Giles Fraser: Corbyn is a bit dull, and that is why he is going to win

What was the difference between them? Little on policy. Both agreed on the need for investment. Both agreed about jobs and rents and racism and the NHS. Yes, they clashed over Trident. And Corbyn wasn’t having much truck with Smith’s desire for a second referendum on Brexit. But the most evident difference between them was to do with their personalities. And here they are chalk and cheese.

Smith is all second-class PR polish. He has this irritating habit of overly using the name of the person he is talking to, as if to establish intimacy. But it has the opposite effect because it feels like he has read it in a book somewhere. He smiles to himself when he has made a good point. He loves those Today programme sentences that begin: “As I have said very clearly…”

He uses upspeak and deliberately introduces emotion and musicality in his voice. And he knows how to make it catch at just the right point. If he could make himself cry, I’m sure he would. The problem with Smith is that he comes across as so insufferably pleased with himself.

Linked to all of this is the question of trust. Smith’s big argument against Corbyn is that he has failed as a leader. That the parliamentary party is divided, that Labour is 14 points behind in the poll. But that’s a pretty rich accusation coming from one of the people who divided it. You can’t take part in a coup and then blame your betrayed leader for a lack of unity. “You walked away” jibed Corbyn. And he was right.

In contrast, Corbyn just doesn’t play those games. He sticks to his guns in an uncomplicated kind of way. He doesn’t speechify. And he is not interested in polish or the sartorial advice of David Cameron’s mum. In fact, he’s a little bit dull. And that’s precisely why he is going to win. Because he feels trustworthy. Yes, the Labour party has a long way to go to get back into power. But what it doesn’t need is the false stimulations of a former Viagra salesman.

Deborah Orr: A debate to demonstrate the party is at stalemate

If the Cardiff leadership debate had been conceived entirely to demonstrate that the party was at stalemate, then it would have looked exactly as it did. Two men stood on a platform, before a faint, purple, Union flag, agreeing that they wished to end unfairness and inequality all over the world, yet talking as if they hadn’t had any contact with the world for at least 40 years. The whole debate was so much like something from the 1970s that it was hard to believe it wasn’t some really terrible low-budget dramatic reenactment made for utterly inexplicable reasons.

The early part of the debate focused on the party’s internal divisions, as if that wasn’t precisely why the debate was happening at all. Jeremy Corbyn repeatedly asked Owen Smith why he had resigned from Corbyn’s shadow cabinet, as if he’d failed to grasp that Smith had had to do that, before he could reasonably have found himself on this particular stage on this particular evening, challenging Corbyn’s so-called leadership.

It would have been nice if Smith had offered a full and frank explanation, reminding Corbyn that he had only been on the leadership ballot last time around because many MPs had failed to understand that new leadership rules compelled them to nominate only those they would genuinely wish to serve under. But Corbyn knows that already. He knows lots of things he won’t admit he knows, like that he’ll never win a general election. Which Smith told him 6 billion times anyway.

There were occasional clashes over strategy. Jeremy Corbyn believes that you get a nuclear-free world by disarming first. Owen Smith believes that you get a nuclear free world by persuading everyone to give up their weapons at the same time as you. What next? The discovery of a passionate young artist called Peter Kennard?

Corbyn believes that Brexit should be accepted, and that Britain should take a leaf out of Norway’s book, changing nothing except any ability to have actual influence in Europe. Smith believes that Brexit should be resisted, because it will just end with the UK becoming a “bargain basement island off the continent of Europe.”

Which, confusingly, was Corbyn’s line, even though he seems determined to ensure that the left stands back, dreaming its dreams, enjoying its rallies, adoring Jeremy, while exactly that happens. A man who is arrogant about his modesty is a terrible thing. Unfortunately, Smith doesn’t seem that much less terrible. What a shower Labour has become.

Ellie Mae O’Hagan: All that will result from this is damage



You didn’t need to watch the first Labour leadership hustings to write an analysis of it. The whole thing went off exactly as one might expect. Owen Smith issued panicked warnings about Labour’s abysmal poll ratings, and extolled the virtues of pragmatism, government and winning elections. Jeremy Corbyn, on the other hand, condemned neoliberalism, and talked of delivering “real social justice”. Of course both candidates paid lip service to the arguments of the other one (“I want to win,” said Corbyn at one point, while Smith suggested austerity had failed), but ultimately their roles were set before the hustings began, and they played their parts accordingly.

Other well-established features of this contest were in play as well. Smith was the better communicator, but it was Corbyn who delighted the audience the most. A particularly telling moment was during a question on Trident, when Smith said he was in favour of multilateral nuclear disarmament and Corbyn was able to counter that he had been to anti-nuclear conferences across the world. For Labour members frustrated with former leaders reneging on promises, it was reassurance that at least with Corbyn you know exactly what you’re getting.



All of this predictability rather begs the question: what is even the point of this leadership contest? It’s no secret that those behind the Labour coup would not have chosen Owen Smith as their candidate, given the choice – and all the polls suggest Corbyn will easily win again. So can’t we skip the eight other hustings, reinstall Corbyn and move on? Labour was not doing well before this coup was set in motion, but now it’s in a catastrophic state. The actions of the Labour rebels have caused a lot of upset, set tempers running high, and now it looks as though all that will result is damage.

