Saturday, 23 March 2013

History Corner: British Island Outposts (1)

Today's Grauniad contains a curious little editorial that makes the case for Mrs Thatcher not needing the Falklands victory for her own political triumph a year later. 
"The myth is that the Falklands won the Tories the general election. In fact, ... "
Well, everyone must speak as they find, and history is an ongoing debate: the more views, the merrier, and the piece makes some sound points.  But I can't help feeling there's a perspective they have missed, that tends to tilt the balance towards the other point of view.

The invasion took place in the first week of campaigning for local elections, in one of which I was a candidate.  The initial impact on us was striking - real vitriol on the doorstep towards the treacherous Tories who had left the islands undefended; and we feared for our prospects.

Four weeks later, with hostilities in full swing, Thatcher's fighting resolve in clear evidence, and the patriotic jingo-juices roused, we swept the board: 65 council seats out of 70 in my borough. The Labour Party, which sometimes holds this council in its turn, and in 1982 definitely had its hopes up, was reduced to a dazed rump.  No-one was in any doubt why this had come about and, no, it was not due to Drew's peerless political rhetoric on the stump.

So: my personal recollection is that as a direct consequence of the conflict, the electorate came to the clear understanding we had a genuine and resolute big-hitter in Downing Street.  In circumstances where (as the Guardian reminds us) the Tories' poll position in 1983 was 2 points adrift of its 1979 level, how could that not have been a positive, and perhaps even a decisive factor ?

ND

11 comments:

andrew said...

from my memory it was not so much that the tories were so great, more that a large part of labour were not supportive of the war (the leadership were)

Sackerson said...

It electrified the youngsters I was teaching at the time. "The Falklands are ours!" Probably same effect on Argie kids, too.

Bill Quango MP said...

Can't agree with the article. Factually correct but missing the reasoning. The Falklands restored pride. The sick man of Europe didn't look or feel so sick anymore. No one was kicking the country around anymore. Not red union leaders. Or yellow wet liberals. Or punks, or commie council leaders or Eurocrats or Arabs or Russians or Argies.

It was a cleansing mental process for a country that had almost become ungovernable. The whole world was surprised, as most of the country was, that a war could break out over a spit of frozen rock thousands of miles away.

The conflict in itself is the last footnote in the history of Empire. But It showed britons achieving a clear victory. It proved Maggie was determined, no matter what, to do what she said she would do. Strong leadership was seen and respected by many.

And, like WW2 and Iraq 1, it was a "good" war. UK forces were undeniably, bar the most apologistic of dictators, the good team. That makes a difference.
We didn't want to fight anyone. Didn't have the men, equipment or money to fight so far from home... But it had to be done. That was the Battle of Britain stirring in the memories of the older voters.

Does anyone believe that if he Tories had had an election the day after the olmpics they would not have benefitted from the success ?


Demetrius said...

As a former bolshie National Serviceman who followed it closely I recall suggesting that if she was really brave she would go in around Goose Green. And she did. Whatever her mistakes she made the Labour party look like a lot of wet nellies.

dearieme said...

The downside is that years later 'orrible little men like Blair and Cameron think it's a fine trick to buy popularity to use our services in wars that are none of our business.

Blue Eyes said...

"it was not due to Drew's peerless political rhetoric on the stump"

Don't do yourself down!

" 'orrible little men like Blair and Cameron think it's a fine trick to buy popularity to use our services in wars"

Yes, I am certain that Blair invented that.

Anonymous said...

While debating the single point of will history see Thatcher as 'good' or 'bad' have a look at the wider point of nationalism. Should it be banned as it causes more deaths than religion.

Falklands aside, she did everything with a commitment unseen since.

dearieme said...

Ah, Blue Eyes, to suppress " that are none of our business" means that you are arguing in bad faith. Shame on you.

Nick Drew said...

The downside is that years later 'orrible little men like Blair and Cameron think it's a fine trick to buy popularity to use our services in wars that are none of our business

I may have another History Corner on this topic up my sleeve, Dearieme - there is another significant anniversary later in the year ...

Sackerson said...

ND - Have a crack at Fiji, there's a colonial legacy for you and pretty hot at the moment.

Budgie said...

dearieme said: " a fine trick to buy popularity to use our services in wars that are none of our business."

Yes dearieme, you have it in one.