Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Dan Jarvis – the ex-army officer who is betting favourite t
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Dan Jarvis – the ex-army officer who is betting favourite to succeed Mr. Corbyn
Latest next LAB leader odds from Bet365 http://t.co/nGjI2GQUaV
Ex-army officer, Dan Jarvis, the favourite pic.twitter.com/H5N871x2GE
0
Comments
'Better than any the Tories have lined up.'
Why ?
Tempted to lay the favourite on this one, I think a change of leader is 5 years away.
Mark Reckless doesn't count. He'll have got lost looking for Wales.
Admittedly anyone who can stand upright, walk and chew gum at the same time will be an improvement on the current lot.
Being a good bad or indifferent soldier has no bearing on politics whatsoever.
I think I'll write a thread on it in due course.
Or that they don't want to exchange baby-eaters wearing blue rosettes for baby-eaters wearing red rosettes (as they see it, rightly or wrongly).
When queries were made as to how many “moderate” Syrian rebels were now in the field as a result of the new $500m US training programme, the general gulped, shifted uncomfortably in his seat, and devastatingly answered “four or five.”
That is the pathetic state of the White House’s strategy on Syria.
==========
The failour of the Obama middle east strategy writ large.
If they think an imperfect Labour government is truly no different than the evil Tories, then they would have left Labour long ago when the baby-eaters were in the ascendancy for 15 years. No, that does not seem credible to me - I could understand that belief, but could man of the people, man of principle, Jeremy Corbyn, have remained in Labour if they were not merely misguided and misdirected, but no different to the Tories? Clearly they think Labour were better, even if the ones at the top and many policies were terrible, in which case it should be preferable to evil Tories.
I've heard arguments that Obama supplied arms and training to the rebels to insulate himself from the charge that he was doing nothing and would have to commit ground troops. If you support doing nothing, as that article does, he's certainly closer to that than an invasion.
The next election is going to be about Labour remaining a major and vaguely unified party. Benn is probably the only one who could hope to succeed in stopping them from breaking up. And he won't find it easy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34377443
America's efforts have not been very good and the harsh reality is that it will take 2 years to train a proper army and if it has no will to fight it is money and time wasted.
Which Member of the UN Security Council are you?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/hayesbrown/mostly-model-un-nerds-will-take-this-quiz?utm_term=.gtzQVveZD#.vsbPD2VW9
I got the UK.
I think him as leader would be even funnier than Corbyn.
I agree he is the obvious choice for a "Michael Howard" type leader if one is needed, though. He's dull but he's one of the few Labour people who just has the indefinable "gravitas".
One plausible explanation is that despite the number of good planets out there, such advanced societies are very rare. In the path from Earth-like planet->conditions for life->simple life->complex life->civilization->advanced civilization->space-faring civilization there is a some sort of filter that screens out most planets from developing such a thing.
Maybe the formation of self-replicating organisms is actually an incredibly rare event despite the number of worlds. Maybe life is common place in the galaxy, but it is an evolutionary freak event for it to become advanced enough to create societies. Maybe advanced societies discover some secret to particle physics that creates weapons that inevitably cause them to wipe themselves out. Somewhere along the line this Great Filter exists, that knocks out most habitable planets from fulfilling their potential.
If we're lucky, this Great Filter lies behind us. We've already passed it and there are few like us in the galaxy. If we're unlucky, this Great Filter is in front of us, and we're probably doomed as a species.
The more we learn that the various steps along the chain behind us are actually common (e.g. that planets often have liquid water), the less likely the Great Filter is behind us and the more likely it's in front of us and will kill us all at some point. Thus the discovery of water on Mars could be the worst news we've ever found out as a species.
Tbh, if we had spent half the money on a modern equivalent of the Foreign Legion with retired ex soldiers we would be in a vastly better position.
A tremendous tribute to DC. Oddly, it will make his govt poorer, not better.
" Thanks to Ed Miliband's stupid energy policies and the idiocy of the coalition in not repealing them it looks like all energy intensive industries are going bankrupt in the UK. We still need the steel and aluminium, and production of both is very energy intensive and has a high level of emissions. All we are doing is shifting the emissions to China and India along with the jobs. Our need for steel and aluminium hasn't gone away now that we don't produce the stuff, just the jobs and skills.
Ed Miliband and Ed Davey need to answer for this, so does Osborne who should have pushed the anti-green agenda harder from 2010-2015. "
Note also that the chance of restarting production of heavy industry once it is lost will be extremely low.
Thus the UK will permanently increase its trade deficit in these products.
Not good when the balance of payments is already at record levels of deficit.
Why are we upset about this? We ARE the electorate. It's like certain of the less intelligent amongst us complaining when an MP frequently defies the whip and calling them 'serially disloyal' - this is a problem for party whips and leaders, it's GOOD for the actual people who elected the MP. A party being true to what it believes is a GOOD thing. If that doesn't result in a majority, what's the actual problem?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andy-burnham-would-make-the-best-labour-leader-but-chuka-umunna-would-have-won-party-the-next-10255977.html
Has he said or done anything since becoming a Labour MP which justifies all the ramping ?
I can remember when Eric Joyce was bigged up as a possible future Labour leader because he was an ex army officer as well.
If they want to be true to a set of beliefs even if that means they will never get to implement any of those beliefs, rather than perhaps implement a few, then that's fine by me, and I hope the guys who win do an ok job getting on with governing, it only annoys me if they pretend the alternative to their ideological consistency (supposed consistency at any rate) which will probably (though not certainly) prevent them from winning, is some evil force that must be stopped at all costs.
Clearly it isn't if it is not worth paying a price to achieve. The two strands of their argument (Consistency at any price, and Tories are evil), do not work together. So personally I think they should tone down the language (not at conference, that's for the party faithful to hear whatever nonsense they want, it's about the only place an echo chamber is expected), either on Tories or the importance of never modulating their position. I assume they'll do the latter, if not as much as the last labour leaders would have done.
The 'problem' as you term it, is that to me at any rate such talk makes them look like hypocrites or idiots, who either do compromise to win but pretend they don't, or don't see that saying the Tories are super evil sh*tbags who are still not worth making the slightest compromise to stop, makes no sense.
It's easy to fix, as I'm sure they will, by appearing more flexible than the more rabid Corbynistas present.
http://ianssmart.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/mortgage-fraud.html?m=1
Your argument is like saying that people who don't like Alton Towers would have no sympathy for those kids who got injured when one of those rides broke down a few months ago.
Interesting I see that the LD vote barely went down in 2015, although it had gone down a lot in 2010 from a high in 2005. Though I think we know what the result would be in the current climate. If there is a bubble at the moment, it isn't bursting yet, and we know who the more dedicated ones to come out for a by-election would probably be.
If we want to import all our steel, aluminium, chemicals, cement, oil etc we will need to find extra things we can export to pay for them.
Any suggestions ?
Perhaps our world leading bankers, multicultural outreach co-ordinators, estate agents and hand carwashers ?
All he has is a bloky name and a rather disrurbing likeness to Mandelson.
Probably tilted by the "drink lots" answer
1. Whether the Conservatives win the next GE will largely depend on the state of the economy, (and how the EU referendum goes). but in all likelihood they can win again, if they do that give 10 years for the main opposition to change.
2. The long-term (even inter-generational) allegiances to political parties are on a long term decline. while Labour can now depend on 25-30% regardless this number is likely to decline, possibly rapidly.
3. New (or revived) movements have never found it so easy to flourish, partly thanks to social media, if your a good salesman hits the right note at the right time you can grow in popularity and organisation much quicker than ever before. e.g. rise of the SNP.
4. Trade Unions, slowly declining in size for a generations, for underlining socio-economic reasons, will probably shrink rapidly over the next 5 years, because of the trade union bill.
5. Trade unions ability to support the Labour party finically will be especially hard hit by the Bill.
6. The currant hard left LP is not going to apple to anybody outside the Hard Left, at least not unless the economy crashes. but with so many Hard Left now in the party and consolidating there positions and power, in a few years it may be to late to remove them or for anybody moderate to win the leadership of the party.
7. The Trotskyist new joiners have a reputation for infighting, and there is no reason to think this will wane, making the party look irrevocably split.
In the past a party could wate until the pendulum swung back in its favour, this time I'm not so shore, I just don't know who the next official opposition or new government will be?
In fact I already am !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=o0HY68sWI9c
Fair points on Labour wanting to increase taxation; public spending and the last Labour gov't spending too little.
But there's been QE under Osborne's watch, so is saying Labour would print money a little errm...
DJ on AQ (not _that_ AQ) was pretty yebbut nobut wrt Jezza.
Although he was certainly otherwise vaguely sensible and sounded human. Which today is saying something in the Labour Party.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/28/labour-conference-refuseniks
The "unelectable" Corbyn was closer to Osborne in the "best PM" YouGov question last week, than Miliband was ever close to Cameron....
Vale of exports = vale of import, the amount of bits of paper with the Queens head on that we send abroad will equal the number that come back here.
If one year we imported more than we exported, then the values of the Pound would go down, and with that, all of are potential exports would become cheaper in the rest of the would, making them rise, and all imports would become slightly more expensive, meaning we would by less, until eventually the two balance out.
The import/export statistics are meaningless, if you add up all woulds' exports and imports it looks like we have a $900 billion deficit to the moon, (or something around that)
This is nothing but an excuse for politicians & bureaucrats to interfere in industrial policy! Playing with things that they do not understand.
Working in an exporting business I can say we get feck all help from government but an ever increasing overhead burden of rules, regulations and costs. This is irrespective of which political party is in power.
The problem with Thomson is not that she has acted unlawfully. It is to do with the moral implications of an individual involved in the distress purchase market being an MP for a social democratic party.
Of course, the Scottish Government runs a distress purchase scheme themselves under Mortgage to Rent and Mortgage to Shared Equity. What will be important for Thomson is whether the tenancies she offers are secure or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_West_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Blair and Cameron both became PM on a bland policy free platform. To this day I'm still not sure what either Blair or Cameron really believe. I know Osborne is a liberal with a side of fiscal conservatism and Brown was just a nutter, but after so many years I don't know what the former two believe in. Quite an achievement given my level of interest in politics.
Basically, not having any policy isn't really a bad thing if you can pull off the bland, "I'm not a threat" look like both Dave and Tone. Ed couldn't do the blank sheet of paper because he was weird, Dan doesn't seem to be weird and his background as a family man with a military past and strong values will certainly not hinder him.