Burn It All Down – Britain, 1982-84

[James G]

BURN IT ALL DOWN
Britain, 1982-84

A British political timeline

[James G]

Part One – The Fall


It is May 4th 1982. Britain and Argentina are involved in an armed conflict concerning sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and other South Atlantic islands. Shots have already been exchanged and blood has been spilt. This afternoon, following a failed morning attack against the Task Force to do the same thing then, the Argentine Navy’s aviation striking arm – the 2nd Naval Attack Squadron – gets lucky and a pair of Super Étendard strike aircraft slot through the Royal Navy’s air defences to tear low across the water towards the ‘big ships’ present. One of those is HMS Hermes, the largest of the two aircraft carriers from which currently out-of-position Sea Harrier fighters are flying. Launches are made of Exocet anti-ship missiles towards the Hermes: one from each Argentine aircraft before they turn away without the pilots knowing whether they hit anything. Only later, long after they reach their temporary home at the Rio Grande airbase in Tierra Fuego, will they find out that the Exocets did their job and they are heroes for their nation.

Contradictory warnings come from the destroyers HMS Coventry and HMS Glasgow over the threat from the Super Étendards and the Exocets. Only at the very last moment, long after the attackers have turned away and the missiles are inbound upon their prey, is it understood what is happening. By then, it is far too late to do anything substantial. No last-ditch defences are employed and the barest of warnings within the carrier is broadcast to her crew. Posted lookouts can only shout a verbal alarm of sheer panic.

The Exocets strike the Hermes. The carrier will soon be engulfed in flames, burning from bow to stern.

Only one missile warhead detonates – with terrible consequences – but while the second doesn’t, its unspent missile fuel is just as lethal as high explosives. Deep within the bowels of the Hermes are the seats of two initially separate fires which rapidly spread out of control. They join together and rage with fury in the face of every desperate British attempt to bring them under control. Damage control parties and designated firefighters are overwhelmed. Casualties mount rapidly. The smoke, rather than the fire itself, chokes the life out of those caught in its path. Evacuation begins when it becomes apparent that all is lost but there is confusion and many, many sailors are left behind in an absolute tragedy. The loss of both primary and reserve electrical power plunge the interior of the ship into darkness to doom them. The Hermes cannot be saved and is going to burn until there is nothing left for the fires to consume. Hundreds of Royal Navy sailors are taken off her to other ships, including to HMS Sheffield, which is a destroyer that was lucky to escape that aborted attack earlier in the day. Hundreds more casualties are left behind though.

In her destruction, Hermes will take the lives of close to four hundred who sailed off to war with her. Such a loss of life is unprecedented in recent times.


It is exactly three years since Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister. Britain’s first female leader, heading a Conservative majority government, has had quite the ride throughout those. There have been difficulties, challenges and disasters before. Nothing compares to this though. Such a loss of life is unexpected. Thatcher and others among her War Cabinet have been trying to steel themselves for something like this but, at the same time, not really believing that it will happen after earlier successes had in the conflict including retaking South Georgia and sinking one of the Argentine’s own big ships. How wrong they have been in thinking that this wasn’t on the cards.

When the news reaches Downing Street that the Hermes has been attacked, the initial belief is that while there is damage done, it is survivable. This is down to inaccurate reporting rather than any malice. Aiming to stay ahead of the curve, John Nott, the Defence Secretary, has a statement prepared to be released to the BBC stating that the Hermes has been hit and there are casualties. Thatcher doesn’t want the Argentines getting the news out first. Yet, before that can happen, a further report arrives. This tells the true scale of the disaster. Admiral Lewin, serving as the Chief of the Defence Staff (the nation’s senior-most military officer), explains what is meant by the Hermes being set alight as it is. There is a second carrier down in the South Atlantic – HMS Invincible – but she, alone, cannot provide enough air cover to stop the Argentines coming back again with more supersonic sea-skimming missiles and getting her or another big ship. Imagine if one of the troopships, say the converter liner Canberra, is hit… With two carriers in-place, they got through, and it is highly likely that they will return to finish what they started. Lewin recommends that there is a temporary withdrawal of the Royal Navy ships in the immediate area near to the Falklands back now towards safer waters some ways off. Others present in Downing Street, such as Willie Whitelaw (the Deputy Prime Minister & Home Secretary) and Francis Pym (the new Foreign Secretary), disagree with that. They say that will be a public relations catastrophe. Take the fight back to the Argentines, the two men urge, and hit them with all that we have got! Nott shakes his head. He tells them that that is only asking for another tragedy. Back the Invincible must go, but only for the time being. There needs to be a revaluation of combatting Argentine air power against our big ships, he adds. Following that, a new effort can be made and it will be one where the Task Force is reinforced too.

Casualty estimates come in while the War Cabinet waits on the Prime Minister to decide. They take the breath away of those who hear them. Admiral Fieldhouse is in command of the war effort from the Northwood Command Centre outside of London and he calls over with those numbers. Four hundred! This includes Admiral Woodward aboard the burning carrier too. Along with all those feared dead as the Hermes is abandoned, there are hundreds more casualties arriving aboard other Task Force ships. These men have broken bones, breathing issues and burns: the burn victims are in a terrible state. High casualties were expected when the fighting moved on land but this is all too much at once. Fieldhouse recommends, as Lewin does, a ‘temporary withdrawal’ from where the Royal Navy has its ships back out of range of the Argentine mainland. If they make another attack soon, in the midst of all that is going on, the death toll could easily reach a thousand.

Nott, Lewin and Fieldhouse are all in agreement that there must be that step back taken. Thatcher listens to her Defence Secretary and the two admirals. She gives the instruction that that must be done. This conflict isn’t over, she says, but we must pull our ships out of danger for the time being to avert a further huge loss of life. A redrafting is done of the statement to be sent to the media to inform the British public of what has happened. There is still the fear that the junta in Buenos Aires will beat them to the punch on that and make a big deal out of what they will surely call ‘revenge for the Belgrano’. The War Cabinet will succeed in this endeavour but, ultimately, that will be of little consequence.

The Nine O’Clock News on the BBC tells the nation of the fate of the Hermes and so many of those who sailed within her to their doom.

[James G]

The loss of the Hermes brings about the fall of Thatcher.

During the previous weeks since the Argentine invasion on April 2nd, the British public have taken up the cause of the Falklands in a wave of patriotism unheard of in recent times. That Argentina has dared to do what it has done has brought this about. Thatcher’s Government has responded to the public mood with quite the gusto. In Downing Street, it has been realised that retaking the Falklands is key to long-term Conservative success. Only the day before the Hermes is hit, the tabloid newspaper The Sun ran with the headline ‘Gotcha’. This concerned the attack made on an Argentine Navy patrol boat, yet it became synonymous with the sinking of the cruiser ARA General Belgrano, which caused a great loss of life. While there are many Britons who have in fact shaken their heads at all this in disgust with what is going on, the majority are caught up in the wave of jingoistic patriotism. The nation has been caught up in victory disease where it has widely thought that the – much ridiculed – junta in Buenos Aires is sure to be soon defeated.

News now comes that the Hermes has been hit, there is great loss of life and that the Task Force down in the South Atlantic is in retreat. In an instant, the public mood snaps. Certain victory has been ever-so-cruelly torn away from them. Blame is apportioned not on the Argentinians but instead elsewhere… to Thatcher’s Government. Parliamentarians and the newspapers catch the mood of the nation. This is something that many quickly exploit for their own ends. There is much I-told-you-so about what is said, often from some of those most smug and self-righteous. However, from other quarters, there is genuine shock at the failure that has happened where they feel that they have been deceived by Thatcher into thinking that victory was inevitable. The grave loss of life and the international embarrassment hit these people hardest.

The War Cabinet doesn’t classify the pulling back of the Task Force as a retreat. It is a ‘temporary withdrawal to reassess the situation’ according to an official statement from Downing Street. Royal Navy ships, along with auxiliaries and STUFTs (ships taken up from trade), sail away from the Falklands towards Ascension Island. Brainstorming is conducted over what to do next. Questions are asked over how to challenge Argentine air power and whether work on HMS Illustrious can be sped up even more than it is to get that brand-new carrier down to the South Atlantic to replace the Hermes. Nothing the War Cabinet hears is satisfactory though. Argentine use of their French-built Super Étendards with Exocets has defied expectations and Illustrious cannot be in-place until the middle of August at the earliest, which will be in the midst of the Southern Hemisphere winter! Buenos Aires is by now trumpeting as loud as they can their ‘great defeat’ of Britain and there are international allies questioning the wisdom of the UK carrying on the fight. Long has there been talk in diplomatic circles of a diplomatic solution – what Thatcher has long called ‘a surrender’ – and that has now grown louder.

The Prime Minister is in no mood to give in. Nonetheless, others are of mood to. They are deflated and angry. An end to all of this madness, is their call: an end to needless deaths. It is Thatcher who has led the nation into this mess and it is she who so many now want to see gone. Talk of continuing the conflict comes from Downing Street, only giving impetus to those who have made their mind up to see her gone. They act to get rid of her.


Sacked from the Government last September as part of a reshuffle was the MP Ian Gilmour. His disagreements with Thatcher had been over economic matters yet also over her style of leadership too. Gilmour wishes for a return to the post-war consensus as evidenced by the Heath Government in which he and Thatcher served before she took the reins of party leadership. An end to her bullying and the economic disaster upon the country she is responsible for is what he says he will challenge her to bring to an end. Gilmour launches a formal leadership challenge. He gains enough signatures – just enough – from a wide variety of MPs to allow for this to be done. Whether Gilmour honestly believes that, when push comes to shove, his fellow MPs will vote for him over Thatcher to serve as Prime Minister is a matter of debate. He’s fired the first shots though and begun a formal challenge. It isn’t something that Thatcher can ignore as it is done in the correct manner. She announces that she will put her name forward on the upcoming ballot and intends to win that contest to remain as Prime Minister.

As the Conservative Party begins a leadership battle, there is a lot of attention elsewhere. The Argentine leader, General Galtieri, now promoted to the rank of First Marshal of the Empire (a grandiose and rather real post) by his fellow uniformed officers, is visiting the Falklands: the Islas Malvinas now. He makes a big show of himself in front of the domestic and world media present. British forces down in South Georgia are attacked by Argentine aircraft and there is the striking of the HMS Endurance by falling bombs in an air attack. This ship has been at the heart of the conflict since it began with the Argentinians several times failing to hit her in previous attempts. This time it is different. She survives this attack yet is gravely wounded with many more casualties aboard. A repeat attack with more enemy aircraft active in empty skies is feared to be coming at any moment for that ship and those on this island who are now rather alone. Arriving back into Britain are casualties from the Hermes. Some of the earliest evacuees from their lost ship begin to arrive four days later at Wroughton Airfield in Wiltshire for transfer to the nearby military hospital. More will follow them. Parliamentarians who have opposed the conflict since it begun have been emboldened in recent days and the airwaves in the UK are full of them. Thatcher bears their criticism, not the servicemen sent off to fight a war which those opponents of the fighting tear into as her fault. It is said again and again that her government is responsible for all the deaths and injuries incurred. Fleet Street has turned on Thatcher too. Nearly all of the national newspapers call for her to go. Headlines and editorials criticise that the war has fought while others conversely demand that it continue with Argentina not being allowed to get away with this. The Sun demands the bombing of Buenos Aires while The Guardian says that peace should be given a chance after such a grave, wasted loss of life. Whereas there is division on that, there is unity on the central matter: Thatcher has led the nation into this calamity and it is her that seemingly everyone wants to see turfed out of Downing Street.

A back-bench group of Conservative MPs known as the 1922 Committee are responsible for party leadership elections. Edward du Cann is its chairman and he is the face of this internal election in the media storm. When the deadline for others to join passes, du Cann announces that only Gilmour and Thatcher are in the race when there have been expectations in several quarters that there would be more challengers to the Prime Minister. This gives Thatcher a boost yet that is one soon found to be unfounded. Gilmour has attracted more supporters than previously thought. They have come late and aren’t favourable to him yet are seeking to soften her up for a larger challenge. It is a risky strategy, a cowardly one according to Cabinet members speaking off-the-record to the media… with many of them involved in this game though. The ballot comes as MPs vote. According to the contest rules, victory can only come with not just a simple majority of votes but a particular margin of victory: a win by a clear fifteen per cent. Thatcher achieves what many believe she will and gains more votes than Gilmour yet her total is not enough to win outright. There have been a wave of abstentions tipping the scales against her in this secret ballot where much duplicity is at play. In a statement to waiting reporters, du Cann declares that there must be a second ballot a week later. It is one which further MPs can enter if they wish to. That is done. With what seems like a gut-punch, Thatcher sees two members of her Cabinet resign and put their names forward too. Michael Heseltine and Peter Walker both declare they have no faith in her leadership and will run against her in the second ballot; Gilmour drops out after these announcements with his job done. As the case was with him, for these latest two contenders it is all about Thatcher’s style and direction instead of the Falklands debacle that cause them to make this move. They have long-standing complaints but also ambitions too. Heseltine has more about him that Walker does but, once again, Thatcher looks favourite to win. That is only from the outside though. Within her Government, there is turmoil behind the scenes. Cabinet members and backbenchers are saying that they cannot vote for her in a second ballot. They believe she should stand aside, with grace, and allow for someone else to take over. Upon being told, Thatcher and her remaining supporters try to bat this away. The looming deadline for the closing of nominations comes closer. Attempting to hold on, Thatcher tries all that she can. It isn’t enough though. She is suddenly looking likely to go down in defeat to Heseltine.

A late night meeting in Downing Street sees much emotion. Thatcher argues with Cabinet members who say they believe she must step down. After dismissing those with her, and a talk with her husband, Thatcher goes to bed determined to fight on. Morning comes and things feel different though. She has had a change of heart, believing now that the fight cannot be won when everyone is against her. The betrayal from her Cabinet colleagues cuts deep and where before there had been anger, there is now only resignation to the inevitable. Thatcher meets with her closest supporters and she informs them that it is time for her to go. Several urge her to fight on all the way to the end but there are others who propose another route. Heseltine isn’t to their taste and they fear disaster at the next election with him in Downing Street: his long-standing reputation for recklessness is a real fear along with his perceived propensity to err gravely. One of her foremost allies, Norman Tebbit, puts himself forward to continue to carry the torch and follow through with many of Thatcher’s legislative agenda & reforms. After some time to consider it, Thatcher gives him her support and so do others too: Cabinet members who might enter the leadership race against Heseltine decide to stand in support of Tebbit. Hours before the midday deadline the following day, Walker removes his name from the ballot – quitting ahead of a feared humiliation – while Tebbit adds his. Thatcher gives a statement to the waiting media from outside Downing Street confirming her resignation as party leader. She will stay in-place until a successor is confirmed but her premiership is effectively over. As to whom she will support, she says nothing in public yet behind the scenes, Thatcher does all that she can to help Tebbit. The Thatcher agenda will continue under him, other MPs are made aware, and he will put out to pasture all of those detractors who forced her from office.

In a surprise, Heseltine decides to withdraw. He sees the support that Tebbit has and realises that this isn’t a fight which he can win, nor even come close to making a respectable finish in. Many of those who had been prepared to vote with him against Thatcher make it known that they will now be supporting Tebbit. Heseltine sees the writing on the wall and, like others before him, withdraws his name right ahead of that upcoming ballot. Tebbit is unopposed and so no second ballot is needed. The following day, Thatcher formally tenders her resignation to the Queen and Tebbit is called upon by the nation’s monarch to form a new government.

Norman Tebbit becomes the new British Prime Minister twenty days after the loss of the Hermes.

[lordroel]

Jul 21, 2020 19:11:59 GMT James G said:

BURN IT ALL DOWN
Britain, 1982-84

A British political timeline

Ore a British political nightmare.

But i think we have to see if that is the case, do we.

[stevep]

Jul 22, 2020 16:45:15 GMT lordroel said:

Jul 21, 2020 19:11:59 GMT James G said:

BURN IT ALL DOWN
Britain, 1982-84

A British political timeline

Ore a British political nightmare.

But i think we have to see if that is the case, do we.

  Definitely the case.  Apart from the fact its a James TL and hence you can expect bad things Tebbit was even more right wing and contemptuous of Britain's interests than Thatcher.  Not sure in a case like this Heseltine would withdraw as this is his only chance to have a meaningful career.  With Tebbit and the other ultras in power not only is the future for Britain looking grim but also he knows he will be viewed as an outcast by those in power.

  Mind you there is some irony that its not the people who bring Thatcher down but her own followers who echo her lack of morals and ends justifies means lust for power.

  Although if after a period of chaos you get a responsible government in power who will look to Britain's interests it might end up better for the country in the longer term but those in this TL won't know that.

  Given the disaster there will be demands for a general election but I can't see Tebbit going for it, as he would realise how terrible the Tory position is.  Their pretense of being the party of British power has been shattered, in part because of their defence cuts as other will point out and the country is in the midst of the deep depression cause by Thatcher to break the power of the workers, not just the unions, which has caused huge suffering and waste. 

[James G]

Jul 22, 2020 16:45:15 GMT lordroel said:

Jul 21, 2020 19:11:59 GMT James G said:

BURN IT ALL DOWN
Britain, 1982-84

A British political timeline

Ore a British political nightmare.

But i think we have to see if that is the case, do we.

Nightmare!

Jul 23, 2020 9:42:29 GMT stevep said:

  Definitely the case.  Apart from the fact its a James TL and hence you can expect bad things Tebbit was even more right wing and contemptuous of Britain's interests than Thatcher.  Not sure in a case like this Heseltine would withdraw as this is his only chance to have a meaningful career.  With Tebbit and the other ultras in power not only is the future for Britain looking grim but also he knows he will be viewed as an outcast by those in power.

  Mind you there is some irony that its not the people who bring Thatcher down but her own followers who echo her lack of morals and ends justifies means lust for power.

  Although if after a period of chaos you get a responsible government in power who will look to Britain's interests it might end up better for the country in the longer term but those in this TL won't know that.

  Given the disaster there will be demands for a general election but I can't see Tebbit going for it, as he would realise how terrible the Tory position is.  Their pretense of being the party of British power has been shattered, in part because of their defence cuts as other will point out and the country is in the midst of the deep depression cause by Thatcher to break the power of the workers, not just the unions, which has caused huge suffering and waste. 

Bad things will certainly happen. I had Hezza drop out because I didn't think he'd go all the way in 82, and maybe he knew that. He also isn't gone though, leaving a chance open for once again. Tebbit will rather have him inside the tent rather than outside.
It was Thatcher's insiders who took her down in 1990. In 1981, she was approached by the party chair and others who told her to go then so there was always a a mood against her from some.
No way will the Conservatives want an election at this point. The recession, with all that comes with it, chiefly mass unemployment, will only go on.

[James G]

Part Two – A Defeated Nation


The loss of the Falklands is a mortal blow to Britain. The UK has been humiliated and becomes a laughing-stock internationally for the defeat incurred. Tebbit’s new government refuses to accept the facts on the ground of complete Argentine control of what is now the Malvinas and the official position of his government is that the Falklands will be recovered. The Task Force stays near to Ascension Island though there is a withdrawal made from South Georgia too. This is all said to be temporary yet it is abundantly clear that it is permanent. British forces are regarded as running from Argentine military prowess. On the diplomatic front, pressure mounts on London to put an end to this folly. Economic sanctions imposed at British request on the junta are violated and Buenos Aires leads – with extensive Latin American support – an effort at the UN to make their conquest official. Eyes turn towards the Americans and what President Reagan will do. Tebbit flies to Washington days after gaining power and meets with the president. He is seeking support, real support from an ally, but he only gets hallow words. Jeane Kirkpatrick, the United States’ ambassador to the UN, has already shown where her priorities lay over the issue: she supports Argentina over Britain due to the need to maintain the Latin American anti-communist bloc. In undiplomatic scenes, thankfully for all involved in private, she and Tebbit clash in spectacular fashion within the Oval Office while Reagan looks on. Kirkpatrick is vindicated in her push for Argentina to have its way and she isn’t backing down. Reagan takes his official’s side, infuriating Tebbit. Talk from the president of Britain ‘seeing sense’ on the matter makes his blood boil. The trip ends in disaster. Kirkpatrick will begin the process of seeing all the hard work done at the UN by Britain back in April dismantled all with the belief that if it isn’t, America’s backyard will suddenly start bowing to Moscow’s whim! The Special Relationship is shown for what it is: one sided.

Throughout the remainder of May and into June, Tebbit’s first weeks in power, the fallout from the Falklands debacle is elsewhere too. There are questions asked from allies about Britain’s military capabilities and intent to defend its global interests. The Soviet threat to the West looms as it long has. Guatemala is still eying Belize, Spain would love to get its hands on Gibraltar and Hong Kong rests uneasy next to China. Fears in the UK come that moves might be made from such nations at a time when Britain has been defeated as it just has. Keith Joseph has been appointed as Britain’s new Foreign Secretary (the third in two months) and Tebbit instructs him to counter this perceived weakness on the world stage that many fear Britain now has. Joseph travels widely in those first few weeks – though missing the Washington trip – across Europe and elsewhere to try to change opinions. He has some success at this yet whether that will be the way of things in the future is yet to be seen. The blow that the Argentines have struck against Britain is something that the whole world is aware of with envious eyes cast towards many isolated outposts of what was once a globe-spanning empire.

The Task Force continues to stay some distance away from the Falklands. While it is away from the waters around those islands which are now Argentinian, they are far from the remains of HMS Hermes. When the fires eventually burnt themselves out the following morning after the twin Exocet strike, there was a search made aboard to see if any survivors could be found yet few were. A few bodies were taken off her but the remains of the vast majority of the huge butcher’s bill couldn’t be recovered. Attempts to take the aircraft carrier under tow failed in the face of instructions from London to make that withdrawal and so the Hermes was left to drift. The sea took her in the end. On the bottom of the South Atlantic she now is, laying on her side. Within, hundreds of bodies of Royal Navy sailors rest. Families across Britain are waiting for a return of their loved ones. The realisation that their sons, fathers, brothers & husbands won’t be coming home for even a funeral causes pain. Newspapers are full of the stories of the grief of these families. There are also war casualties too: those injured who were rescued from the Hermes when so many others were left behind to their doom in the chaos. They’ve been brought home to military hospitals spread across the nation and the country hears their tales as well.

Tebbit makes a speech to the House of Commons at the end of the month concerning the situation in the South Atlantic. Other ministers have spoken before the House and to the media but this is different. The Prime Minister speaks of the sacrifices made by the armed forces when fighting against Argentina and addresses the matter of those remains of the dead in the Hermes too: the wreck will be officially designated as a war grave. On the matter of the Falklands, Tebbit calls them by that name: he and his new government refuse to use the term ‘Islas Malvinas’ that is increasingly becoming common overseas. Those islands are British, he says, and always will be. He states that everything will be done at the diplomatic level to see them returned to their rightful owner. However, there is no longer the option of military action to retake them. Tebbit announces that the Task Force is being recalled home. The ships which are near to Ascension Island will be making a return to Britain. Military conflict with Argentina is over with. A full, wide-ranging inquiry is promised by Tebbit into the war and lessons will be learnt. After finishing, the Opposition make calls for an immediate general election while Conservative backbenchers are more than a little angry at how all this has gone: they are stuck with Tebbit now though, someone whom many see as Thatcher #2.


A new government has been formed with Tebbit in Downing Street and it is one which doesn’t include Thatcher. There had been a plan mooted for her to join Tebbit’s Cabinet with her assuming his previous role as Secretary of State for Employment – effectively a job swap – but an issue had come up to put a stop to that: the issue of Heseltine. Thatcher regarded herself as having been betrayed by him when he resigned from the Cabinet to fight against her in his failed leadership effort and Tebbit had supported her anger at that. In forming his government in late May though, Tebbit needs the support of many senior Conservative figures. They might not have wanted Heseltine in Downing Street but it is widely thought that his national popularity (not just among the party organisations yet also with a decent sized number of voters) is something not to be discarded. Thoughts are on the next general election and Heseltine is an asset. The ‘right to buy’ housing scheme has been something he has been at the forefront of in his post as Environment Secretary. When Thatcher gets wind of Tebbit considering bowing to the pressure of the likes of Whitelaw and Pym on this, she reacts strongly. Another betrayal is seen, this time from Tebbit. It isn’t something that Tebbit has decided to do but Thatcher has heard what she has on this matter and reacts accordingly. She will not be joining the Cabinet and will retire to the backbenches. The bitterness towards Tebbit’s supposed treachery will grow in her before later manifesting itself into action.

Tebbit keeps many of Thatcher’s previous Cabinet in government. He reshuffles in places yet few actually depart from their positions of power. Whitelaw stays at the Home Office (though will no longer be Deputy PM) and Geoffrey Howe retains the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer. Pym has left the Foreign Office – he took over when Lord Carrington resigned at the beginning of the Falklands War – though moves to supersede Heseltine as Environment Secretary. To replace Nott who is one of the few to leave the Cabinet, Heseltine is appointed to the position of Defence Secretary while Norman Fowler takes Tebbit’s old post as Employment Secretary. This government of Tebbit’s is one which many Conservative MPs are told will see no major change of direction from that of Thatcher yet, conversely, they are also promised that things will be done differently. Tebbit has always supported the manner in which Thatcher ran her government with centralised control at the very top. Under his leadership though, there will be differences. The power of Cabinet committees will be restored and consensus will be how decisions are reached. Such a new way of doing things in Downing Street is done by Tebbit to placate many factions and interests who felt side-lined under Thatcher’s perceived ‘Leninism’ approach to leadership. In an ironic twist, Tebbit allowed himself to be talked into that in when forming his government because he had wanted to see Thatcher retain significant influence rather than have her with a limited role. She is on the backbenches now and the reforms to accommodate her are in-place. Tebbit will find out in the next few years what an error he has made here.

In Downing Street, Tebbit soon is involved in confrontations with ‘traditional’ opponents rather than seeing Britain drawn into any further international disputes. The country’s hard left and Northern Irish terrorism are enemies that Tebbit is primed to fight.

In his previous position as Thatcher’s Employment Secretary, Tebbit was the face of incoming legislation going through Parliament. The Employment Act (1982) isn’t his sole work but Tebbit was responsible for it. Normal Fowler has now taken Tebbit’s old job yet there are no significant changes to the act. With the Conservative majority, it looks sure to become law later in the year. The legislation attacks the powers of trade unions. An earlier Act of Parliament two years before already began what the trade unions see as a sustained attack on them by Tebbit and this one only increases the limitations being imposed upon them. They are primed ready to fight it using all means at their disposal. In the House, when the issue comes up for debate, Tebbit faces off against the Leader of the Opposition. He and Michael Foot clashed bitterly over trade union powers – abuses as far as Tebbit is concerned – back during the late Seventies before each was leader of their party. The strength of the rhetoric employed by Tebbit back then is repeated now when Labour’s leader defends the trade unions in opposition to the government’s bill, but that doesn’t mean that Tebbit goes easy. This time there isn’t the claim that this key element of the Labour movement are ‘red fascists’ and ‘Marxist totalitarians’. However, no one is left in any doubt that Tebbit’s passion for fighting the trade unions has diminished. In his view, they have done much damage to the nation and so he will restrict their powers as part of the continuing Thatcherite agenda of transforming Britain which he has committed to following after her.

The Provisional IRA and the Irish National Liberation Army are the primary nationalist armed groups undertaking current actions against the British state. Both groups carry on regardless of the change of leader in Downing Street with their terror campaigns. The IRA pushes forward the timescale of an attack in mainland Britain which they had pencilled in for late July due to wanting to ‘make an impression’ upon the new PM. On June 12th, two bomb blasts rock London. The first targets soldiers on horseback during the iconic Trooping of the Colour to march the Queen’s Official birthday. Last year, some young fool fired a starting pistol towards the Queen. This time, an IRA bomb near to Horse Guards Parade goes off. The Queen is some distance away and unharmed. Many of her soldiers aren’t so lucky and this includes Lt.–Colonel Andrew Parker Bowles of the Blues & Royals who was once an intimate of Royalty. Images on British television screen in the aftermath are of dead horses in the streets – there is a lot of focus on them in the media, more than on dead and injured soldiers – before coverage moves to smoke rising from the nearby Wellington Barracks. The second IRA bomb explodes here were the officer’s mess is blown up and a huge fire rages. A week later, the INLA make a less dramatic attack but one which also is a blow landed right in the British capital against the establishment. They strike near to the Old Bailey where the Conservative Monday Club have their headquarters. This is a private club for particularly conservative-minded Conservatives though without the influence it once had. Here the INLA plant their bomb with the aim to kill many political figures. The blast occurs earlier than planned and doesn’t achieve the goal of taking the lives of Parliamentarians but there are a few other deaths, many injuries and also a great deal of damage done. Tebbit’s public statements on these acts of terror are impassioned with justice promised to be delivered upon those behind them. Such things have been said before by others in his position in response to similar acts of terror. Tebbit sees things differently from his predecessors though. He believes that old, tired responses – away from just words – are needed to fight such a threat to the country he now leads from Ulster terrorism. Those who bring bombs to the mainland, and those who send them, are those he wants to really go after. He sets out to see that done by taking the war home to them as they have done with their war against Britain.

[stevep]

   James G ,

   Sounds like Thatcher is going to do a Health and be a bitter thorn in her successors side. Although probably with even greater venom given her character and probably more dangerous as well as she's likely to have more support, since the hard right are still in control in the party and the moderates have been largely side-lined.  Unless Tebbit goes even further rightwards.  Going to be a bad time to be an ordinary person in Britain.  My twenties here are going to be even more fraught with the plight of the country.    Thinking about it there's even a possibility I might lose my job for opposing the government as I was employed directly by the MOD at that point.

  Which actually makes me think.  Given the tension with Washington and the public anger at them as well will Reagan seek to bring Britain to heel by economic and other means, possibly including a threat to remove support for a Trident programme for Britain.  On the good side it might keep our deterrent more national IF there is the political will to do this but it would be markedly more expensive in the short term.

  Hopefully Britain is increasing the garrison in Belize especially as that is the Commonwealth member most likely to be under threat. 

  Steve

[lordroel]

Jul 24, 2020 10:31:40 GMT stevep said:

  Hopefully Britain is increasing the garrison in Belize especially as that is the Commonwealth member most likely to be under threat. 

  Steve

I agree a certain country neighboring Belize might think, if Argentina can do it, then we can do it as well.

[stevep]

Jul 24, 2020 10:35:39 GMT lordroel said:

Jul 24, 2020 10:31:40 GMT stevep said:

  Hopefully Britain is increasing the garrison in Belize especially as that is the Commonwealth member most likely to be under threat. 

  Steve

I agree a certain country neighboring Belize might think, if Argentina can do it, then we can do it as well.

  Well that's another problem.  By his stupidity Reagan has poured oil on a fire as he's implicitly stated that conquest by armed forces is an accepted form of international action.  The same thing that was the main driver in the removal of Saddam from Kuwait to avoid.  Its not just the threat to former British possessions, but just about any state with a more powerful neighbour is going to be very vulnerable.  I mentioned Belize because if Britain moves quickly it can be defended.  Hong Kong is indefensible if China attacks as its unlikely any government will be willing to nuke Beijing.  Gibraltar is fair safe as Spain is starting to value democracy and also the idea of NATO & EEC membership so the political cost for such an action would be too great.

  One thing I overlooked was what happens with the other victims, i.e. the Falkland Islanders now under foreign rule?  Will the regime simply deport them or if their a bit more subtle declare them Argentinean 'citizens' and forcibly remove them to the mainland?  A threat to do that might make most decide to accept exile to Britain given the murderous nature of the dictatorship?

  Steve

[James G]

I am not thinking of having more British territory lost to foreign aggression. There will be a fear of that though by this point in time, mid 1982, for Belize / Gibraltar / Hong Kong to be taken looks unlikely.
Thatcher will stay on the backbenches sniping and with those around her saying 'if only we listened to her' when it comes to the economy.
In the Falklands, many islanders will leave though more will stay. Argentina isn't likely to go full terror on them but it won't be a nice experience. There will be a big garrison there too, along with settlers 'encouraged' to go there from Argentina.

[James G]

Inner city riots erupt during the summer of 1982. Last year, there had been violent disturbances within ethnically-diverse areas of South London, Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool and Manchester. A wide range of causes were behind them. It is the same again this year with no one cause setting of what happens in various communities across the country. Protests against alleged (often true) police brutality exist and there is much poverty too. Opportunities for people with regards to social mobility are limited and discrimination is rife. The first disturbance is in Brixton. Hundreds of people loot and burn what they can. Police reactions are strong and met with more violence. In other cities, similar scenes follow. For several nights in a row in each location, there is utter lawlessness. In the daytime, calm returns and there are efforts made to try and clean up the near war-zones that return once darkness again falls. Only by flooding the streets with police and making hundreds of arrests are the riots eventually bought to an end. There are deaths which occur. Rioters, bystanders and even a couple of policemen lose their lives. Whitelaw condemns those who are destroying their own communities and makes sure that the Home Office works with the police in a co-ordinated fashion to give them what they need. The loss of life though, especially among the policemen killed in both Brixton and Manchester’s Moss Side, come as a shock to the government and country alike. Each was murdered in what appear to have been deliberate acts to kill them. In a speech in the House, where several Labour MPs plead for understanding about the causes behind this disorder, Tebbit goes on the attack against them and is accused afterwards of implying that those fellow Members supported murder of policemen. Parliament is often said to be a bear pit but with Tebbit leading the government against a backdrop of significant disorder on the night-time streets, emotions run exceedingly high. It is said that his government’s policies are responsible for this and many agree with such charges laid.

Taking part in much of the rioting are the unemployed. Figures for those out of work are a record high with young minorities being hardest hit. Overall, three million Britons are jobless. The continuing recession has come with government-directed restructuring of industry putting many on the Dole. Not since the Great Depression have such large numbers of people been out of work. They don’t all riot, Tebbit reminds the House. Yet those that do are those who are out of work with no sign of an improvement to their situation. The Prime Minister’s remark made last year before he was in Downing Street following those outbreaks of rioting then is brought up now in Parliament and among the media. ‘On-yer-bike’ is quite the mis-quote, some would say a deliberate mis-representation, of what he said about the unemployed rioting and isn’t something that he repeats now. However, there becomes a general view that this is Tebbit’s view on them: it is believed that he still stands by his comment to the unemployed to ‘get on your bike’. That isn’t the case at all. Tebbit wants people to work. The cost of unemployment isn’t what he believes that state should be burdened with nor the attendant social problems too. His solution is for people to go out and seek work in a transforming national economy that he says his government is presiding over with success. There aren’t any jobs though, the Opposition say. Tebbit replies that there are, and there will be more once the government’s economic policies bear fruit.

This matter of the millions who are jobless is something where Tebbit’s restored old way of inner Cabinet workings first brings to the forefront how things have changed since Thatcher is departed. While there is public support for the Prime Minister in the House, key players behind the scenes make their presence felt. They feel that there needs to be some changes made with economic management to get more of the country working sooner. Tebbit listens to them, as Thatcher would have done. However, as her colleagues knew she wouldn’t have, Thatcher’s successor does what she wouldn’t have and allows himself to be manoeuvred towards making some of those changes. Tebbit is a different creature from his predecessor in his willingness to keep Cabinet unity. Like them, he wants people back working and influential colleagues propose this is the way to doing that. There is agreement reached in Cabinet that ‘subtle tinkering’ will take effect to try to make this happen with regards to the specifics of the government’s economic policy. A major victory for the so-called Wets over the Dries it is not yet Howe, Pym and Whitelaw win significant concessions from Tebbit here.

Moreover, Tebbit agrees with a Cabinet position to not hold an election until 1984. His colleagues get him to agree to try to end the recession and bring unemployment down before the Conservatives make their case for government to the country once again.


The aftereffects of the Falklands War are something felt across the nation. Military loss and international disgrace are important factors for the UK on the world stage yet there is a strong domestic reaction also to what has occurred. Britain is a defeated nation. The seeds of deep political changes begin to be seen.

There is a lot of despair among Britons at the disaster which has befallen the country. To put their feelings on the matter into words is hard. Despair is one term which some will use; others, if pressed, will say they feel shame. Argentina, a third-rate power if there ever was one, has inflicted upon Britain a humiliation. British territory has been taken and the whole world has seen the Royal Navy run away. The Argentines have hardly been magnanimous in victory either. Nothing can be done to reverse all of this. Worse is feared for the future. Emigration from Britain to elsewhere in the world, to the Anglo-sphere countries (America, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa), is now something that many don’t just idly talk about but begin to set about doing. This is done in great numbers. An end to Britain – an idealistic version of the UK to be fair – is said to have occurred. To those who talk of such doom, they believe that the situation their country is in now is worse than it was during times of political and economic woe back in the Seventies. Tebbit’s government looks unlikely to survive and Britain will soon be ungovernable again.

On the other hand, there are those who see the end of Thatcher’s premiership as a good thing. The populism and subsequent militarism she personified is regarded as being behind has failed. Those on the far left celebrate what has happened. It inspires them to dream of a different Britain, one which they believe is near to coming about. Such socialists, Trotskyists and anarchists have agendas which mean they spend much time arguing among themselves but they are united in being happy about what has occurred. The Falklands War was an imperialist conflict they say, and one which was destined to be lost. Britain should be addressing problems at home rather than seeking to continue upon a global role which is full of unadulterated shame. With Thatcher gone, they look forward to seeing Tebbit out of office too. Existing movements on the far left find themselves with fresh converts from the ranks of the despondent unemployed, especially the young ones who believe they have no future otherwise. In addition, there are new groups forming as well where they spread a message of hatred. That isn’t just of the current national political establishment but against those who have what they don’t have. They’ll take it if they can, righting wrongs with consequences to that be dammed.

Conspiracy theories about what really happened in the South Atlantic are plentiful. The Soviets, the Americans, the French and just about everyone other Johnny Foreigner are blamed for the defeat which occurred. Some of what is said is clear to only the very foolish – there are plenty of them though – that what they are hearing is a load of baloney yet not all of these so-called ‘hidden truths’ are as outlandish. Many people genuinely believe that other countries worked to see Britain lose the war with Argentina over the Falklands. Tall tales of the Hermes actually being sunk by a Soviet submarine, the Americans guiding those Argentine missiles in and there being French pilots in those aircraft strike a chord with certain people. They are in denial over the disaster which their government presided over yet also know nothing of the pure luck that the Argentine Navy had in getting their missile-firing aircraft where they were that afternoon back at the beginning of May. Such simple facts like that are less attractive to the ears of those wanting to hear that someone must have done this to them and their country.

Foreign visitors to Britain in the months following the Falklands War see those riots, the long lines of unemployed queuing up for the Dole and hear comments made about outsiders doing harm to the country. They hear certain new songs being released in the popular music charts concerning the mood that recording artists reflect back from this defeated nation. There are newspaper headlines and letters pages inside that likewise show that the Falklands defeat has taken a heavy toll on Britain on an emotional level. Similar things are seen by ambassadors and other diplomats inside the country on a regular basis who report back home to their own governments the sorry state that the UK currently is in. To think that a couple of Exocets have done this is a concern for those whose interests it is in Britain being an influential player in world affairs. There is a worry over what will come next on a political level for Britain in this post-Falklands era.

[James G]

Part Three – Tebbit-land


A Labour MP, Dennis Skinner, stands up in the House of Commons late in 1982 and accuses the Prime Minister of purposefully seeking out enemies to fight. This isn’t leadership, it is said, but instead the acts of a bully. This brings about uproar in the House. There are shouts of either outrage from the Government benches and those of support from the side of the House where the Opposition sits. Tebbit sits in silence with a smile on his face as Skinner continues once the Speaker’s cries of ‘order, order’ have restored what he calls for. The Prime Minister is accused of acting as he does to bring about discord and cause division. Those who oppose Tebbit, Skinner concludes, are either forced into submission or vilified by his allies. This isn’t how responsible politics should be. When given the opportunity to respond, Tebbit gets to his feet and refers to the initial point being raised ahead of this attack. The matter concerns the leader of the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM). Arthur Scargill has said that ‘extra-parliamentary action’ will be something that the NUM will undertake should there be a new round of closing of coal mines in the upcoming year. Tebbit repeats what he said before the intervention and accusation: his government will not hesitate to bring forth further legislation to combat the trade unions in addition to the already passed Employment Act. Trade unions will obey the law, the NUM included, he concludes.

While his fellow MPs have jumped to his defence and cheer his words, there is unease among the Conservatives. Privately, many agree with what has just been said. Tebbit dragged Scargill and his NUM into a parliamentary debate concerning that bill which has only just recently passed its final stages in the House ready for royal ascent. Scargill’s remarks were made some time ago and the Employment Act covers trade union legislation, not the potential closing of mines nor strikes. The Prime Minister is certainly seeking out fights and Tebbit’s actions do make many regard him as a bully instead of a leader. Agreeing with those accusations in public isn’t what his MPs do though. They keep quiet. There are bigger things at stake for them and their party that this style of leadership that Tebbit has.

Other fights that the Prime Minister is having elsewhere bring about agreement from his MPs too, even if they wouldn’t have undertaken them in the same confrontational manner that he has. This issue of the future of the Greater London Council (GLC) is one of them. Lead by another hard left figure – though someone of a different nature to Scargill – in the form of Ken Livingstone, the GLC has control over the nation’s capital. Many of Livingstone’s policies enrage Conservatives within the government and without too: they can unite fully around opposition to him. The GLC is a hotbed of radicalism and militarism going back since Livingstone took over in a ‘palace coup’ back in 1981. County Hall, the GLC’s headquarters, is located just across the River Thames on the South Bank opposite Parliament: Livingstone has a frequently-updated billboard positioned there highlighting national unemployment under the Conservative Government. Economic, transport and, especially, social policies followed by Livingstone’s GLC are regarded by many Conservatives as being drafted just to inflame their anger. Declaring London a ‘nuclear-free zone’ and his rabid support from fringe ideologies like gay rights come alongside his open support for Argentina’s capture of the Falklands and the invitation for the president of Sinn Fein to come to the city which where the IRA has bombed. A war of words is underway between Tebbit and Livingstone, one which drags on and on… and on. A couple of Tebbit’s MPs have been urging him to go further than that and bring a legislative end to the GLC. The Prime Minister doesn’t think that is the way to go and there is the chance that at the next London elections Livingstone can be brought to heel. There are shakes of the head by many at that suggestion. They are working on changing Tebbit’s mind here as the numbers grow in support of the position of abolishment rather than waiting Livingstone out.

Across Britain, there are other political opponents with whom Tebbit is in open conflict with bringing about varying degrees of support from among his MPs. The Labour Party is undergoing a long-term internal factional fight between their far left and centralists. Stretching back several years, it has led to the breakaway Social Democratic Party from the latter faction yet the former have gained victories such as the control of the party leadership, Livingstone’s GLC and also the growing influence within local government in Liverpool. Militant do not share the exact same ideology as ‘Red Ken’ in the capital, yet their presence nationwide is that of a far left character too. Liverpool City Council – without as many powers as the GLC – is becoming closer to falling to them and finally does so in May 1983. Militant are Trotskyists and their victory in Liverpool is something that Tebbit’s Conservatives have failed to stop despite the assistance of negative media coverage against Militant’s rise there and elsewhere nationwide. Nonetheless, it must be said that while there is much opposition to Militant from the Conservatives, Tebbit and his MPs aren’t distraught at their rise: Militant, and Red Ken in London too, are doing a lot of damage to Labour.

The far left is on the ascendancy across Britain with many expressing the view (with others disagreeing it must be said) that this is all in reaction to defeat in the Falklands.


Tebbit has had the gloves taken off when it comes to terrorism from Irish Republicans. It costs his government the resignation of Northern Ireland Secretary Jim Prior in late 1982… something not regretted that much in Downing Street though. Prior sought a different approach but Tebbit is unwilling to see things continue as they always have been. Bombings on the mainland and shootings within Ulster have gotten to a stage where the Prime Minister wants to if not put a complete end to the reign of terror by the IRA and the INLA, then do them grave damage. Intelligence efforts have been stepped by from both the civilian and military authorities with wide leeway given to act more decisively than beforehand. Information gleamed from informers and spying efforts using the most sophisticated efforts allows for a hurting to be put on them. The SAS are in Northern Ireland and they have what many consider to be ‘shoot-to-kill’ orders: it has been said that the Royal Ulster Constabulary have already been doing this at times too so it isn’t something completely new. Military Aid to the Civil Authorities in Ulster allows for the SAS deployment alongside the regular military forces in the province. Moreover, they work with the infamous Force Research Unit and 14 Intelligence Company to coordinate activities. Ambushes are conducted of terrorist strike teams either undertaking attacks or on reconnaissance missions: few of those sought escape with their lives. At Crossmaglen, a village in the ‘bandit country’ of South Armagh, there are six killed one afternoon in October. Eight more deaths are recorded (including an innocent civilian passer-by) during another successful ambush against the IRA one morning the following month and this time at nearby Cullyhanna. The SAS are also there when arrests are made of terror suspects not directly involved in attacks themselves but believed responsible for organising and financing them. Once more, there are deaths involved during this where top-level IRA and INLA figures lose their lives. The soldiers present are more than willing to open fire given the slightest provocation whereas elsewhere in Ulster there are more stringent rules of engagement… yet orders coming for London are for those to be more relaxed, unofficially at least.

There is reaction to this, one with more bombs and gunfire. Irish nationalist terror groups haven’t deluded themselves that they face a weak opponent in Tebbit and respond accordingly to what is an upturn in the British state’s war against them. Through 1982 and into 1983, attacks are made by them in both Ulster and on the mainland regardless of the SAS trying to wipe them out. Tidworth Camp and the commercial heart of Newcastle are those mainland targets for bombs, while in South Armagh especially, there is a lot of armed activity in locations such as Bessbrook, Forkhill, Jonesborough and Newtownhamilton. The IRA is the more active group yet that doesn’t mean that the smaller INLA sit back and let them take the fight to the enemy alone. The consequences for this are many yet one of the most important is the reigniting of internal factional disputes within Sinn Fein, a party regarded as the political front for the IRA. The dual approach of armed resistance and political organising, the so-called ‘Armalite and ballot box strategy’, is thrown into disarray. The call within the movement and its supporters are for more attacks and less focus on politics at a time like this. Others disagree where they believe there is political advantage to be gained by what Tebbit is doing. To settle this disagreement, rather than talking it out, a wave of violence occurs within the movement. News reaches London and there are no tears shed to the thought of their enemies seeing to murder one another.

Meanwhile, there is no such crackdown against Loyalist terror groups. They don’t set off bombs on the mainland – though aren’t averse to bombs exploding elsewhere – and from their side, there is a willingness to work in secret with the arms of the British state. On an official level, these terror groups are regarded with the same opposition as to the Republicans ones because they are all criminals. However, that isn’t always the case behind the scenes. Actions undertaken against the IRA and INLA by the SAS following the will of London come alongside strikes against leading Republicans, and also Nationalist politicians, conducted by Loyalist gunmen. Collusion is ongoing in this with intelligence information shared at certain times to allow outright murder to occur of enemies to both Loyalists and the British state. The latter can keep its hands clean of this though. Neither Tebbit nor anyone in his government is physically signing off on any of this, but they are aware that it is happening and aren’t putting up any more than a token effort to see it stopped. That is why Prior departs from his post and he will not keep his mouth shut for very long afterwards as to the reasons behind his departure.

The political consequences within Ulster where Loyalist terror groups are gaining traction effects the divided Unionist parties. The offensive against Republican terrorists has an impact upon the split Nationalists as well. Long-term effects will be seen from all of this.

[James G]

The UK Budget in March 1983 is delivered by Howe: it will be his last budget due to his unexpected resignation coming later in the year. Addressing the House with the government’s spending presented for the upcoming year, the Chancellor expresses disappointment that the country has yet to come out of recession yet assures the Commons that that is soon to come to pass. As part of the budget, it is announced that defence expenditure will be significantly increased despite the squeeze elsewhere. Losses from the Falklands War will be replaced and the emphasis on providing the means to defend Britain and its interests is a key government priority. Heseltine will brief newspaper journalists in the aftermath of the budget that he is responsible for this. His self-promotion knows no bounds. He speaks of jobs being kept, even new ones, as the Royal Navy gets new ships: who can oppose jobs? A question is put to him in one of the several interviews he conducts whether there will be a general election this year. The Defence Secretary confirms – off-the-record – that it isn’t happening. The government’s mandate runs out in May 1984 and another year is wanted to repair the poor state of the nation’s finances which the Conservatives inherited from Labour back in 1979.

Having retained her seat in Parliament following leaving Downing Street, Thatcher is still an MP. She is on the backbenches now yet still with a strong following of supporters who, like her, remain aggravated at what they see as the betrayals which forced her out. In light of Howe’s budget, she joins others from the Conservative backbenches as they begin to snipe at government policy. The recession should have been long over by now, it is said, and it is the fault of the Tebbit government that there has been no turnaround in economic fortunes for the country. If only her successor had stuck to the course that she was on… Allies – some would say sycophants – of hers point to the war being waged against Livingstone and the GLC by Downing Street. This should be one not fought before an election, but after one. In recent weeks, there have been soundings coming out from government-ordained leaks that coming legislation due in the Autumn, after the Summer recess, will be presented to abolish the city’s political body. The GLC is regarded as an out of control menace yet there are serious questions over the wisdom of timing, not the intent. Real harm will be done to the party cause ahead of a general election, it is said: the best idea would be to put it in the manifesto and wait until after the nation has gone to the polls so there is a mandate for action. Joseph and Whitelaw both speak with Thatcher privately in light of all of this. Tebbit has sent them as peacemakers. The efforts of the Foreign & Home Secretaries to have Thatcher lead her supporters to ease off on their government attacks fail though… they weren’t a good choice as mediators considering Thatcher believes that they were at the forefront of deposing her!

The former Prime Minister regards the current one, and so many of those he surrounds himself with in his government, as having colluded to get rid of her and she will keep up the fight against them.


At the beginning of Thatcher’s premiership, back in late 1979, the British Government had committed itself to the NATO Double-Track Decision when it came to strategic nuclear arms negotiations with the Soviet Union. The Soviets were deploying a new array of medium-range missiles into Eastern Europe which were regarded as posing a new, deadly threat to Western Europe. Britain, America and Western European NATO countries agreed that they would have a two-fold response. There would be talks with Moscow to try and end that deployment as part of a wider disarmament policy yet, at the same time, there would be a readiness for Britain and other to house similar weapons from the United States in their countries. If the talks succeeded, there would be no basing of American missiles; if there was failure to get the Soviet leadership to play ball, those weapons would be deployed to counter the Soviet ones. Diplomacy has failed and, following what was agreed by Thatcher’s government, Tebbit’s Cabinet commits itself now in 1983 to allow for Britain to be a base for those American missiles. There are already nuclear weapons operated by the US Air Force deployed on British soil – bombs for their aircraft flying from several UK bases – but these new weapons are something else entirely. GLCMs fired from mobile launchers will be housed at RAF Greenham Common in Berkshire and, later on, in Cambridgeshire at RAF Molesworth. Preparations for their arrival have long been underway at Greenham Common. This hasn’t gone unnoticed and at this military site near to the usually quiet countryside town of Newbury, a protest camp has long been a hive of activity.

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) is having what has been called a Second Wave for them. CND was able to draw much negative attention to Britain’s nuclear posture during the early Sixties but interest eventually faded away. Now, the deployment of what is known as ‘Cruise’ – the GLCM is a cruise missile, as are many others, but this term is being widely used in political discourse just for this one type – has reignited public feeling. Across the West, there is exceptionally strong opposition to how the Cold War appears to be getting warmer. Tensions with the Soviets are high, Reagan is in office across the Atlantic and now there is a new nuclear arms race. Anti-Cruise has been the goal of protesters across in West Germany and it is the same in Britain ahead of the deployment this year of these missiles. A women’s peace camp is on the edge of Greenham Common. Fleet Street has had a whale of a time criticising those there due to much of their unconventional outlook but the government sees CND as the bigger threat. Heseltine is up for a conflict with CND, more so than even Tebbit is. MI-5 already has a highly-placed spy within CND and there is an awareness that this organisation has serious intentions of not just disrupting the deployment of Cruise, but changing national policy through extra-Parliamentary action. Just like the trade unions, just like Militant, the CND is regarded as a serious threat.

While many CND members aren’t from the far left – they are ordinary people which the government regards as being unduly influenced by them –, there are other organisations which have gained strength in the past few years full of people who are. Less attention from the organs of the state is on them when there should be a more realisation of the danger that they pose. MI-5 have operations running against the CND and Militant both yet no real attention is being paid to the Worker’s Revolutionary Party (WRP) nor Red Action. The former is too often regarded as a bit of a joke. They are seen as a cult based around the Trotskyist ideology of the party’s leader Gerry Healy. Support for the WRP comes from members of the prominent Redgrave family of actors but the WRPs’ second-in-command, Mike Banda, holds a lot more sway within the group than understood by outsiders: the young recruits drawn to the WRP in recent years are inspired by him, not Healy. There is a country estate in Derbyshire where the WRP is running training camps for youths to fight the police. WRP devotees have shown up taking part in inner-city riots which continue to plague the country and there has been defence of their actions by Livingstone’s GLC. There are foreign links that the WRP has too in the form of contacts with the regimes of the Arab nations of Iraq and Libya. Saddam and Gaddafi have provided cash in exchange for help from the WRP in spying on exiles from their countries inside Britain. Much of that foreign financing has been creamed off the top to line a few pockets but other money has gone into something else. Banda is on the face of it a Trotskyist but many of his sympathies lie with Maoism and the idea of a people’s revolt. For that, he’ll need guns. Red Action is something different. They are smaller and do not seek attention like Healy’s WRP do. Young, unemployed and disillusioned Britons have been drawn to them and organised into what is in many ways cell-like structures reminiscent of how a terror group would operate. Red Action have been around for some time, starting out as a violent subset of the anti-racism movement yet expelled by dominant other political groups due to their actions, but they are transforming into something else. In something completely unknown outside the de-centralised organisation, to the media or the police/MI-5, contacts have been made with Irish Republican terror groups too. Red Action has lost many of its initial influential members, those known for fighting the National Front skinheads back in the ‘glory days’, and now the organisation is all about doing all it can to bring down the British state, even working with such people as the INLA.

Banda’s eager youngsters – it is said by detractors that some have been brainwashed – show up in riots throughout the summer of 1983. Brixton (again) and Tottenham in London are the scenes of particularly unsettling disorder. Manchester’s Moss Side and Toxteth in Liverpool are likewise once more gripped by violence. The police are the enemy for those out on the streets who attack them while looting and burning everything in sight. The causes of each of these, and many other smaller riots, aren’t always the same and there is nothing coordinated about any of this. Local issues are the instigating factors with racism often a factor. Yet, overall, it all comes back to the state of the country. Unemployment remains high, there are few opportunities for the marginalised to break out of poverty and the reaction to this is violence. As was the case last summer, this August (the high of the violence) sees policemen killed again. A trio of officers die during the inner-city rioting with each appearing to have been specially targeted for murder. One is stabbed to death; the other two are shot. Responses from the police to the killing of their own is dramatic and critics say afterwards that this only contributes to an ever-continuing cycle of violence. Comments from politicians do nothing to change the situation on the ground where there is this deliberate killing of police officers by out-of-control rioters who are tearing apart parts of the country with reckless abandon. Pre-emptive police action comes. Rioters are badly beaten by the police and two of them are killed: one in Brixton and another in Bristol’s St. Pauls. Whereas the killings of policemen bring about government attention, when the public lose their lives to police violence, there is the general feeling that they deserved it. A few voices do speak up, but not enough. In Tebbit-land, the situation has gotten this far almost unchecked.

In September, Tebbit’s reshuffles his Cabinet once more. He is thinking of next May when he will have to take his case for government to the polls. There have been difficulties within the Cabinet and Tebbit has had enough. Energy Secretary Cecil Parkinson is shown the door. There is a political factor but the decision for him to be booted out by the Prime Minister comes down to the fact that Parkinson cannot keep his flies buttoned up: there is a girl with child and Parkinson is a married man whose actions are an embarrassment to the government. Francis Pym loses his post as Environment Secretary after failing to make as much of an impression there as Heseltine had done before him and also because Tebbit just cannot maintain a good relationship with him either due to disagreements such as the future of the GLC. Rising stars such as Tom King and Leon Brittan take the Energy and Environmental briefs. Tebbit likes the two of them and believes they can strengthen his top table. Senior Cabinet figures such as Fowler, Heseltine, Joseph and Whitelaw are all staying where they are but Tebbit has an issue with Howe. He’s been at the Treasury since the Conservatives were elected more than four years ago and the economy remains in a terrible state… and the unemployment number is reaching four million! Tebbit tells Howe he is moving him from the Treasury to take up the new position of Secretary of State for Trade & Industry (the ministries are being combined). This is a demotion if there ever was one! Howe walks away rather than accept what he sees as a humiliation. Nigel Lawson has been at Trade and was about to be moved to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury role – a Cabinet post despite being number two at that department – but Tebbit promotes him instead to the senior post. It is a big jump for him and does ruffle a few feather elsewhere in the Cabinet. Lawson is another rising star though, someone who Tebbit approves of: in terms of fiscal positioning, he’s in many ways another Thatcherite. Howe makes a resignation speech in the House after resigning and suggests that his leaving the Cabinet was engineered, alongside the promotion of Brittan & King, as a sop to Thatcher’s wing of the party who sit on the backbenches like him gaining in strength and daring. Tebbit will bat this assertion away though many believe it to be true.

These political shenanigans take place ahead of a set of overlapping crisis’ about to beset Tebbit’s government this Autumn. They are unforeseen and cause a lot of trouble.

[James G]

Part Four – The Enemy Within


At the high security Maze Prison in Northern Ireland, a daring plan to make a mass breakout is attempted by IRA prisoners in mid-October. Guns have been smuggled in, and a plan of action formed to get many people out and away to safety. Dozens of convicted terrorists seek to get away from the prison for their own ends as well as that of their movement too. The IRA’s leadership wants to land a propaganda blow to the British state. The plan goes awry midway through the breakout. The alarm is sounded in the midst of the escape when guards, some of whom are being held at gunpoint, bravely fight with their assailants. Most of the would-be escapees fail to make it beyond the gates through which they had intended to calmly walk out of dressed in the uniforms of their captors. The trio that do will not get far. Everyone else is stuck inside the walls of the Maze as the response of the authorities make further escape impossible.

At this point, no one has yet to lose their life despite violence being employed. Calls are made upon the armed IRA prisoners to release the guards they still hold as hostages and give themselves up. For a few moments, that looks possible. However, it is not to be. One of the guards seeks to free himself while his captors are distracted arguing over whether to surrender or not. He’s killed in the struggle and his death will be the first of many. To save the lives of other guards, whose lives are considered to be in imminent danger, and while believing that those inside will be disorganised, a reaction force of prison guards trained to put down disorder rushes in with the goal of ending this all before it is too late. There are police and soldiers outside the walls but they are left out of what happens inside. The prison authorities seek to bring this all under control. Gunfire erupts. So too does fighting between hostages and those holding them captive. There are deaths by stabbing, strangulation and blunt force trauma. A confusing situation comes about during the attempt to take back control and there is even a fire started inside the Maze. It will take an hour before it is all over, when the last resistance is brought to an end. Twenty-one are dead at the scene with another two lives lost in the following hours among casualties taken away from the prison to hospital. Those who are killed are IRA prisoners, non-terrorism prisoners and prison staff.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is Michael Jopling. He took over at Hillsborough Castle from the departing Prior a year ago after moving from the Cabinet’s Agriculture brief. Jopling isn’t a man liked very much by his Cabinet colleagues though he does have Tebbit’s backing, thus why he is in the job. When news breaks of the ‘incident’ at the Maze, the initial casualty count is much higher than it turns out to be. Afterwards, there will be some public scepticism of the figure of ‘only’ twenty-three deaths when first reports said that maybe as many as fifty lives were lost: a cover up is believed to have happened but that is only nonsense. Cabinet finds out about the incident only just ahead of the media yet soon enough, it is all over the airwaves. Jopling is able to inform his colleagues that the incident has been resolved and give an accurate count of casualties though it is all rather a mess. He has done his best in this situation yet not everyone sees it that way. That doesn’t just includes his standing critics within Cabinet: there are those outside government who believe that Jopling isn’t up to the job. Questions are asked as to how the situation was allowed to come about with pistols ending up in the hands of prisoners, how there was initial success for those would-be escapees in doing what they had and then also who gave the order for the reaction force to rush in without waiting to better assess the situation inside the Maze. Joplin’s answers don’t convince many. Tebbit stands by him though and Jopling will keep his job because he is doing the Prime Minister’s bidding on Ulster.

Splashed all over the newspapers in the following days is the fall-out from this. There is a lot of attention given to the ‘innocent’ dead – guards and those held at the Maze not on terror charges – and the failures to detect the breakout attempt. Joplin comes under fire in editorials. Off-the-record comments are made to The Guardian and The Times by Whitelaw and Heseltine respectively where these two Cabinet ministers, neither an ally of Jopling, blame him for what happened. Home Secretary Whitelaw and Defence Secretary Heseltine have been subject to what they regard as negative press in anonymous briefings by Jopling beforehand when it comes to the war being waged against Republican terrorism. They are getting their own back. Over on the island of Ireland, the Nationalist newspaper An Phoblacht – Gaelic for ‘Republican News’ – has been in circulation since 1970. It has two versions (one either side of the border) with the Irish Republic often acting more in opposition to what is printed within than the British state has done so. The IRA regularly make propaganda statements through An Phoblacht. In the aftermath of the deadly incident at the Maze, that ‘mouthpiece of the IRA’ (according to Tebbit) publishes allegations that there was deliberate murder of prisoners during the escape attempt. They are furious in Cabinet at the lies being told but cannot do anything to stop that newspaper printing what it does: the British government doesn’t have the necessary powers to act. Denials from Hillsborough and London sound hallow in the face of the incendiary accusations… yet it is An Phoblacht which isn’t telling the truth, not Tebbit’s government. When such allegations are repeated in parliament by a pair of Labour MPs, Tam Dalyell and Tony Benn, both strong supporters of Irish nationalism, the Prime Minister is angry that those have come from An Phoblacht and then the BBC likewise refers to all of this. Tebbit makes his mind up that this shouldn’t be allowed to happen in future. He intends to see legislation enacted in the long-run to stop such lies being told by those doing the IRA’s work for them. An attack on the freedom of the press it won’t be yet he knows that his opponents will label it as that. His mind turns as to how to see it done.


Right at the of the month, another ‘British island’ in the Western Hemisphere is subject to an armed invasion by a foreign power. Things are different from the last time around though. This time the military operations underway are conducted by the United States and the island in question is Grenada. Operation Urgent Fury subdues those in power within that Commonwealth nation – Queen Elizabeth II is head of state – during an attack which London is only informed about at the very last minute with objections from Tebbit to American action subsequently ignored.

American paratroopers from the US Army’s 82nd Airborne Division crush armed Grenadians as well as groups of Cubans encountered on that Caribbean island too. They rescue a group of American students as well… only to find that that party of youngsters isn’t really in much danger from anyone. It is a curb-stomp war in many ways yet the Americans do encounter difficulties, those coming from mix-ups with their own operation rather than anything that the Grenadians and Cubans can put in their way. On the face of it, Operation Urgent Fury is a stunning success with American military prowess praised. Reagan gets a rally-around-the-flag effect and it is said in many quarters that this action lifts the nation’s confidence in its military capability to finally eliminate the stain of the Vietnam War. Other issues aside, there are those in Britain who would like to see their own armed forces undertake a military action of their own somewhere else in the world – hopefully with few casualties, of course – to remove the UK’s own terrible despondency in light of defeat in the Falklands back last year.

Those ‘other issues’ are at the forefront in the minds of many though, pushing aside such idle dreaming about restoring national pride. Grenada hasn’t come out of the blue. The elected socialist government there has recently been deposed and then a final, bloody coup d’état by Marxist extremists has brought this all on. Cuba has had a foot in the door on Grenada. Britain and the United States have been engaged in intelligence sharing to do with Grenada and there have been discussions concerning what to do with the situation. The relationship between Reagan and Tebbit hasn’t been the best on a personal level yet there remain strong links below leader level. Foreign Secretary Joseph has been engaged in an Anglo-American effort to bring other Caribbean nations on-side in an effort to work together. Tebbit’s government has been seeking a diplomatic solution. Out of the blue, the American launch their attack. That last-minute warning came at the most importune time leaving Tebbit no time to react properly. He sent off a message to Reagan, asking the American President to hold off, but no reply came before Operation Urgent Fury was unleashed. Tebbit and his Cabinet want rid of the nasty cabal who’ve seized power but this wasn’t how they wanted to see things done.

Once the invasion is underway, it becomes apparent that American duplicity on this matter is quite something. They’ve gone into Grenada claiming it is a ‘police action’ with the support of Caribbean countries, Commonwealth ones who were supposed to be working for a diplomatic solution, to cover their behinds diplomatically yet the Americans done all that they could to make sure that the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) in London had no idea of it all. Moreover, Joseph informs the Cabinet that the FCO has been side-lined elsewhere too. The Americans are adding to their claims of legitimacy in taking this action because they have an invitation! Paul Scoon, the Governor-General of Grenada who represents the Queen on that island, gave the United States official consent ahead of the whole thing. Tebbit has selected Cabinet members at this evening meeting on October 25th where this all comes out. The Chief of the Defence Staff makes mention of Czechoslovakia in 1968: the Soviets crushed the Prague Spring with ‘an invitation’ too but that didn’t mean it was in any way the right thing to do. No one offers any criticism of this remark inferring that an ally is acting like an enemy. There is only outrage at the American action here. They should not have done this. Britain should have had more of a say in this and Reagan is, once more, showing just what the Special Relationship means to him: nothing.

Cabinet discusses their response. Of course, no one is in the mood to do anything really silly but they agree they cannot sit idly by and do nothing. Joseph wants the governor-general gone after all of this and Tebbit concurs. It is clear that there will be an international reaction on the diplomatic front with the likely consequence sure to be a UN meeting. American action will come under criticism there and, as usual, the United States will turn to its allies for support. Heseltine floats the idea of Britain abstaining in any UN vote – neither he nor anyone else suggests voting against the United States – but his colleagues aren’t so sure about that. They agree that instead of that, there will be no British diplomatic effort to bend the will of other nations in support of a possible UN vote on whether Operation Urgent Fury was justified. This doesn’t satisfy their anger but it is the only thing that can be done. Reagan needs to understand that slavish support from the UK will not come when he acts in this way. For a year and a half now, since the end of the conflict over the Falklands, Britain has been doing all it can to try to repair its international reputation. This has involved working with allies such as the Americans in particular. In what seems like each time, those efforts have been mocked by the Reagan Administration as they do what they want in defiance of British wishes and interests. Now, Cabinet is agreeing to take a stand… even a small one. Ahead of the meeting ending, Chancellor Lawson raises a concern. The upcoming first deployment of Cruise into Britain is less than a fortnight away. American military action in Grenada is only likely to inflame matters with the CND protesters even more. Nods of the head in agreement come but nothing more. Tebbit’s Cabinet cannot see the future.