Dan Jarvis

Yvette Cooper is tainted by association with her unpopular husband. Chukka Umunna cracks under pressure from hostile interviewers. Rachel Reeves is due on maternity leave. Andy Burnham looks like a left winger who is closely associated with the unions. Tristram Hunt looks 'posh' but comes across a bit lightweight and lacking in seriousness. Liz Kendall has a lot of qualities and doesn't have 'baggage'.

Major Dan is a straightforward centre-left politician untainted by the Blair-Brown spat, who is a family man with an impressive record of serving his country. He looks and sounds good. He can handle pressure, as the guy with the broken bottle on the underground found out. He looks a bit like a Tory, and could certainly pass for a prime minister. As with Liz Kendall, his drawback is inexperience. But I reckon anybody with the experience (Cooper, Burnham) is probably tainted by past associations.

It's not just about who has the best Labour credentials, but about who can also make some sort of appeal to marginal voters or even the less committed Tory ones. Thankfully, one positive legacy of Ed Miliband's leadership was to move to a one man one vote system for the leadership election. I know all about the place of the unions in the development of the Labour movement, but there is no bigger turn-off for the marginals voters than seeing big union barons wield disproportionate power (even if we know it's on behalf of their members). So the intelligent choice for me would be Major Dan or Liz Kendall, with my own preference (looking at his overall profile) being for the Major.

 

That's not how it works.

When you spend on your credit card, that money is gone and you have to pay it back. You purchase a new coat or a television and although you may enjoy the product, it won't generate any money. An anti-austerity government won't be buying new coats and televisions, they'll be attempting to create jobs and stimulate the expansion of businesses, and this does generate money. As [MENTION=6848]Wellsie[/MENTION] says above, it's akin to taking out a loan to invest in your business. To put it simply, you spend money to make money.

Get people off benefits and in to work and you don't just save the money you're paying out on those benefits, but you also create a new income stream from the tax they pay on their earnings. They'll spend more too bringing in yet more tax. The same is true for businesses that expand. And if you create the right conditions that give business owners confidence to expand, they'll take out bank loans to fund that, allowing the whole banking system to properly tick over again. If new businesses start up or existing companies expand and take on new premises then local councils benefit from collecting more business rates.

Anti-austerity is considered a gamble because you may spend more to create new jobs than you ever bring in, but austerity is just as much of a gamble.

You'll never hear a politician admit it, but austerity stifles growth. The economy has limped along since the 2008 crash. Time and again the economy has failed to grow in line with government predictions, while forecasts have become so pessimistic that we're told 0.1% growth is something to celebrate. Despite all the huge cuts, government borrowing has increased and the national debt has increased. If you're spending less but borrowing more it's because your income has taken a huge hit due the policies put in place prohibiting growth.

I have no idea if an anti-austerity policy would have faired better than what we've had for the last 5 years. I have no idea if it would work better in the future. I simply don't know which policy would result in the government being in a position to tackle the national debt earlier. But I do know that austerity is not the only way, it hasn't worked so well thus far and a different policy would not have resulted in so many people losing their jobs and so many people relying on food banks in order to eat.

 

The Torys will tell us the country has grown (in terms of GDP), but we must realise what is driving GDP. It is not manufacturing, O&G has been down, no real investment in industry It is not construction, although some mild positive signs of late. The win driver is Services (Banks, Insurance, etc etc). However within that the greatest growth is Knowledge Services and Education. We are educating the world and more of our own instead of holding a job, but have less resources to care for our own sick and elderly.

 

Cameron first became an MP in 2001 and leader of the Conservative party in 2005. Jarvis first became an MP in 2011. If he were to become leader of the Labour party in 2015, it blows the argument of him being too inexperienced to be selected out of the water. If it was a long enough period of time for Cameron, why should it be an issue for Jarvis? Unless, of course, someone is being hypercritical, or has double standards.
Whether he has what it takes to be leader is another thing. Personally, I believe he has.

 

Exactly. How many of the candidates for any party have had experience at being the party leader before they took over? New thinking, new personality and someone the people of the country can warm to is whats needed right now. I think Dan Jarvis fits.

 

Just one point on Jarvis. I'm interested in politics, interested particularly in Labour politics, and if it wasn't for hearing his name on here, as he is most posters local MP, I wouldn't have heard of him. That's not to say he might not be the best person for the job but I'm not sure how well known he is outside of Barnsley. Obviously you all know of him and will here a lot about him because of the local press, or will notice when he's mentioned nationally. That all said the people of Barnsley clearly have a high opinion of him.

 

How many had heard of Cameron before his selection, both inside and outside of the party? He benefited by having no association with the failures of the Major, Hague, Duncan-Smith & Howard campaigns. Perhaps Jarvis may benefit in the same manner with regards to Brown & Miliband.

 

I agree.

 

Cameron was shadow education secretary which is a high profile position, but it's a very valid point. I'm not for a second arguing against Jarvis, just trying to add some non-local perspective

 

Cameron was vice chairman of the conservative party under Michael Howard and head of policy co-ordination for Howard's unsuccessful 2005 general election campaign. He was a prominent front bench MP by the time he put his name forward for the 2005 leadership election after Howard stepped down.

 

Well, that's my arguments blown out of the water.

 

Not really. I don't know if I had heard of Cameron by the time he put himself forward for the leadership election. I can't name you all the front bench MPs for Labour over the past 5 years. But, it's not really important how much the public know of an MP when it comes to leadership elections, it's how well he/she is known and respected within his/her own party. Cameron was well known, not just for the positions he held within the shadow cabinet, but also because he abstained from a number of parliamentary votes, defying the party whip. He was well advised to do so as he was siding with progressive ideas like single sex partnerships and their rights, and reformed drug laws. Ideas that the Tory party have begrudgingly learned to accept due to public opinion. Cameron seemed in tune and the party's own Tony Blair.

Dan Jarvis isn't unknown. He's the shadow arts and culture minister, but I'm not sure he's made as big a splash as Cameron did in his early years as an MP. That's not really surprising as Jarvis had a military career, completely away from politics, while Cameron was a researcher and special advisor for the Tory party long before becoming an MP.

I'm not arguing that Jarvis wouldn't make a good leader. I just think, at this moment in time, his profile isn't as high as he'd want it to be, if he actually wants to become leader, he may not, he may not think he's ready or he may not have such ambitions. Even if he has, I think there are a few candidates ahead of him at this moment in time and this leadership election has come too early for him.

So, Dan Jarvis, next leader of the Labour Party - nailed on.

Barnsley 0-0 Rochdale - Jay prediction prior to the match.

 

Cheers, my old friend.

 

All good, but the interesting fact is that the bookies see Dan Jarvis as one of the top candidates. Personally I'm not sure he has the support within his party but if he declares his hand early I think it won't do his career any harm.

 

Shadow minister for justice int he?

What's shadow arts anyway? That thing that folk do with their hands, making rabbits/cocks etc behind a screen?

 

Send for Eric Joyce!....He'd bang a few heads together....Bet He could take Putin, one on one.....and sup Farage under the table!

VOTE ERIC NOW!

 

Ruled himself out due to having a young family, massive respect for that

 

Yep. Kudos.

A lot of Tories will be breathing a sigh of relief.

 

I'm disappointed. I can understand but the labour party has a very difficult decision as it has been robbed of its stand out candidate imo

 

That's my take on it too. No one else stands out for me. Career politicians to a man/woman - Dan was one of the few who could say he'd had a life outside of politics.