I have been sent a copy of the speech Dan Jarvis gave this morning at Demos.
I stress, my interest is technical: I am interested to see what he is suggesting.
Three phrases stood out amidst a soup of sentiment:
So let's take out the politics.
And:
Keir Hardie said that the British are a practical people, not given to chasing bubbles.
And:
People I meet, the people I am talking about, don't attend economic seminars.
As someone who teaches political economy I think these phrases are pretty powerful. In combination they say three things.
First, don't think. Or, to put it another way, accept the political status quo.
Second, second politics is as a consequence a response process.
And third, it says don't whatever you do have a strategy that you might share with those you are asking to follow: just expect them to do so.
This may well be good for the army. I note Dan Jarvis served in it. As he stressed in the speech, he has been on the frontline three times (admittedly by choice: although I do not doubt his bravery or the value of his service).
The army should be above politics.
When you're on the frontline your job is to accept the status quo - what you are told.
And it is to respond to orders, the meaning of which will all too often not be explained to you.
But that is the army and Mr Jarvis is now a politician. These don't sound like the basis for a sound political strategy in a democracy. Nor do they suggest that Mr Jarvis has a plan. They just say that he's wiling to stand before the troops thinking he's the man to follow and because he's got the right pips on his shoulder.
The trouble is he never got enough pips to get to HQ by the look of it. And there such an approach should not work.
Nor should it in politics. And that is why this was a worrying speech. The country is not like the army. I'm not sure Dan Jarvis has worked that out yet.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I got as far as this before giving up, he has clearly not met many financial capitalists nor understood what really drives them:
“That is how the capitalist system should work.
As servant, not as master.
With a deep-rooted moral imperative, supplying goods that people want.”
I must make a correction, as it seems Mr Jarvis has met at least one financial capitalist, the same one (apparently with a heart and a brain) that supported Ed Miliband to the tune of £600k also supports Dan Jarvis.
I’m never quite sure what to make of such contradictions, I accept that wealth does not completely replace morality, but at the same time I’ve still not met a financial turkey that votes for a socialist Christmas.
Or do they – you know the sort of not really dangerous non-socialist Blairite form of Christmas ? Perhaps on the basis it is better to be lightly roasted with a bit more tax than thrown to the wolves with a different economic model.
I just don’t believe a word anyone says anymore – actions it seems are all that count these days. Smell the coffee and follow the money, it all still sounds a bit fishy to me!
So I wonder how much Martin Taylor invests in social enterprises, ethical companies, co-operatives or even donates to charities (tax deductible of course). I’ve not been able to find out, but I doubt it is very much as they wont make a hedge fund manager much dosh which ultimately is still his main business when he has put his conscience back to sleep.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/martin-taylor-some-hedge-fund-managers-do-support-the-labour-party-10124420.html
I think it possible….
Oddly
You are still a man of good faith Richard! I wish I could be so optimistic as hope only goes so far.
I have to believe
I gather he’s just saying we should all be good little citizens and do what we’re told, presumably by our masters and betters like his good self. Perhaps his next speech will contain the clear inference that “you’d better, or it’ll be the worse for you!”. He’s like a faint and unwelcome echo from times thankfully past.
You have highlighted the failure of many soldiers turned politicians, amongst who Eisenhower is a conspicuous exception that proves the rule, and Wellington the very exemplification of the rule that military methods don’t work in politics, and that soldiers make poor politicians (consider MacArthur, wonderfully out in his place by Harry “till hell freezes over” Tran.
What you say above reminds me of the Greek dictator and leader of the 1968 coup, George Papadopoulos, who only had three things on his desk – a writing pad a telephone and an hourglass.
No papers, documents, reports, Cabinet Minutes or whatever, because he didn’t need them, his beliefs giving him all the knowledge he needed.
The hourglass was thereto tell visitors that the great man’s time was limited and previous and ALWAYS as he chose to dispose it.
The telephone was, of course, for issuing orders for IMMEDIATE execution!
Above all, there was the neatness and unclutteredness of a mind entirely lacking sophistication and understanding.
I shall have to read Mr Jarvis’s proposals in full to see if your diagnosis is correct, but it does rather look as though he suffers from the peculiar English vice of mistrusting intellectuals and ideas, and people who are “too clever by half”, like all those ” ghastly Europeans, over there, don’t you know?”
PS: I’d be interested in your view on Rachel Reeves’s similar recent foray into rheland of usurpation.
Dan refers to Rachel Reeves approvingly
It would seem there is a shadow cabinet in waiting
Yvette Cooper is another getting a mention
As an observer the fracturing of the left and right now looks entirely possible
Richard, I haven’t been able to source Rachel Reeves’s actual text, but, on the basis of this Labourlist report, what she is proposing sounds as though it has relied heavily on some aspects of Corbynomics, spiced with what sounds like “Labour in the Black” thinking.
Here’s the Labour list reference:
http://labourlist.org/2016/03/reeves-attacks-osborne-scheming-over-leadership-and-publishes-alternative-budget/
And here’s the Social Market Foundation reference to it:
http://www.smf.co.uk/a-shaft-of-light-amidst-the-murk-of-pessimism/
Labour in the Black was deeply suspect economically
Sorry, didn’t check the date on the SMF reference, so still can’t find the actual text of Rachel Reeves’s lecture.
This is a disaster for Labour and for any hope in opposing the one-party state we now have.
More evidence of the impoverished intellects of so many of our politicians. No doubt he’ll use his army background to bolster an ‘action man’ image (with some implicit kudos) and contrast that with the ‘geography teacher’ image of Corbyn.
Another tool of the neo-libs. Apparently he has proclaimed, using Blair’s phraseology that we need to be ‘tough on the causes of inequality.’ But he shows no understanding of what those causes are.
Bloody Hopeless!
Sorry I feel the opposite to you – these traits are exactly what make Dan attractive to labour loyalists like me – I want a proper leader someone who knows how to play the game to win
His focus gives people like me hope exactly where Corbyns wishy washy style leaves me totally unexcited and unable to have any confidence
I really hope that someone kicks our Corbyn soon and Labour is back to business!
I never thought New Labour was the Labour tradition
As a commentator I may be wrong
You are right about New Labour in my view; all they wanted to do was win Tory voters over to win power.
Dan Jarvis is a typical Blue Labourite; reading his speech, he has the rhetoric of social justice but no intellectual underpinning of it at all.
Like Tony Blair in fact.
Debbie, have you ever heard of the expression style over substance?
The current crop of conservatives “know how to play the game to win” and look at the state of our country and economy after 6 years of their ideology.
“Corbyn’s wishy-washy style”!!
Good grief, Debbie, have you been reading the same reports about the same Jeremy Corbyn as I have? The LAST thing you could call Jeremy Corbyn is “wishy washy”. This is the man they accuse of being “Hard Left” and “unwilling to compromise, the word not being in his lexicon”, and other such descriptions that are the polar opposite of “wishy washy”.
Alas, I fear that what you are really suffering (used advisedly) from is a severe attack of nostalgia for the failed “Messianism” of a Blair-style Leader, whose sole aim was “to win” (important, definitely, but must be a win for the right reason given that “to do the right thing for the wrong reason that, my Lord, is the greatest treason” – T S Eliot “Murder in the Cathedral”) and who purported to have the answers to everything if one would only follow him, irrespective of conscience and reason.
Anyone who effectively says ” don’t think, just do!”, as Blair did on his hostility for ideology , doesn’t get my vote or my support. By contrast, Jeremy Corbyn is saying “think, and then do accordingly”, which is why I support him, even though I didn’t vote for him.
As the great theoretician and educationalist, John Dewey said “In the end, theory is the most practical of things”, because theory shapes and informs practice. So I’m with Jeremy Corbyn and “think and then do!”, and not with Dan Jarvis and “don’t think and follow!”
I’m coming to this blog late having been otherwise engaged yesterday, but well done, Andrew, for this quote from Dewey. Since I became an academic I’ve become increasingly aware of the dominance in the UK (and US) of the anti theory (and by definition, anti-intellectual) movement. Interestingly, its cousin (as it were) is exactly the ‘take/keep politics out’ that sits at the centre of the thinking of the Dan Jarvis’s of the world. Like theory, politics are central to everything we do (and especially policy) so it’s amazing that a politician of all people can think otherwise.
I agree wholeheartedly Ivan
Saying this is either a deeply political act in itself, and very unattractive because of the connotations it has, or very stupid
There is little in between
Debbie,
I’m afraid that, while you are of course free to express your views, and Richard is polite enough to publish them, I am free to question your credentials. You are new to this blog so I cannot know anything more about you than this first comment.
You claim to be a labour loyalist, yet talk about playing the game, kicking out Corbyn, and getting back to business.
I am a labour loyalist too, and I value politics without game playing, respect for the democratically elected leader, and putting people before business.
If you are a troll, please go away. If you are not, then please explain why your version of loyalty so differs from mine.
Is winning at all costs what loyalty is about?
Thank you, Helen. I couldn’t have put it better.
“I want a proper leader someone who knows how to play the game to win”
While I understand the sentiment Debbie of wanting to win, especially in an electoral system designed for the semblance of multi-party politics but in reality maintaining a single establishment state. But do you not think Jarvis may be just the same type of man under the skin as Cameron-Blair and will quickly fall into the Tory trap of playing a game that is only made for a “one-team” ideology?
Strong men and women with loud voices will come and go, they’ll tell you whatever you want to hear to get their support then disappoint most of their supporters when it comes to the delivery (often because their belief structure and moral compass is fundamentally flawed).
In times of crisis it is new ideas that change the world, ideas that everyone can easily get their heads round and get behind. More of the same is not likely to get any different results in future.
He may be a good man and a strong man, but he had a chance to stand last year and chose not to – so why continue to tear Labour apart when they should all be focusing on the real issues affecting the people they are elected to represent?
Debbie- the Labour party has not been known as ‘Tory-Lite’ for nothing -what is the point of Labour ‘winning’ if it is not challenging the economic models that have got us to where we are?
let’s not forget:
It took Labour a year to decide to oppose the Bedroom Tax
Rachel Reeves was using the same welfare-bashing rhetoric as the Tories, albeit a ‘lite’ version.
Labour have let down the British People by NOT offering a different narrative-a narrative that is fully available.
Play the game to win?
What does that mean?
Having a trip to Australia in the Murdoch private jet to get the press on side?, and providing PFI schemes for the banks, and ending up with a fat salary from J P Morgan? Full of wishy washy platitudes while the gap between rich and poor trebled? Had the GFC on their watch due to having no proper governance over the banks?
OK they were not as vicious as the Tories, but they laid the path for them in many respects, instead of reversing the Thatcher era and making it more difficult.
I think you should take a closer look at the facts. Corbyn is the only incorruptible Labour leader for decades, with the exception of Miliband, who did not get into power. Corbyn is excellent at PMQs, and has an excellent socialist manifesto.
I gave Jeremy a punt last year and like the economic direction McDonnell is taking the party but Corbyn’s clearly not a leader and neither will he pull a rabbit out of the hat to reverse Labour’s dismal ratings. But it doesn’t matter if Jarvis or any other contender else doesn’t have PHD in economics, a leader is there to paint the landscape and inspire people to follow. And have the good judgement to appoint people cleverer than them to work out the detail. Jarvis might want to use the army boy stuff sparingly as John Kerry failed to salute his way to the Whitehouse against a draft dodger.
The militaristic doctrine drummed into him has him advocating a society of obedient little drones, never questioning, never complaining, just accepting the status quo as if it were etched into the very fabric of reality. Yuk.
It will also have taught him that you can’t win battles if you’re not a tight and unified organisation. Especially if you have a useless general that can’t win battles. And troops get dissatisfied very quickly when the stakes are high.
And this really infuriates me
“”They want to vote for a party that doesn’t just oppose the government. They want a party that beats the government.””
It’s the same shtick peddled by the candidates Corbyn beat easily during the leadership election; that rather than having a vision of your own and working to bring the public on board, you instead move so close to your opponent’s position as to make yourself barely distinguishable from them.
Exactly!
He is not the product of a public school, comprehensive, Welsh university. He opposes parts of the welfare bill that will harm the vulnerable. I have to agree with Debbie about the wishy washy style of Mr Corbyn, he does not instil confidence in me as a leader. Unfortunately though his heart is in the right place, more attack is needed. I may be proved wrong but I don’t consider him a Blairite. His military days are behind him but have probably given him mettle. I fear there will be upheaval and some bitterness, it is simmering still. Do I think you have to be macho to be a leader, no, he was the only person I thought fitted the bill, not impressed with the others. Sound like his campaign manager! So sadly, perhaps, more flack to fly.
Do I mean Flak, is that a military metaphor. Well Mr Jarvis had better have a good hide from most of the comments about him.
Jarvis has nothing new to offer, he is the past. Labour under Corbyn is the only hope for the future.
Its a shame labour have not got a politician amongst them who could lead our country, Jeremy Corbyn has no chance while he opposes the nuclear deterrent. The Tories are there For the taking if labour could only muster a leader who holds dear the social values of the left but at the same time understands the world we live in today. The country is crying out for change, we need someone who can deliver the message that will bring about change. We need a hybrid politician, one who believes in social values that transcend generations but at the same time is fiercely conservative in regards to family values. Respect, discipline, fairness, understanding that not all can achieve, but deserve a life whatever job they do.
As a nation we have lost site of traditional values, our family life needs bringing back to the forefront of politics
Sounds like John Major’s nostalgia for the 1950’s.
I think Richard’s review a little harsh. Jarvis has at least his heart in the right place. But I also agree he hasn’t the economic understanding to put forward a real radical plan.
To him the economy is like the weather and you might be able to forecast it within reason, but changing it is beyond the realms of possibility.
And in that respect his military background does not help him. He makes the very best of a bad situation but what he basically needs to do is mutiny. I doubt that comes easily.
I’ve employed ex military personnel who certainly can do this in a local and perhaps more limited context but it undoubtedly must be more difficult if you are thinking of the country — and probably pretty much King and Country.
So I like to think there is still hope…
Heart may indeed be in the right place, but Mr. Brain has long since departed
Is it my imagination or is there a bit more pro Jarvis trolling than you`d expect?
Given that it is obvious he is close to launching a bid to snatch the leadership (unless he bottles it as happened first time around) I suspect we’ll be seeing a lot of coordinated effort across traditional and social media to sell Jarvis as the man with not just a plan, but the right plan.
The trouble is this plan looks a long watt from the of the Courageous politician I decribe in The Courageous State
I voted for Corbyn but I accept that he has not challenged the myths and memes of this vile Government as yet. Given his economic advisers I can’t explain why he and McDonell haven’t got near to wiping the floor with the Tories on moral and economic grounds, all the theory is there, all the arguments are there (Richard has clearly laid out most of them)-it’s about time he metaphorically ‘laid out’ the Tories.
Is powder being kept dry? I’m beginning to doubt it and feel rather forlorn. More and more of our vulnerable citizens are being punished while the rentier is helped to further ill-gotten gains.
It would be easy to just come out and say what you’re against – if the meejah will allow you to. I believe that JC and JM want to do some more thinking and consulting before making positive proposals in the wake of condemnation of tory policies. Six months is not a long time when you consider where they started from. It’s better to get things right first time. John has already had to do a bit of back-tracking, which is very uncomfortable.
As argued on another thread it’s difficult to train your site’s on the enemy when a large proportion of your own side are openly plotting to stab you in the back and return to business as usual. Jarvis is is a member of Progress, a party within a party whose policy proposals are in reality little different from the new labour days that Jarvis pretends he is leaving behind.
The sheer self delusion of these lunatics begges belief. Do they really expect anyone to take them seriously as a democratic party when the script is to mount a leadership challange and not allow the current leader to stand because the PLP declare themselves more democratic than its own membership?
Good luck with that wheeze. It will split the party at a time when the Conservative and Unionist Party are themselves risking splits over the EC, make the party look anti democratic and lose sufficient votes to save the Tory Government. The level of puerile self indulgence is off the scale here and someone needs to take these wassocks (that is a Barnsley phrase) for a walk in the park.
The buck always stops with the leader, if Corbyn hasn’t persuaded MPs to fall in line or learned how to put together a press team to outfox the Tory press who’s fault is that?
Corbyn or anyone inside or outside of the PLP are never ever going to persuade the remnants of the Blairite cult, endorsed by Thatcher and her acolytes, of entryists of anything which contradicts the failed political ideology they have invested their psyche in. As Jarvis’s has clearly demonstrated they don’t do joined up thinking and they don’t want us ordinary plebs to do any joined up thinking. A patronising approach which has not only been a disaster for them in Scotland but also one from which they are incapable of learning.
They would rather spend time sitting with Tory press briefing and plotting like schoolboys trying to ape the Bullington crowd, undermining their own party leadership demonstrating they’ve got the mardy’s on because they cannot get their own way. As Jarvis’s should know, no army can function effectively when a section of its cadre are actively and deliberately undermining it because they long ago went over to the other side.
All the talent in the world is not going to outfox the Tory press when that level of backstabbing and plotting is taking place. Corbyn’s only failing here is in being reasonable with this puerile rabble rather than opening up the process for deselection in the way in which Blair did and from which so many of this cult have benefitted. One can only suspect that he is giving them sufficient rope to hang themselves with. And to be frank, on this showing, it’s obviously working.
@Simon- the reason the Labour leadership hasn’t wiped the floor with the government and challenged their myths is because they don’t know how to. McDonnell and Corbyn’s hearts are undoubtedly in the right place, and i think that is a vast improvement on what has gone before. But it’s not enough.
Dan Jarvis is a dial up politician in a broadband world. Mouthing empty platitudes won’t cut it anymore with progressive voters. 40 years ago he would’ve been a natural one nation Tory – that’s sadly how far the political spectrum has shifted, aided and abetted by the Labour party themselves unfortunately.
I think last summer a line was drawn in the sand for many many people on the left, especially in England, as they can see that Scotland has almost certainly gone forever and the days of Labour majority governments have gone with it. We have nothing to lose now – chasing Tory votes like Dan would have us do (post leadership election of course – pre-leadership election he’s Wolfie Smith) will inevitably shift the political compass even further to the right – a futile exercise if ever there was one. Why not just vote Conservative and have done with it ?
The truth is, the Labour benches are bereft of anybody with the talent, intellect, moral authority, communication skills and compassion to take the party where we want it to go.
It’s going to be 2025 at the earliest before a coalition government is possible.
I believe i am a realist, but i also have hope and i am optimistic – ‘the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice’. The current system is predicated on moving money and power from poor people to capital. There isn’t much more to give on that front, so when that particular avenue is exhausted they will move on to the middle classes, and that process has already started to rear its head, neatly encapsulated in the contract dispute with junior doctors. The Conservatives will go too far eventually, because they’re Conservatives and they can’t help themselves, and enough people will come to their senses and they’ll be hated again and out of power for a very long time. The question is what replaces them when the moment comes?
i agree with Jeff and Dave -as far as I’m concerned the Labour Party needs to rebuild and jettison the ‘duffers’ that have let millions of people down by not grasping a new narrative. Corbyn and McDonnel though need to get some mythbusting out there soon as McDonell, even now, is coming out with variations on the ‘books must be balanced’ theme as if he’s still offering sop’s to the press.
It’s about time Labour started telling the press to go to hell whilst explaining clearly why the press is scamming the public and why we’ve got a one party state with the parties offering insubstantial variations of each other. Not an easy job but the work has to begin sometime and we can’t wait for years for the whole party to reconstitute itself.
If, as Jeff says, it’s a case of Corbyn and McDonell ‘not knowing’ then we’ve got to wait until the Tories push their bullshit so far that light bulbs in crania start going on -that could take years of suffering, wasted lives, the young sacrificed on the alter of the rentier-but it might take that.
I’m hugely frustrated at the lack of Corbyn attack, but I suspect that a) it is taking some time to recast and formulate well thought out policies and McDonnell’s financial speech today indicates economic policy is now ready b) Corbyn and friends are having to fight so hard against the majority of Labout MPs who will loudly rubbish any new policy in the press / media.
Re Jarvis and the army, many years ago under Thatcher there was a time when they felt that what NHS hospitals needed was ex army officers to lead them – it was a total disaster.
Unfortunately when I posted this on Facebook the title came out as Dab Jarvis…
Typo in the original…sorry
I deleted, copied url again, but still shows error.
URL is unchanged
The text changed
Afraid the error is still there. I know from our Labour Land Campaign website that there is a mystery as to how to change the text which appears on Facebook!
It will always be there in the URL
It isn’t there in the headline
I hope this is not a repost but Corbyn is certainly drawing the crowds:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/corbyn-has-been-drawing-1000-strong-crowds-in-underprivileged-ex-mining-communities-but-theyre-poor-a6917096.html
but it gets little publicity and I’m inclined to suggest we should complain to the BBC about this. Their ‘news’ would make it mainstream.
‘The trouble is he never got enough pips to get to HQ by the look of it’.
He had a HQ job with KFOR, before going on to be a Company OC on ops.
What have you done in your life that beats that, Richard?
Changed some significant parts of the dialogue on world taxation
I heard Dan Jarvis speak at a hustings in Barnsley during the 2015 election campaign. First impression was that he is an poor public speaker. The audience of largely sympathetic Labour supporters rapidly tired of his platitudes and avoidance of giving a straight answer to any question, be it on Iraq or economic policy. He was defeated in debate by an old Trotskyist lecturer and a young lad who put the Green case clearly and passionately. He was slightly better than the Tory who didn’t bother to turn up.
Friends in Sheffield who are LP members recently attended and invitational dinner in which Jarvis was the “star” speaker. He only took written questions which were filleted of any contentious issues. One of the accepted questions was “do you prefer dogs or cats?” Both friends, from the left and centre of the party, agreed that it was a really poor performance.
Although Jarvis, a former vice president of Progress , is now a little more critical of New Labour policies in an unspecified way, at heart he remains wedded to the neoliberal world view and has no remedies for an economic system that promotes greater inequality and the privatisation of remaining state assets including the NHS. I doubt that many Labour Party members would support either him or his policies, if he could ever bring himself to articulate any.
One point to bear in mind apropos Mr Jarvis’ military background giving ‘kudos’ – unless his rank was of an NCO, his experience of military life will be significantly different to those who served under him. A situation that exists all too often in life and politics in the UK.
A site called, I think, They work for you.com tells you how MP’s vote. Had a look at how Mr Jarvis voted, out of interest. Worth a look.
I would not vote for Labour until I see more of the real Corbyn at the head of things and less of the destructive contrariness I see in those in the party who do not accept him as a bona fide leader.
But what I really want Real Labour to do is to mobilise and lead the other party’s in opposition to deal with this most dangerous and gleefully destructive Governments in living memory. I’m sick of these rich play boys having fun at our expense.
Real Labour needs to work in coalition now – that is the big lesson from 2010.
If even Corbyn hasn’t got his head around that yet, then he will not get my vote.
That’s a tough one to navigate just before Scottish elections. JC has already indicated that he wants to work with SNP and Greens, but he’d be wise to hold back on further comment until June.
The thing one has to remember about the Dan Jarvis “phenomenon”, such as it is, is that at least 75% of the publicity he is getting as a so-called “leader-in-waiting” comes from the Guardian and in particular, a handful of Blairite Guardian columnists. He means very little outside that Guardianista bubble, and it’s a symptom of the weakness of the Labour right that their hopes are coalescing round a largely untried backbencher with seemingly very few ideas about policy that aren’t recycled from the last 5 years’ back issues of “Progress” magazine. This really is complete puffball stuff and I predict all the fuss about Jarvis will evaporate within 3 months.
According to his about me page, Jarvis had 4 postings to HQ jobs.
You really do not get it, do you?
I see you made front page of the Morning Star: http://morningstaronline.co.uk/a-5b9d-Back-Off-on-Leadership-Bid,-Jarvis#.VuK7U_gaTIU.
I was a little surprised
Now that’s something to highlight on your CV! promotion possibilities vastly enhanced!