Mayday! Repeating the mistakes of the chaotic 1970s would be a disaster

May day. Back in the mid-70s, Tony Benn persuaded the then Labour government to introduce a May day holiday, to align the UK with the international proletarian struggle. It did not work. As the holiday is always held on the first Monday in May, which is not necessarily the first day of the month, it rapidly lost any political significance and became merely another bank holiday.

Mayday is also the international radio distress signal used by stricken planes or ships. If we extended that usage to stricken human beings, every day would now be Mayday. Not since the 70s has the world been in such a mess.

Back then, things were especially bad in Britain. Seven successive premierships ended in failure: Eden, Macmillan, Douglas-Home, Wilson Mk 1, Heath, Wilson Mk 2 and Callaghan. Though Callaghan had at least been an improvement on Wilson, in a Britain seemingly condemned to high inflation, low growth, chronically inefficient nationalised industries and militant trade unionism, Sunny Jim was only offering the orderly management of decline. Yet in the political class, there was a widespread belief that this was the best available outcome. There were even plenty of Tories who thought like that, at least in private. The alternative to orderly decline appeared to be ungovernability, probably leading to socialism. 

Around then, when the left-wing historian E.P. Thompson wrote that one of these days, we would wake up to find ourselves in a socialist society, he was expressing many right-wingers’ nightmare. Tony Benn agreed with Thompson. He was confident that very soon, every day would be May day.

Across the Atlantic, there was no danger of that, but America was literally in a sorry state. Gone were the days when imperial presidents bestrode the globe and the US’ superpower status had been boosted by the almighty Dollar. The agony of Vietnam had given way to the trauma of Watergate. President Jimmy Carter, the electoral beneficiary of Watergate, seemed to enjoy nothing more than telling Americans to feel sorry for themselves.

On a world view, not everything was gloomy. Convinced of the need to bring China into an international order, Nixon had paid that country a momentous visit. Insurgent Islam was still containable. Even so, the 70s had been the worst peacetime decade since the 30s. On 1 January 1980, anyone who had predicted that the 80s would see momentous progress with success after success for the West under two world-historical leaders would have been regarded as a lunatic.

There are many lessons to be drawn from the Reagan/Thatcher era: two in particular. The first is that it is folly to listen to leftists’ assessments of right-wing politicians’ intellectual powers. In 1980, they were blinded by a mixture of snobbery, dismissing Reagan as a cowboy, Mrs T as a grocer’s daughter, plus horror at the way in which these unlikely characters were turning the Left’s isms into wasms. The second is the importance of leadership. Under lesser management, the 1980s could have been very different.

That brings us to our present discontents. Ukraine, unfinished business in the Middle East, the need to find a modus vivendi with China that is based on Western strength, the urgent need to avoid stagflation and a world recession: it is self-evident that the Western world desperately needs good leaders. None is available. The best argument for democracy is that it gives legitimacy to strong governments. Though the losers may grumble, they more or less accept the result, and sublimate their disappointments in a determination to do better next time. But if the losers go into internal exile, national stability is jeopardised. This is happening in the US today. E pluribus unum: not much sign of that.

In France, the Left is furious because it was so preoccupied with keeping out Le Pen that it failed to unite around Mélenchon. We have had the two tours at the ballot-box. There could well be a third, on the streets. 

Then we come to our own native land. In foreign affairs, we Brits pride ourselves on punching above our weight. But judicious geopolitical intervention should not be confused with wild and whirling words. In Ukraine, there are alarming signs that the Russians have now worked out how to fight their war, principally by rolling forward on the Donbass front, using various forms of artillery to destroy the Ukrainian positions. I hope I am wrong. But then again, should the Russians fail, would they just pack up and go home? Tactical nuclear weapons could destroy the Ukrainian army of the Donbass. It may be that if Putin ordered his generals to use them, they would refuse and he would be overthrown. Or it may not.

There are people in the West who would be happy to fight to the last Ukrainian. Such characters are talking about forcing the Russians out of the Crimea, recapturing all the lost ground in the Donbass and even demanding war crimes trials. This is dangerous nonsense. Liz Truss clearly believes that such posturing is the way to become leader of her party. We must hope that she is grossly underestimating its grip on common sense.

Common sense has always been an uncommon quality and never more so than in current British politics. When the agenda should be dominated by world crises, the House of Commons is squabbling over cakes and ale, Toby Belch versus Malvolio, or what the butler saw on the Tory backbenches. It is not necessary to argue that every Member of Parliament is a legislator of the highest calibre to insist that our MPs are not a collection of drunken, bottom-pinching, pornography-watching expenses fiddlers. Though there are, inevitably, duds, most of them are conscientious men and women who have come into public service to serve the public. Reforms may be necessary but it would be absurd to embark on them in an atmosphere of hysteria.

Apropos of all that, it is not only absurd of Oliver Dowden to suggest that half of all Tory MPs should be women. It is an insult to women. The party of Margaret Thatcher should surely have the confidence that women can rise on merit and that there is no place for quotas. At present, there are several outstanding females in junior ministerial posts who should all rise higher. But we also have Priti Patel, unfit for high office, not to mention Nat Evans and Nadine Dorries, unfit for any office. If we went down Dowden’s preferred route, we would end up with an outcome which ought to be impossible: a worse government than we have already. Mayday.