It's really interesting how strong his RP speech is, despite the fact he came from a poor Welsh mining community. Speaks volumes about how you had to present yourself to get ahead in those days (and to a certain extent today, of course).
16:00 What does he mean by "in the latter [or former] circumstance, you've got to govern the country"? Isn't that a tautology, as that is the constitutional default: current government stays on until it is clear they would be defeated in the Commons on a confidence or budget vote? Or am I missing something here?
He means that there has to be a government formed somehow following a General Election. In either scenario (former or latter) he's hinting that the SDP would not cooperate without electoral reform.
@@zeddeka They do, however that was true back in 1945 when Attley won and started huge social justice reforms, but so was it true in the 1980s when Thatcher undid some of those reforms. There was a very broad consensus for this in both eras. So the understanding changes and is not universal for all situations. Which makes it at least a little bit nebulous as a concept, unless you are a hardcore supporter of some ideology of course, then the world is clear - black and white.
The last poll before the Falklands War showed Conservative, Labour and the Alliance roughly neck and neck. If Argentina had not invaded the Falklands, it may have worked out differently.
On the contrary if he had stayed in Labour and toppled Wilson after say '67 he could've taken over and then assuming Heath still can't get a pay policy past Labour gets back in and voila, of course he would still have a very divided cabinet and we can't know for certain his abilities on keeping his party together like Wilson (or I guess if Callaghan did) but he certainly could've been a prime minister
Thank you for uploading this. Do you have Jenkins' November 1979 Dimbleby Lecture?
It's really interesting how strong his RP speech is, despite the fact he came from a poor Welsh mining community. Speaks volumes about how you had to present yourself to get ahead in those days (and to a certain extent today, of course).
A disaster for the Liberal parry
16:00 What does he mean by "in the latter [or former] circumstance, you've got to govern the country"? Isn't that a tautology, as that is the constitutional default: current government stays on until it is clear they would be defeated in the Commons on a confidence or budget vote? Or am I missing something here?
He means that there has to be a government formed somehow following a General Election. In either scenario (former or latter) he's hinting that the SDP would not cooperate without electoral reform.
"Fairness" and "social justice" are nebulous concepts.
and yet everyone has a reasonable understanding of what they mean in practice
Roy Jenkins was a nebulous man.
@@zeddeka They do, however that was true back in 1945 when Attley won and started huge social justice reforms, but so was it true in the 1980s when Thatcher undid some of those reforms. There was a very broad consensus for this in both eras. So the understanding changes and is not universal for all situations. Which makes it at least a little bit nebulous as a concept, unless you are a hardcore supporter of some ideology of course, then the world is clear - black and white.
Woy!!!!! 😂
He was never going to be a Prime Minister.
The last poll before the Falklands War showed Conservative, Labour and the Alliance roughly neck and neck. If Argentina had not invaded the Falklands, it may have worked out differently.
On the contrary if he had stayed in Labour and toppled Wilson after say '67 he could've taken over and then assuming Heath still can't get a pay policy past Labour gets back in and voila, of course he would still have a very divided cabinet and we can't know for certain his abilities on keeping his party together like Wilson (or I guess if Callaghan did) but he certainly could've been a prime minister
A very great parliamentarian and ushered in modern liberal UK when Home Sec in 60’s
He was wrong on most fronts to be honest.