Would you give Labour a chance in 2020?

Surely the sun won't switch and jarvis doesn't seem to be a blairite.

Jarvis seems more right wing socially (more anti immigration) and protectionist economically, as well as being ex military which may well appeal more to the working class. It would certainly give Labour more chance of attracting UKIPy type voters, the stereotypical sun readers.

He may not get their support but papers like the Sun would not be able to play the anti-patriotism card they often do with Labour leaders.

Yeah I find that so silly why they always do that

every labour leader hates Britain lol

Will be interesting to see though anyway how the press endorse him if he ever becomes labour leader.

He'd also have the support of the PLP behind him and no links to unfavorable Islamic groups that Corbyn does.

Especially with the tories being disunited and not that popular themselves. Jarvis is nothing spectacular but he could give the tories quite a lot to think about.

Perhaps his policies on - you guessed it - expanding and strengthening our armed forces with a minimum of £2 bn a year, by taking the money spent on Trident and putting into troops on the ground. As a member of NATO, and an additional treaty with the US, we have hundreds of nuclear missiles already acting as a deterrent in the UK's favour. Cameron wants to spend £100 billion on new nukes when we effectively have more than enough anyway. Corbyn wants to spend £100 billion on strengthening the real armed forces. Not a last resort apocalypse-bringer big red button (because that's all it is - as soon as we start sending nukes out, you can pretty much kiss your arse beddy bye bye time!), but an immediate, measurable strength, an actual show of force and expansion of our military.

Problem with DJ is nobody knows much about to judge if he is good or not.

also are those things with corbyn even true?

No, the reason Trident is being replaced isn't because we need new nukes, it's because the current systems are soon to be obsolete, if we have obsolete systems for our nukes, then they are no longer a deterrent as they could be effectively countered.

I think Corbyn has involved himself with some very questionable Islamic groups. Calling Hamas 'friends' even in a diplomatic sense was not acceptable. It's okay to be left wing but he needs to further distance himself from certain groups.
Unlike Cameron's love of Saudi Arabia though, Corbyn doesn't have enough friends in the press to get away with it.

No doubt the media and the tory party over-exaggerate such links though, just like they did with the 'Corbyn not bowing', despite the fact he was the only party leader to stay behind after the service and speak to the veterans while Cameron and co went off for lunch. But that for some reason didn't make front page news...

However it doesn't really matter if they are true or not, people believe it. And perception is more important than reality.

Labour need a leader with no obvious baggage. I can't see any on Dan Jarvis. He's not some spectacular, Obama type candidate but he's solid, young, ex military and looks fairly normal. Decent speaker too.

Agreed. I think jarvis could be very effective. Could even see the sun supporting him.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Pretty much this. I can see i've rubbed off on you

Murdoch will support whoever he thinks will win, there's no real alliance or ideology behind his endorsements beyond that.

No, the reason Trident is being replaced isn't because we need new nukes, it's because the current systems are soon to be obsolete, if we have obsolete systems for our nukes, then they are no longer a deterrent as they could be effectively countered.

We don't need new systems. We already effectively have hundreds of nukes elsewhere, with perfectly up to date systems.

Aye. I think after the election I certainly got carried away (although I still didn't vote in the leadership election).
However, seeing what the tories are doing to local government, the NHS, the disabled, trade unions etc it's made me realise that even an 'impure' Labour is vastly more preferable to the tories.

I don't think Corbyn is bad man, he's not an extremist, Bin laden, britain hating anti-semite.
He's genuinely a lovely, honest and decent man, an excellent MP. But he's not fit to be party leader.

As I said, it doesn't matter what is true, what matters is perception and the perception on Corbyn at the moment is awful. I do think the press are hugely influential but you're right in that you need to play with the cards you are dealt, rather than complaining in vein for a new deck

If that means moving to the right on certain issues such as immigration and benefits, then perhaps its a price worth paying to oust the tories.

Not even somebody as cynical as me is all about PR, i think there does need to be an element of truth to proceedings, its simply that for the populist left and right issues are completely black or white (but will change reality to fit their perceptions) notice how people that backed ed miliband later complained he was 'tory-lite'.

what's hilarious/ rage-inducing is that for all of Corbyns/McDonnell bluster for change they've ultimately changed nothing apart from having a leader looked on far less favourably than Ed Miliband.



John McDonnell has today given a speech which copied parts of Liz Kendall's campaign material. Oh, and has put forward policies pretty much identical to Ed Ball's. Bloody Red Tory Traitor.

But hey, Jezza himself used a speech turned down by every leader since Blair and seemingly approved letting Damian Mcbride back into the party. Christ, that's like Cameron letting Coulson back in.

Corbyn is probably a nice guy, if hopelessly naive but the Corbynite 'Momentum' when you get down to it is essentially as hollow as New Labour, but unlike New Labour its not capable of winning elections.

Aye. I think after the election I certainly got carried away (although I still didn't vote in the leadership election).
However, seeing what the tories are doing to local government, the NHS, the disabled, trade unions etc it's made me realise that even an 'impure' Labour is vastly more preferable to the tories.

I don't think Corbyn is bad man, he's not an extremist, Bin laden, britain hating anti-semite.
He's genuinely a lovely, honest and decent man, an excellent MP. But he's not fit to be party leader.

As I said, it doesn't matter what is true, what matters is perception and the perception on Corbyn at the moment is awful. I do think the press are hugely influential but you're right in that you need to play with the cards you are dealt, rather than complaining in vein for a new deck

If that means moving to the right on certain issues such as immigration and benefits, then perhaps its a price worth paying to oust the tories.

Oh, and has put forward policies pretty much identical to Ed Ball's. Bloody Red Tory Traitor.

McDonnell has made a significant change to the “rules” followed both by Brown pre-2008 and devised by Ed Balls under the Ed Miliband leadership. His are the first set of fiscal rules that include a contingency plan for severe crisis.

Thus McDonnell is the first Labour Treasury chief in a generation to recognise that, in a period of acute stagnation or financial collapse, fiscal and monetary policy become fused.

If you cut rates to zero and have to print money there is a clear fiscal upside: the government can borrow at rates close to zero, or even negative interest rates. It gets a windfall if – as at present – the Bank of England passes interest on the bonds it holds straight back to the Treasury.

Wait are you a tory or labour supporter?

Im a tory hater, not necessarily a labour supporter.

Posted from TSR Mobile