Why Dan Jarvis’s appointment as Defence Secretary is sending a rumble of discontent through his constituency of Barnsley North - Jayne Dowle
Considering his distinguished military service and proven ability to hold public office without a sniff of malfeasance, it’s probably right that Barnsley North MP Dan Jarvis is the right man for the job of Defence Secretary.
However, his elevation to the Cabinet from the post of security minister is sending a rumble of discontent through his constituency of Barnsley North, especially coming so quickly after the new battalion of Reform UK councillors took control of Barnsley town hall at May’s local elections.
“Thanks Dan, that’s an open door to Reform UK at the next general election”, as one Labour-supporting friend who lives in the constituency put it. On local social media forums others have been harsh, “Starmer’s yes man” perhaps being the more polite end of comments.
Putting his country first, stepping up to the plate, all that derring do stuff, will come naturally to Jarvis, a former Parachute Regiment officer who served in Iraq and Afghanistan during his 15-year military career. It would be churlish to take that away from him.


However, there are plenty in Barnsley who will question his loyalty. Not to his country, certainly, nor to his commanding officer - in this case Starmer - but to his constituents and the town he represents in Parliament.
It is not rocket science to surmise that an MP elevated to one of the great offices of state will simply not have enough hours in the day (or night) to dedicate themselves totally to the concerns of their constituents.
However, once upon a time, it was possible to hold a very important job in government and also be a popular constituency MP, even in a town as demanding and outspoken as Barnsley.
The late Sir Roy Mason, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for three years during the 1970s, served as Labour member for the predecessor to what is now Barnsley North for 34 years, from his election in 1953 until his retirement ahead of the 1987 general election.
But these were different times. Mason, who went down the pit at 14, just before the Second World War, was a NUM branch official before going to Westminster. Born in the mining village of Royston, he was an old-fashioned Labour man through and through, living for decades within a stone’s throw of the town hall. Back then, it would have been inconceivable for anyone other than a politician of Mason’s ilk to represent Barnsley.
Now, however, we have Reform UK lining up its tanks on our lawns, or at least at any working men’s club prepared to sub leader Nigel Farage a pint. Any perceived weakness Jarvis has displayed - hailing originally from Nottinghamshire, living in a ‘posh’ village slightly outside his constituency, voting in favour of the cut to pensioners’ winter fuel allowance as soon as Labour came to power in 2024 - will be exploited.
At that General Election, although Jarvis held Barnsley North with a majority of 7,811 votes over Reform UK, an increase of more than 4,000 votes from the snap December 2019 General Election, this majority was around half of the 15,546 he secured in June 2017.
As recent years have taught us, nothing in politics can be taken for granted; many people who switched their vote from Labour to Reform UK at the local elections did so to protest at Starmer’s record as PM. Every Labour MP - some certainly more than others - knows that come the next General Election, and there may well be one along in a minute, there is a strong possibility they will be out.
The appointment of Jarvis - once touted as a potential Labour leader - follows the resignation of fellow South Yorkshire MP John Healey (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough), who left the Cabinet in a cloud of toxic dust thrown up by the Prime Minister’s apparent inability to secure enough funds to keep the country safe. Starmer’s offer of an extra £13.5bn in defence spending over four years just wouldn’t cut it, Healey argued.
Healey’s icy words to Starmer left no doubt of the danger underfunding defence measures leaves us in: “You have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats.”
The words ‘poisoned’ and ‘chalice’ spring to mind. Jarvis must tread very carefully indeed. If there really is no money for this long-awaited new defence plan, how will he appease armed forces leaders? It’s reported that defence officials working to make the numbers add up last week proposed delaying new investments in drones and artificial intelligence and cancelling reservist days and training exercises.
He has been given two weeks to work on the plan so it can be published in the week before the Nato summit in Ankara.
