Harold Macmillan giving a speech on Margaret Thatcher's Privatisation policies

[MrRobertJameson]

One of the worst prime ministers the UK ever had. He only got the position after betraying Eden during the Suez Crisis.

[plymdale]

Legend.

[xXXXDeathByFartsXXXx]

BOOOOOBS!

[stevenross100]

MacMillan was the worst PM ever to befall the nation! He gave away that which was not his to tamper with, throwing away the empire with such apparent lack of concern is little better than treason.

[ganonisthebest]

@stevenross100 He didn't 'give away' the empire, he gave it back. And the plans to do that had been around before Macmillan took office anyway, after WWII and being in so much debt to America it wasn't economically feasible to be running an empire.

[stevenross100]

@ganonisthebest Regardless it still wasn't his to give back either!

[Bastiat90]

A failure as a man and a failure as Prime Minister.

[boffinme80]

@Bastiat90 Go die

[Bastiat90]

Please go further

[boffinme80]

@Bastiat90 Go into the pit of Satan's basement

[Bastiat90]

I did: he couldn't handle me and sent me away

[zephyruk]

@RichardElden 'great' ? A bunch of farmers very nearly beat the British Empire.

[zephyruk]

@RichardElden Only because we and the French were looking after protectorates after the disintegration of the Ottoman and German Empires. It's worth noting that Ireland soon became independent after that. Incidents such as the Boer War had dented the Britain's confidence, and there was an increasing realisation that we were overstretched (part of the reason why we signed the Entente Cordiale with France). WWI also increased the desire for independence in many parts of the Empire.

[zephyruk]

@RichardElden The First World War left Britain economically crippled. Even before that, Britain had started to be overtaken by the USA and Germany economically. For about 50 years before the First World War, the Empire had started to cost Britain more than it brought in. Anyone who thinks we would still have an Empire today if we hadn't been in World War II lives in cloud cuckoo land. The Empire had started to disintegrate long before that.

[Kevinasp]

@RichardElden Rubbish! I am a socialist, but I recognise that unemployment was low throughout his Premiership, as was inflation, there was spending on the NHS and Welfare state, he started to dismantle the Empire in Africa, society was fairly stable during this time. One of the best peacetime PM's we have had.

[zephyruk]

@RichardElden Why are all you right wing nut cases so obsessed with homosexuality?

[zephyruk]

@RichardElden Utter nonsense. The British Empire had been in decline since well before World War I. The wars we fought just accelerated the process. I cannot believe that in this day and age there are still 'the living dead' like you who hark to back to a golden age that never existed. it's people like you who are the real traitors to this country - living in some dream world which is 200 years out of date.

[Kevinasp]

I am disgusted by the remarks made on this page about MacMillan - one of the best peacetime Prime Ministers in the last 100 years, and I am not a Tory, and will never vote for them. I suppose you are among those who wanted him tried as a war criminal in 1986...

[hellsbells056]

@RichardElden And what then? That would have meant an even bigger disaster. The USSR against facism alone. Britain would have fallen if we turned our backs on Europe eventually. It would just result in either a Communist run super state, or Hitler would have created a European dictatorship. All European nations could have ceased to exist.

[hellsbells056]

@ We could have. But all of our colonies would have been invaded anyway, so even if we did not join in 1939, we would have been forced to do so, otherwise we would have lost the empire against Britain's will.

[hellsbells056]

@RichardElden Britain certainly lost its status as a major player, but all major politcians, and everyone at the time saw this as being inevitable. Once India callled for independance and got it in 1948, Britain knew the other Commenwealth nations would demand it, plus Britain after WW2 had been crippled economically by the war, and it could not maintain the Empire. As a part of taking the Empire down, under ATTLEE all Commenwealth members had the right to live in Britain.

[hellsbells056]

@RichardElden What was bad about them then? Yes, unemployment did at one point peak at 900, 000. Their ecomic policy was also rather basic, and that can be criticised. But in general his time in office cannot be labeled as being bad at all.

[zephyruk]

@hellsbells056 Utter nonsense. The British Empire had been in decline since well before World War I. The wars that Britain fought just accelerated the process. I cannot believe that in this day and age there are still some of the 'living dead' around like you who seem to hark back to a golden age that never existed.

[hellsbells056]

@zephyruk Was it a 'golden age'? I think, (except for the unemployment with reached 3.5 million) the best time for Britain was during the mid 1980s.

Well, the Empire was never going to last forever, we ran 1/5 of the world. Plus the supposed 'jewel in the crown', India only accounted for 1% of our GDP. But you cannot deny that during the consensus (1945-1979) was during the time that Macmillan was in office.

[zephyruk]

@hellsbells056 That's what I meant when I said it was a 'golden age that never existed' - it wasn't a golden age, except in the mind of some rabid right wingers. I can't say that I would say the mid 80s was Britain's finest hour, probably one of its worst.Let's not forget that it was during that period in the mid 80s that we were overtaken by Italy economically.

[hellsbells056]

@zephyruk We also saw the home owning deomocracy, over a million council houses were sold off under Thatcher. At one point also the government earned £7 billion in a single year as a result of privatisation. Thatcher gave our economy and people a kick up the backside. She made people realise that it is a dog eat dog world and that people should not rely entirely on the state for finances.

[zephyruk]

@hellsbells056 The UK would have gone bankrupt in the 80s if it hadn't been for North Sea oil. We simply weren't producing anything because of the industrial holocaust that took place. The Thatcher government toyed with Monetarism, and ended up being criticised by Milton Friedman himself for being so cack handed with it. The fact is that the Thatcher government destroyed a lot of very good businesses as well as bad ones, leaving the UK economy dangerously dependent on the financial sector.

[zephyruk]

@hellsbells056 And this is exactly what Harold Macmillan was criticising here - the Thatcher government claiming the sale of the nationalised industries as income - it's not. It's like taking £100 out of your savings account, putting it in your current account, and then claiming you're £100 richer.

[zephyruk]

Respond to this video... Harold Macmillan later stated: 'When I ventured the other day to criticise the system I was, I am afraid, misunderstood. As a Conservative, I am naturally in favour of returning into private ownership and private management all those means of production and distribution which are now controlled by state capitalism. I am sure they will be more efficient. What I ventured to question was the using of these huge sums as if they were income.'

[hellsbells056]

@zephyruk But I previously stated that I liked the Macmillan and Thatcher governments, so you're contradicting yourself.

[zephyruk]

@hellsbells056 In which ways am I contradicting myself?

[hellsbells056]

@zephyruk What is your point in that Macmillan stated how he technically agreed with her policies? You have just highlighted to me that he agreed with Thatcher, despite stating that privatisation was like the 'selling of the family silver.' You just told me to respond to the video, rather than to your reply...

[zephyruk]

@hellsbells056 He was making an indirect point - disagreeing without trying to seem publicly critical of her. Behind closed doors, he told her she should drop her policies because they were shredding the social fabric of the UK. There's a good article on the BBC web site about it, following the declassification of official documents. Macmillan wrote an 11 page letter to Thatcher telling her she should change direction.

[zephyruk]

@hellsbells056 I was also rebutting an argument that someone had made earlier that privatisation had 'earned' the country £7 billion. It hadn't. As Macmillan pointed out, the Thatcher government trying to claim it was income was dishonest. It was just moving assets into cash. As I said earlier, it was like moving £100 from your savings to your current account and then saying you were £100 richer.

[hellsbells056]

@zephyruk But many of our major industries were failing. By selling them off, they had to face competition. Only the strongest businesses survived which strengthened our economy. Under Thatcher, Britain bailed out no 'lame ducks.'

[aeronuk1]

@hellsbells056 It's a pity most of those industries that were privatised have been bought up by foreign competitors.

[hellsbells056]

@aeronuk1 The Westland Affair in 1986 being such an example. Well I suppose that that is better than the government having to support failing nationalised industries.

[globalloon]

@hellsbells056 so now water is sold at a profit, rail travel is subsidised by the taxpayer but profits go to shareholders, we pay foreign companies for our other utilities. There's more to the value of these essential national infrastructures than the ability to turn a profit; now we all pay more for less, there are fewer jobs and the emphasis is on profit for the few rather than service for the many.

[hellsbells056]

@globalloon Britain is a capitalist nation. If it was a socialist nation, our situation would be much worse. The government never has or never will have the money to be able to fund jobs and national assets. It struggles with the NHS alone. Consider how abysmal the economic situation would be if the government had to support gas, electricity, water, the railways, aviation, mining, oil, the list is endless.

[globalloon]

@hellsbells056 what you've just described is how abysmal it would be if we were like Norway? You talk about the nation not 'having enough money'. You do realise that in the past 250 years there have only been 2 brief periods where we have had more debt than now... but we've lost the industrial expertise to provide for ourselves; because all our infrastructure was privatised (and sold off to foreign interests)

[hellsbells056]

@globalloon Norway is definitely in a better situation, and don't reply with the recent crises, that is irrelevant. For a start it is not in the EU - and it can therefore make all of its own laws, it remains to be a true democracy. Whereas Britain, a member state, has 75% of its laws made by a council who we do not elect. And you are praising this?

[hellsbells056]

@RichardElden

Why are you even watching this speech if all you're going to do is insult a man who had six successful years as Prime Minister who has been dead for over 25 years? You're revolting.

[hellsbells056]

@RichardElden Your disrespect disgusts me. He was married and went on to have four children. The Earl of Stockton. Yes, he followed the consensus but under Macmillan the country enjoyed relatively low employment, yes it peaked at nearly 900, 000 in one year but generally it stood at only around 600, 000. At the time, Britain had 'never had it so good.'

[aeronuk1]

@hellsbells056 the fact Macmillan was married and had four children doesn't mean he couldn't have been a homosexual you know...ever heard of the term 'in the closet'?

[hellsbells056]

@aeronuk1 Are you telling me that he was a homosexual? Wow. However I do know that Anthony Eden (Macmillan's predecessor) had a son called Nicholas Eden who was a homosexual, and he died in the mid eighties from AIDs.

[aeronuk1]

@hellsbells056 i've no idea wheather he was a homosexual or not, I was just challenging your assumption that because he was married with four children he couldn't be a homosexual.

[hellsbells056]

@aeronuk1 Why are you 'challenging my (your) assumption' if you don't know the answer? It is a rather weak response to my comment which was about the economy and social aspects of Macmillan's time in power.

[UnitedBritannia]

He was an OK Prime Minister in his day, but on this point he was absoloutly wrong. There is no rational force behind what he is saying, its all paternalist platitudes.

[damehelen1]

8th November 1985

[jzep1993]

Sad to see the great man look so frail towards the end of his life.

[nathanbridle]

This was also the last speech of his lifetime.

[nathanbridle]

This speech took place at the Tory Reform Group, held at the Royal Overseas League on 8 November 1985.

[stevenross100]

An indicator that he was long past his best - "Kings Speech"?? Dear Mr MacMillan we haven't had one of those since '51!

[nathanbridle]

stevenross100 I think we can forgive a very elderly man (92) one slip. I am sure all of our grandparents, or parents make hickups like this, or something of the kind. Though as you say he was past his best. Though hardly suprising, not only was he 92, but as the video hints very elderly and frail, so that is not entirley suprising.

[nathanbridle]

Stevenross; I am sure we can allow a man who was so obviously frail & old one slip like that. I am sure our parents, grandparents & elderly friends have made errors of the kind. I also do not see why it has to be pointed out he was past his prime, I am sure it is obvious to anyone watching he was not young. At 92 I think we can forgive him one minor slip.

[nathanbridle]

@stevenross100 I also thought you might forgive, since you made a similiar error, he was not Mr Macmillan at this stage, he was Lord Stockton, he had not been Mr Macmillan since a year or so before.

[shahideurope]

@stevenross100 I am sure you will be in your prime when you're 92 won't you?

[stevenross100]

Idiot 2nd rate politician attacking a truly 1st class individual!!!!

[nathanbridle]

stevenross100  Thatcher was hardly a 1st class 'individual', not politician, I disliked her

policies, but even I would admit she was influential, & would say she was of the 2nd rank, like Salisbury, Wilson & Macmillan himself. Might I also suggest, just calling him an 'idiot' is not just offensive, but obviously untrue. Surely it is preferable to put forward well constructed points, in a courteous manner, which might better convey your view, rather than simpletons barrack room language.

[iconic]

That information is not in the description but I am sure someone knows. We will put it to the viewers, can anyone tell us what year this was?

[MrTolleMolle]

@iconic 8 November 1985

[NatDemUK]

What year was this?

[nathanbridle]

@NatDemUK 1985