̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - Parliament

Opinion: Britain needs to clean up its politics by reforming Whitehall and Westminster

fpjl2 — Thu, 01 Feb 2024 10:47:55 +0000

Prof David Howarth, a commissioner on the UK Governance Project, outlines proposals that seek to fix defects in our political system increasingly exploited by those in power.

Syria airstrikes add another ‘exception’ to beleaguered parliamentary convention, say experts

fpjl2 — Mon, 30 Apr 2018 08:46:57 +0000

̽��ֱ��recent intervention in Syria may add airstrikes to the expanding list of exceptions to the convention established to provide democratic oversight of UK military action through a parliamentary vote, say experts in international and constitutional law.

During research for a new book, launched today, the legal academics found that, in addition to broadly-defined ‘emergency’ or ‘secrecy’ exceptions, two specific types of military activity – the deployment of embedded Special Forces and unmanned drone strikes – had already been exempted from the convention.

Now, by unilaterally authorising the recent intervention in Syria, and justifying the action using language that further narrows the convention’s purview, the current government may have created a further exception for airstrikes – a cornerstone of modern warfare.

Drs Veronika Fikfak and Hayley J. Hooper, who conducted the research for their book at Cambridge’s Faculty of Law, say that “if the War Powers Convention continues to exist, we question whether it exists in any meaningful sense”.

They argue that increasing exemptions from the convention, combined with a flourishing “information asymmetry” between government and parliament, creates a real risk of another ‘Iraq moment’ in the near future.

̽��ֱ��book Parliament’s Secret War traces the last century of Westminster decision-making during the build up to hostilities, with a focus on the legal debates following the establishment of the War Power Convention in the wake of the Iraq war.

Published by Bloomsbury, the book will be launched at Homerton College, Cambridge, this evening (30 April) with a Q and A session with both authors as part of the College’s 250 anniversary series of events.

“ ̽��ֱ��idea that the War Powers Convention gives parliament political control over whether the UK goes to war has now been hollowed out to the point where any claim that elected MPs have a say on military action is essentially a deception of British civil society,” says Fikfak, a Fellow of Homerton College.

“ ̽��ֱ��War Powers Convention initially looked like it might level the playing field between parliament and government. However, our analysis reveals repeated exceptions created by successive governments even prior to the recent unilateral strikes in Syria.”

̽��ֱ��convention has its origins in the House of Commons vote sanctioning the Iraq invasion in 2003, although some argue this was a fait accompli given the thousands of troops already in the region.

Nevertheless, a convention requiring parliamentary support for armed conflict was solidified through a series of votes in the years following Iraq – most significantly with 2013’s decisive vote on Syria, when the government was defeated.

Heralded by the media as a milestone in British democracy, the convention sees a “yes or no vote” put to MPs, rather than the government of the day invoking Royal Prerogative: the traditional legal right to declare war in the name of the Crown.

Plans to enshrine the convention in law were shelved in 2016, although Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has renewed discussions of a possible War Power Act since the recent Syria airstrikes.

̽��ֱ��convention has, however, been a fixture of the Cabinet Manual – an official guide to the UK’s uncodified constitution – since 2011, with successive Defence Ministers recommitting to it both in principle and, to some extent, in practice.

Yet the recent circumvention of this potential check on power is arguably only the latest, as the convention has already been subject to “a myriad of exceptions” controlled by government – explored in depth by the new book.

For example, in 2015 a British member of Da’esh was killed by drones in Syria, despite parliament making it clear on two previous occasions that it did not support use of force in Syrian territory.

Justified by the then government as a ‘new departure’, and couched in language of ‘immediacy’ and ‘direct threat’, this was interpreted “generously” by the Joint Committee on Human Rights as an ‘emergency’ that didn’t breach convention – a precedent for the exception of drone warfare.

Also in 2015, British military took part in ground raids on Syrian territory with US forces. ̽��ֱ��government response was to state that the convention apparently “does not apply [to those] embedded in the armed forces of other nations”, despite the non-emergency situation.

̽��ֱ��researchers argue that undermining of the convention is compounded by “selective disclosure” of vital information to parliament, often under the guise of state secrecy. This was the current government’s primary justification for disregarding the convention with the recent Syrian strikes.

“In the wake of Iraq, the position that ‘Whitehall knows best’ is constitutionally untenable,” says Hooper, now a Fellow at Christ Church College, Oxford. “Sources of intelligence should never be revealed, but reports of the Joint Intelligence Committee could be considered by parliamentarians in secure premises.”

̽��ֱ��researchers argue that the nature of war has changed, now limited for the most part to drone and air strikes. “To exclude the majority of military interventions from parliamentary scrutiny risks undermining the accountability of government,” says Hooper.

Adds Fikfak: “In addition to the non-application of the convention to Special Forces deployments, the embedding of British forces in foreign countries’ armies, and the use of drones, there is now room for significant doubt as to whether the War Powers Convention applies to air strikes.”

A new book launching in Cambridge today explores the parliamentary convention intended to allow MPs a vote on military action. ̽��ֱ��authors say that the intervention in Syria provides just the latest of several ‘exceptions’ – chipping away further at a convention that may no longer meaningfully exist.

Our analysis reveals repeated exceptions created by successive governments even prior to the recent unilateral strikes in Syria

Veronika Fikfak

Justine Rho/RAF Mildenhall

Royal Air Force Tornado GR4 receives fuel

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Opinion: Parliament and Brexit

fpjl2 — Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:43:57 +0000

Demands to reclaim sovereignty were an important part of the UK’s decision to leave the European Union. “Take back control of our laws”, the Leave campaigners exhorted the British electorate in 2016.

̽��ֱ��expectation was that Parliament would be a major beneficiary. After all, the so-called democratic deficit in EU politics has long been synonymous with a diminution of the powers of national legislatures. Parliament, it was supposed, would play a key role in the process of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, and in the legislative arrangements required to ensure it would take place with minimal disruption to the UK.

It quickly became clear that the Prime Minister’s view was rather different. Parliament appeared to be an irritant to the executive’s attempts to pursue its version of Brexit. Having lost the initial attempt to trigger Article 50 without Parliamentary engagement thanks to the legal case brought by Gina Miller and others, Theresa May appeared to think that any attempts to amend or improve the draft legislation was an assault on her intention of making a success of Brexit. Calls for unilateral offers on the rights of EU nationals, or to stay in the single market, were given short shrift.

Not content with securing the EU Withdrawal Act without amendments, the Prime Minister called a snap general election in the hope of strengthening her parliamentary majority and undermining what she seemed to perceive as twin dangers: the nine Liberal Democrats MPs, and the “unelected” House of Lords, where pro-European voices remained rather louder than in the Commons.

Paradoxically, her catastrophic gamble resulted in a hung parliament that has weakened the Prime Minister’s hand. It has also created the conditions for greater cross-party working, for a less clear-cut withdrawal, and for increased leverage for Parliament.

Prior to the election, the PM could rely on the Salisbury Convention to ensure that Labour would ultimately not defy the will of the Commons or the Government’s 2015 manifesto pledge to hold a referendum and be bound by the results of the referendum. ̽��ֱ��outcome of the 2017 General Election ensures that the Opposition could reasonably claim that the Government does not have a majority and, hence, needs to adopt a more consensual approach to withdrawal.

What role is there, then, for Parliament?

̽��ֱ��Queen’s Speech was dominated by Brexit, in a way that the General Election was not. Eight pieces of legislation were flagged up. Among them was the all-encompassing “Repeal Bill” (now demoted from the “Great Repeal Bill” originally proposed) required to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act, to enshrine EU law into UK law, and to ensure there are no gaps in the Statute Book on the day the UK leaves the EU. Alongside it were other bills on trade, customs, immigration, agriculture, fisheries and nuclear safeguards. For each of these pieces of legislation the Government will need to secure a majority in both Houses. What are its chances of doing so?

̽��ֱ��confidence and supply deal with the DUP includes Brexit-related matters. ̽��ֱ��results of the first vote on the Queen’s Speech, with a Government majority of 14, show that the Government can get business through the Commons. Whether it will do so well on more contentious matters where just a handful of Tory rebels could alter the outcome is an open question – fascinating for academics, a nightmare for Government whips.

̽��ֱ��first post-election vote in the Lords saw a clear government majority to reject an amendment on remaining in the single market and customs union. That vote, however, is not a good indicator of what may follow. ̽��ֱ��amendment was not supported by the Labour frontbench, so although it was proposed by Labour peer Lord Adonis, and secured some rebel Labour support, it fell far short of the numbers that would come about if Labour put a whip on.

̽��ֱ��experience of the 2015-17 Parliament was very clear: where Labour and the Liberal Democrats work together, with some crossbench support, they can defeat the Government. Votes in the Commons will be tight throughout the coming session. Votes in the Lords, meanwhile, may swing wildly according to whether the largest opposition party wishes to let the Government set the Brexit agenda, or prefers to cooperate with other parties (and rebel Tories) to shape Brexit.

̽��ֱ��general election result increases leverage for Parliament when it comes to Brexit. Here, Baroness Smith of Newnham, a lecturer in the Department of POLIS, reflects on recent turmoil and the tightening of Commons votes as Brexit edges closer.

For each of these pieces of legislation the Government will need to secure a majority in both Houses. What are its chances of doing so?

Julie Smith

UK Parliament/Jessica Taylor

Theresa May at PMQs

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-Noncommerical

Opinion: Being society's critic & conscience

ta385 — Fri, 06 Jan 2017 11:00:00 +0000

̽��ֱ��Higher Education and Research Bill, once enacted, will be the most important statute affecting English universities for a generation. But, coming as it does in a period of popular scepticism about expertise, there is a risk that the legislation will miss a significant opportunity.

̽��ֱ��recent debates in Parliament have paid little attention to the question of what a university is for. To the extent that it has been considered at all, the answer has been assumed to be confined to teaching and research. Indeed, the text of the Bill suggests that this is also the sum total of what the Government believes universities to do: in short, matters which can be conveniently assessed by the teaching and research excellence frameworks.

But, bearing in mind that one of the key aims of the Bill is to open up higher education to new providers, it is vital that Parliament gives more careful consideration to the issue of what kinds of institutions merit being given degree-awarding powers.

While education and research are both vital components, there is more to a university than this. ̽��ֱ��additional element relates to outward-facing public engagement and discussion. In the wake of the denigration of the views of “experts” by certain supporters of the Trump and Brexit campaigns, the need for universities, and those who work in them, to challenge and criticise publicly is more important than ever.

An important attempt to define the essence of a university has already been undertaken in legislation in New Zealand. Its 1989 Education Act (section 162(4)(a)) lists five characteristics that an institution must possess before it can be recognised as a university. As well as those relating to teaching and research, the fifth requires the institution to accept “a role as critic and conscience of society”.

I believe that very similar wording should be incorporated into English law. Concern has been expressed in the sector and in the debates about the Bill that it will infringe institutional autonomy and interfere with academic freedom. Although the minister, Jo Johnson, has insisted that the concerns are misplaced, some scepticism remains. A significant and simple way of responding to it would be to recognise the legal responsibility of a university to act as critic and conscience of society.

This would not involve the imposition of any legally enforceable duties. Instead, it would acknowledge the justifiable expectation of the state that universities should make a vital contribution to society.

Academics already have a responsibility to speak to correct error and prejudice, whether it is the scientist rebutting climate-change scepticism, the classicist challenging unfounded interpretations of ancient history or the lawyer correcting media misunderstanding of the implications of a judicial decision about the royal prerogative and parliamentary sovereignty. And, with the prevalence of social media, this responsibility could not be easier to fulfil.

But a “critic and conscience” clause would mean that institutions must encourage those working in them to engage in public discussion and embrace the freedom to develop new ideas, test received wisdom and examine controversial and unpopular positions. It would also oblige universities to support staff if they were subject to illegitimate criticism for doing so.

Further, although the recent threat of UK researchers being gagged by the Government’s adoption of an anti-lobbying clause has passed, that possibility could not have been seriously contemplated in the first place had there been a “critic and conscience” clause in legislation, since the responsibility of researchers to speak out about the implications of research for society would have trumped any possibility of their being silenced under the guise of anti-lobbying.

Crucially, such a clause would also mean that new higher education providers would need to acknowledge explicitly their external-facing responsibilities. Failure to ensure that all new providers worthy of the name are outward-looking would be to waste this once-in-a-generation opportunity to put the essence of the university on a statutory footing.

This article was originally published by Times Higher Education on 5th January 2017.

Universities are about more than research and teaching, they should also act as society’s critic and conscience, says Graham Virgo, Pro-vice-chancellor for Education and Professor of English Private Law.

̽��ֱ��need for universities, and those who work in them, to challenge and criticise publicly is more important than ever

Professor Graham Virgo

̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge

Darwin Lecture Series

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Media fuelling rising hostility towards Muslims in Britain

sjr81 — Thu, 28 Apr 2016 13:46:18 +0000

̽��ֱ��findings, drawn from research developed across the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and presented to journalists, politicians and lawmakers, as well as representatives of faith communities, found Britain’s Muslim communities – fragmented and often uncomfortable with the media – to be ill-equipped to counter negative narratives with more balanced reporting.

“Can we have freedom and security at the same time?” said Roxane Farmanfarmaian, lead scholar on the ESRC project and principal at the Centre of the International Studies of the Middle East and North Africa (CIRMENA). “And how do we balance the right to speak and think freely with the protections necessary for a life without fear?

“In January 2015, the attack on Charlie Hebdo brought into focus how vulnerable the relationship is between free speech and the security of the societies in which we live. Fulfilling its responsibilities to its citizens, the government enacted laws to suppress extremist activity, clamp down on radicalisation and protect British values. This included ‘vocal opposition to British values’. Does this mean protecting a key universal right has in fact restricted it?”

̽��ֱ��Rt Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, Home Office Minister on the Counter-Extremism Strategy, highlighted the significance of the research for government and his intention to share it with officials across government, including immigration ministers and ministers within the Department of Media, Culture and Sport.

Roundtable attendees discussed ways to protect freedom of speech in religious contexts, promote integration, and further the successes of multiculturalism. ̽��ֱ��discussion developed ten points for joint action by policymakers and the media. These range from appointing a celebrity role model as a Muslim Media Relations officer, to creating community relations reporters in minority communities (see below).

These points, and the findings, were reported as part of growing coverage on the worrying rise in media interpretations of Islamophobia, public disaffection and Islamic community isolation in ̽��ֱ��Independent and al-Jazeera Online English.

̽��ֱ��Roundtable was organized by CIRMENA, in partnership with Cambridge’s the Woolf Institute and the Centre of Islamic Studies, and made possible through the support of an ESRC Impact Acceleration Action Programme Grant..

A Home Office network, as part of the Government’s Counter-Extremism Strategy linking individuals and groups standing up to extremism in their communities, will draw on findings from this research.

Ten recommended action points:

To stem the slide toward an increasingly divided society, establish a consulting forum led by media and government to facilitate professional communications practices for mosque leaderships, neighbourhood centres, charities, schools and other minority group institutions. ̽��ֱ��goal: to enable them effectively to promote, and publish more balanced narratives about their communities.
Appoint a well-recognized figure (for example, a celebrity role model) as a Muslim Media Relations Officer to encourage contextual awareness and media education surrounding minority group issues and perspectives; the position would be responsible for representing the multiple viewpoints necessary to serve as an effective spokesperson for the Muslim community as a whole. ̽��ֱ��Muslim Media Relations Officer would be a member of the consulting forum (see above).
Encourage media employment of ‘community relations’ reporters as specialist correspondents (much like political, financial and health editors), to improve the balance in reportage on faith and other minority affairs. ̽��ֱ��remit should include, 1. Improving domestic awareness of counter-narratives, 2. Bettering understanding of how global events shape British responses to local communities, 3. Enhancing comprehension of the connections between local (diaspora) communities and their countries of origin, including the sharing of discourses, entertainment preferences and ideological attitudes.
Build media resources within minority communities that actively encourage capacity building, and that can provide tools, such as media training programmes. ̽��ֱ��goal: to engage community members, especially youths, in developing skills for effective media planning, and interaction.
Encourage trusts, foundations and other civil society and mainstream opinion-forming organizations to partner with and include Muslim and other minority representatives, especially women.
Actively support all affirmative engagement with majority community values through positive role models the Muslim community can identify with.
Promote opportunities for Muslim role models to provide inspiration to minority groups, including youth and women.
Support British media productions (drama series, soap operas, documentaries, films, talk shows, game shows, reality TV and other entertainments) that feature minority figures and local minority group issues. ̽��ֱ��goal: to raise the competitive edge of British output vis-à-vis the consumption needs of this audience, and increase the visibility of British, over country-of-origin, media offerings.
Encourage clear definitions of radicalisation (as terminology) to be circulated within the law enforcement and security agencies, and put in place guidelines to protect individuals from agency profiling.
Assign minority group coverage to non-minority reporters and editors, so as to broaden awareness and avoid ‘ghettoisation’ of minority coverage. Develop and promote context-sensitive awareness and language use among staff.

Mainstream media reporting about Muslim communities is contributing to an atmosphere of rising hostility towards Muslims in Britain, according to a ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge/ESRC Roundtable held at the House of Lords.

̽��ֱ��attack on Charlie Hebdo brought into focus how vulnerable the relationship is between free speech and the security of the societies in which we live.

Roxane Farmanfarmaian

https://www.flickr.com/photos/amash/7474723888/in/photolist-covUZN-d35S6o-47KZgR…

Freedom of Speech by Ahdieh Ashrafi via Flickr

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike

How the Westminster parliamentary system was exported around the world

sj387 — Mon, 02 Dec 2013 12:00:00 +0000

Empires, even the greatest of them, wax and wane. As recently as the early 1920s, the British Empire covered an area that is almost inconceivable today. ̽��ֱ��inhabitants of its dominions, colonies and territories accounted for a fifth of the world’s population and its huge geographical spread was summed up by the chilling description ‘the empire on which the sun never sets’.

However, just as the British Empire reached its peak, it was also crumbling as its composite parts pushed against their subordinate status. From the 1940s onwards, a growing number of countries which had been under British rule for as many as 200 years, embarked on the journey that led to their independence as members of the New Commonwealth – an affiliation to the British monarchy that for some nation states proved short-lived and for others more enduring.

As Smuts Visiting Fellow in Commonwealth Studies for 2013-2014, the political historian Dr Harshan Kumarasingham is exploring the extraordinary role that Sir Ivor Jennings played at a pivotal period for newly-independent states across the world as they emerged from British rule. For many, it was an era of huge upheaval as, ill-prepared to deal with the task of state-building, they struggled to govern according to a foreign system often imposed with scant regard for regional and ethnic tensions.

Jennings was a key figure in the process that saw the decolonisation of dozens of countries that made up the British Empire in the mid-20^th century. Born in Bristol in 1903, he was educated at St Catharine’s College, Cambridge ̽��ֱ��, and towards the end of his career returned to the ̽��ֱ�� to hold a number of prestigious posts.

In his late 30s Jennings became the first vice chancellor of the newly-formed ̽��ֱ�� of Ceylon in Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) and from 1942, right up until his death in 1965, acted as a specialist constitutional advisor to governments of developed and developing nations all over the world.

Jennings’s career as a constitutional advisor had unique scope and breadth. It is possible that his relatively modest background and grammar school education, which would have been a barrier to entering the legal establishment in Britain, was a factor in his decision to look overseas to forge his career. Having made his name in Colombo, he worked with indigenous leaders to draw up the constitutions of countries as diverse in culture and geography as Canada and Ethiopia, Japan and Nepal, New Zealand and Malta. His legacy continues in some shape or form in the many parts of the world where elements of the Westminster-style constitutions he introduced live on.

“ ̽��ֱ��model Jennings favoured was the Westminster parliamentary system with its historic connection to the Crown and convention. ̽��ֱ��leaders with whom he collaborated to establish their own versions of Westminster represented the powerful elite of their countries and the systems they devised often didn’t take account of local and ethnic differences – such as regional languages and variations in ethnicity and education – which meant that certain groups were excluded from processes of self-government,” said Dr Kumarasingham.

“On the basis of his grasp of constitutional law, Jennings was hired by many countries all over the world to provide advice on the making of their constitutions – he wasn’t in the employ of the British government although his affiliations and loyalties certainly favoured the British and their system. Essentially he operated in the way that a lawyer’s brief would work – he was efficient and focused and did the job he was paid to do. He didn’t see it as his role to deviate from the wishes of his clients.”

Dr Kumarasingham, who took up the Smuts Fellowship in October, is a New Zealander whose work to date has focused on the Westminster system and how it was exported across the world. He will be carrying out research in archives across the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and at the Public Records Office in London to develop a fuller and clearer picture of a process that affected millions of people in countries that had been colonised by the British. “Cambridge has remarkable resources for these papers including those of leading British Cabinet ministers,” he said.

“In the UK today, Jennings is remembered for his contribution to British Constitutional Law and Cabinet Government as these were the areas he wrote prolifically on while he in Britain. In the wider world he is known for his work in constitution-making abroad and I hope that my research at Cambridge will bring these two aspects of his career together. I will be editing a book of his selected writings on constitution making, which be published by the Royal Historical Society and CUP.”

When Jennings returned to Britain in 1955, he became Master of Trinity Hall, Cambridge. He later served a term as Vice-Chancellor at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, at a time when the position rotated among the heads of the Colleges.

Jennings and his influence on overseas constitutions is just one strand of Dr Kumarasingham’s research, which looks more broadly at British decolonisation and state-building. Dr Kumarasingham, who is hosted by Professor Sir Christopher Bayly, Vere Harmsworth Professor of Imperial History Emeritus at the Centre for South Asian Studies, will also be looking at constitutional crises in the post-war Commonwealth and the influence of monarchy on democracy in South Asia.

Inset image: Sir Ivor Jennings (centre front row) as Master of Trinity Hall in 1958, Trinity Hall Archives

As an expert in constitutional law, Sir Ivor Jennings played a pivotal role in the establishment of states emerging from British rule in the mid-20th century. He later became Master of Trinity Hall. As Smuts Visiting Fellow, Dr Harshan Kumarasingham is researching how Jennings and other British figures shaped the lives of millions of people around the world.

̽��ֱ��model Jennings favoured was the Westminster parliamentary system with its historic connection to the Crown and convention

Dr Kumarasingham

Centre of South Asian Studies, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge

Indian Parliament building (designed by British architect Edwin Lutyens) in 1944

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes

Thatcher Archive reveals deep divisions on the road to Falklands War

lw355 — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 00:01:01 +0000

Government tensions and widespread reluctance to wage war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands, even as the conflict unfolded, are laid bare among the thousands of pages of Thatcher’s papers being opened to the public and made available online by the Margaret Thatcher Foundation at http://www.margaretthatcher.org/

Among the 40,000 pages of documents being released is Thatcher’s own copy of the note confirming the Argentine invasion of the Islands, and an emotionally-charged draft letter to President Reagan, eventually toned down, where she resolutely refuses American overtures to concede ground to Argentina’s military dictatorship.

A previously unseen 12-page record made by Ian Gow, Thatcher’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, following the appearance of Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington and Defence Secretary John Nott at the backbench 1922 committee, describes how the tenor of that tense exchange informed Carrington’s much-lamented decision to resign.

Thatcher’s attempts to dissuade him came to nought and the archive contains a warm letter of explanation from Carrington to Thatcher, and a touching letter by return from the Prime Minister on May 4, 1982, relating how much she and the Cabinet missed his presence.

But the papers released this year also contain evidence of less cordial relations and weak support at best from large sections of the Conservative Parliamentary Party in the build-up to war.

Critics of Government policy could be found inside Downing Street as well as outside. Some of Thatcher’s closest advisors were sceptical that the islands were worth the fight with John Hoskyns, David Wolfson and Alan Waters, all staunch Thatcherites, persistently lobbying her to strike for a diplomatic deal with Argentina.

Outside Number 10, junior ministers Tim Raison and Ken Clarke as well as Stephen Dorrell and Chris Patten were also expressing alarm; Dorrell for one saying he would only support the Task Force as a negotiating measure - and advocating a withdrawal if the military Junta in Argentina refused to negotiate.

All this only accentuated an important effect of the war, driving the Prime Minister ever deeper into the heart of the government machine where only a handful of her most senior ministers and officials could follow.

On Tuesday, April 6, four days after the Argentine invasion, Thatcher met with former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, seeking his advice on handling the looming conflict. While there was no official minute of the meeting, Thatcher’s own note survives. It references the now famous advice from Macmillan not to have Chancellor Geoffrey Howe in her War Cabinet so that money would not be an issue in making military decisions, and also details his counsel on handling war correspondents – essentially to restrict, if not censor them, as much as possible.

However, as the situation in the South Atlantic worsened in the face of Argentine intransigence and fighting began, wider Conservative and opposition support eventually began to fall in place behind the Prime Minister.

Critics remained, however, and the archive for 1982 contains sharp exchanges with Archbishop of Westminster Cardinal Hume, who challenged the morality of the Government’s action, and even Astronomer Royal Martin Ryle, who described the occupation as a ‘relatively minor event’ – a view tersely rebutted by Thatcher.

̽��ֱ��personal sadness she felt at the loss of life during the Falklands War is reflected in the keeping of notes such as the slip of paper handed to her on June 12, relaying that HMS Glamorgan had been hit by an Exocet missile, with casualties at that point unknown. Elsewhere, the archive records instances of the Prime Minister anxiously awaiting news and reading long into the early hours of the morning as losses mounted and the British and Argentine forces traded heavy blows.

News that the Argentinians had surrendered came in a call from Fleet Command at Northwood at 9pm on Monday, June 14. ̽��ֱ��Thatcher Archives has her notes on the call, as well as her annotated copy of John Nott’s celebrated earlier statement announcing the recapture of South Georgia, nearly two months earlier on April 25.

̽��ֱ��‘Falklands Factor’ famously led to a huge post-war boost in the Prime Minister’s own popularity rating, as well as the Government’s. She connected the conflict to domestic issues, asking in a famous speech ‘why does it need a war to bring out our qualities and assert our pride?’.

Despite looming large over much of 1982, the Falklands were not the only overseas challenge to the Prime Minister. Thatcher’s first big visit after the Falklands War was to Japan, China and Hong Kong. ̽��ֱ��Chinese leg of the trop was particularly significant as it kicked off the long negotiation on the return of Hong Kong to China.

̽��ֱ��archives reveal something of the vast preparation she personally undertook for the visit to the Far East, especially China. She felt obliged to examine every detail of the trip, wary of the symbolism of each visit and determined to make a powerful impression at every point.

Among the papers at Churchill are a list of clothes she was planning to wear, meeting by meeting (all the outfits were given names such as Smoky, Fuchsia and Plum Stars), and the archive also contains details of her outright refusal to lay at wreath at the Monument to Revolutionary Martyrs in Tiananmen Square, despite being advised that many Western heads of government had recently done so. She simply scrawls ‘NO’ in capped letters next to the suggestion.

She also spent an astonishing amount of time planning the British return banquet (held in the Great Hall of the People) where she oversaw cutlery arrangements and the silver table settings supplied by the Royal Navy. Ever keen to cut costs, whether in the British economy or domestically, Thatcher also waded in on a ridiculous argument about the cost of the banquet; the PM favouring the cheaper 50 Yuan option but eventually being persuaded to accept the 75 Yuan menu which contained shark’s fin and sea slugs.

She also became embroiled in a heated dispute about the possibility of serving jam sandwiches for dessert (considered a treat for foreign visitors). Meriting official discussion with the Foreign Office, Thatcher opted for a fruit salad dessert instead.

Despite the care and attention put into seemingly every aspect of the Far East trip, the archive confirms her meetings with the Chinese leadership did not run smoothly. Papers released this year relate for the first time that Communist Party Chairman Deng Xiaoping threatened to move into Hong Kong before the expiry of the lease in 1997 if there were ‘very large and serious disturbances in the next fifteen years’, even going so far as to mention HSBC by name as a potential agent of such disturbances.

Away from the seriousness of war and international political wrangling, Thatcher also spent one evening in 1982 in the company of the man behind the world’s most famous drag queen – Dame Edna Everage. While not attending in full and glittering regalia, Barry Humphries did give Mrs Thatcher a Dame Edna cooking apron for ‘informal lunches at Chequers’. ̽��ֱ��archive also contains record of an amazing literary dinner at the home of Hugh Thomas where she sat down with Larkin, Spender, Stoppard, Berlin and the like. However, records note that Iris Murdoch and John Le Carre, a grudging admirer, were unable to attend.

For Christmas 1982, the archive also reveals she was sent tapes of Yes, Minister, by the Director-General of the BBC, Alisdair Milne.

̽��ֱ��Falklands War – the conflict that defined much of Margaret Thatcher’s political career and legacy – dominates the release of her personal papers for 1982 at the Churchill Archives Centre from Monday (March 25).

Among the 40,000 pages of documents being released is Thatcher’s own copy of the note confirming the Argentine invasion of the Islands

British Army official photographer Sgt Ronald Hudson

After landing at San Carlos, a heavily laden paratrooper of 2 Parachute Regiment heads south for Sussex Mountain on 21 May 1982. From there the Battalion attacked Goose Green.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-Noncommerical