It was one of the most dramatic nights in British politics. Jim Callaghan’s government had fallen by just one vote and there was to be an election. And then, just two days later, as MPs prepared themselves for the 1979 campaign to come, a car bomb exploded on the exit ramp of the House of Commons underground car park.
The bomb killed its target, Airey Neave, the shadow secretary of state for Northern Ireland. When she heard of the death of one of her closest allies, Mrs Thatcher was preparing to deliver a party election broadcast. She cancelled it.
Acts of terrorism have rarely disrupted British election campaigns. There isn’t much precedent to help parties decide whether to continue on the stump, or stop. Mrs Thatcher had time in 1979 to steady herself before continuing. Things hadn’t really got started, so they didn’t really have to stop.
The arguments for continuing are obvious. No one wants to allow terrorists to feel as if they have changed - or might be able to change - the course of public life. The morning after the Brighton bomb in 1984, Mrs Thatcher made a point of delivering her conference speech.
Yet oddly, the fact that the Brighton attack had been directed at her allowed the prime minister more flexibility. Nobody could accuse her of an inappropriate response to an attempt that had been primarily on her own life.
Advertisement
These attacks are rather different. There are basically two reasons for suspending the campaign. The first is that the normal business of politics might look impossibly trivial or even distasteful today. What would the campaign be about? The second is that the prime minister will be very busy dealing with security measures and won’t be able to campaign, or wish to be seen to be doing so.
So it seems reasonable, as a mark of respect, to stop the national arguing for a few hours, which is all that it will amount to.
Could this act of terror change the election outcome? There was a lot of speculation that the murder of Jo Cox during the referendum campaign might make people feel that there was a dangerous mood of intolerance and react against it. This speculation was incorrect.
And the Manchester attack does not appear to have changed the trajectory of this election. The best guess therefore is that the London Bridge attack will not do so either.
There is one counter example: the Madrid train bombings in 2004. The Spanish government blaming Basque separatists — when it was actually an Islamist attack — was seen by some as an attempt to cover for its own role in the Iraq invasion.
Advertisement
In the vote a few days later, the government fell.
