conservatives. The Conservatives took roughly 42.5% of the vote and got 397 seats. Labour and the Liberal/SDP Alliance got 53% spilt almost evenly between the two and got 232 seats. The Falklands war may have gained Thatcher a few more votes here and there but it made very little difference.
I think it is worth pointing out the economy in 1983 was hardly 'improving' - unemployment continued to rise until 1984.
The Falklands, more than anything else, propelled her government to victory in 1983. Without it, hard to say .... the Alliance polled well of course, but I doubt this would actually translate into government, a hung parliament might be on the cards.
Yep.
The main consequence of the war was not so much between the parties as *within* the Conservative Party. Before, there had been concern abt Maggie's unpopularity, and the press were freely discussing possible successors, the one most often mentioned being some chap named Francis Pym (remember him?). After, there was no second choice, there was only The Iron Lady.
David Flin
Gone Fishin'
As always when talking about the Falklands Factor in the 1983 GE, it's always worth looking at what the polling before and after said.
We can see straight away that Foot's election as Labour leader coincides with a collapse in the Labour vote. One can debate what caused that correlation, but the correlation is undeniable.
In Q1 1982, with the improvement in the economy, Tory fortunes start climbing. The Falklands Factor clearly enhances that already existing drift.
The SDP shot to prominence in 1981, and then collapsed in Q1 1982, and again in the aftermath of the Falklands. In my view, that was basically because the Labour vote had hit its bottom, and couldn't go lower. Which meant that the Tory boost had to come from the SDP.
We can see straight away that Foot's election as Labour leader coincides with a collapse in the Labour vote. One can debate what caused that correlation, but the correlation is undeniable.
In Q1 1982, with the improvement in the economy, Tory fortunes start climbing. The Falklands Factor clearly enhances that already existing drift.
The SDP shot to prominence in 1981, and then collapsed in Q1 1982, and again in the aftermath of the Falklands. In my view, that was basically because the Labour vote had hit its bottom, and couldn't go lower. Which meant that the Tory boost had to come from the SDP.
In addition to the above there was also the longest suicide note in history
Which in the opinion of many, including members of the Labour party, made labour unelectable
Which in the opinion of many, including members of the Labour party, made labour unelectable
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
Including this one. My first vote in a GE and although I toed the party line it wasn't with any enthusiasm.
David Flin
Gone Fishin'
I'm struggling to decide which was worse about that manifesto: the policies it put forward (unilateral nuclear disarmament and withdrawal from what was then the EEC) or the way it was presented (incoherent would have been an improvement) or the personalities they put forward to present it.
One is left with the impression that, despite the age and experience of the Labour politicians of the time, they were playing student politics.
I have recollections that even people on the Labour right in the NEC endorsed it because they believed it would teach the left a lesson.
Whether that was clever is another matter in terms of how much further it put Labour in terms of Parliamentary arithmetic.
Garrison
Donor
At that point it could hardly hurt Labour's chances and in the long run giving the Left wing of the party everything it wanted probably paved the way to a return to sanity. 1983 was also the year that one Tony Blair became a brand new Labour MP.
Unfortunately he learnt the wrong lessons from his previous efforts to get elected (or at least get 2nd place) at the Beaconsfield by election in May 82
A conservative safe seat - Labour were hoping for a swing to labour or at least a decent 2nd place over the Liberal candidate and blamed the subsequent swing on the 'Falklands factor' when in fact there was virtually no change to the Conservative vote and the 9% swing in votes went to the Liberal candidate at the expense of the Labour candidate.
So almost certainly no impact with regards to the Falklands (you could argue they maintained their votes but anyway!)
Sadly Tony took away the idea that a short victorious war makes a leader more popular and he seems to have led the country into quite a few wars during his time at No 10 but sadly for him not quite repeating the 'Falklands Factor'.
Last edited:
I remember that election well. In particular, I remember trying to visualise Michael Foot on the steps of Number Ten - and being totally unable to do so! I wasn't just against him becoming PM - I quite literally could not *picture* it.
When I later mentioned this to a (Labour) friend, he expressed the opinion that the same was probably true for a big slice of the electorate. .