What is Smithism? This is not an idle question. The relentless onslaught of policy from Owen Smith in his campaign for the Labour leadership is worth reflecting on. It is not simply that it is in stark contrast to nearly a year of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. A year in which we have become used to jeremiads against the things which are wrong with the country—but with nothing more practical as a conclusion than an assertion that “it must change.” Nor that it feels very different from last year’s leadership election—can anyone remember a single policy promoted by any of Corbyn’s opponents? I certainly can’t.

The fact is that it feels as though we have travelled back in time to a previous era—the moment in the 1890s/1900s when the modern Labour Party was being formed. That was a time of speeches and pamphleteering—a battle of ideas that to this day define the form, the values and the ideology of Labour. In those days, Smith would have published his policies as a pamphlet or as a series of essays in a newspaper. Today they come in the form of a sheet of paper shared rapidly on social media. The contribution is similar however—intellectual and ideological. And it is entirely appropriate—this is a battle between two competing strands of left-wing thinking. At the turn of the last century it was syndicalism that opposed a parliamentary approach, now the alternative is labelled a “social movement.”

So, what do Owen Smith’s “Twenty Theses” tell us? First and foremost that Smith understands that only the soft left can defeat the ultra-left. In the middle of the adulation of Jeremy Corbyn—at his rallies and on social media—it is sometimes hard to remember that there is a political project at the heart of Corbynism. The mixture of hopeful projection on the part of his supporters—Corbyn is the solution to whatever specific social or economic problem they are concerned about—and his carefully cultivated status as victim obscures this. But the lack of political ideas projected by Corbyn is not down to the fact that he doesn’t have them—it is down to the fact that he has always had them. When you hold the same views today as you did in the 70s there is no need for a speech or a policy announcement; your views are self-evident, at least to yourself. Anti-American, anti-West, anti-business.

Tackling this is very difficult: the views are clear but evanescent. Hard to nail down and therefore hard to defeat. Never expressed, but always understood.

At his worst, Owen Smith confronts Jeremy Corbyn directly. Saying either: I am left-wing, like Corbyn, but practical and can get things done. Or, I am not like Corbyn—I want to win elections. The problem with this approach is that it puts Corbyn front and centre, which is what he wants, because the thing that Corbynistas want most of all is Corbyn. Talking about Jeremy just reminds them of that fact and they stick closer to him.

At his best, Smith acknowledges those whose discontent with the present impels them to support Corbyn but uses it as a point to jump off to the future where he frames a policy choice. Defining the future makes this a debate about what kind of country you want to live in. Implicitly this forces acceptance of the proposition of “electability” as a valid metric—what is the point of wanting these things if you are never in a position to do them? And, it also, allows Corbyn to be subtly defined as the past.

Take Smith’s policy on the NHS: increasing funding by four per cent a year in real terms. In practical terms that is about the amount that the NHS needs, but the important thing is the question it prompts—how can he pay for that? See, we are already talking about the future. The answer comes: a wealth tax on the one per cent, the restoration of the 50p higher band of income tax and reversing (or not implementing) proposed Tory cuts in corporation tax. But does that make a politically sellable package? Once again, we are back to the how of a political programme not the why. Owen Smith has reframed the exam question to his own advantage.

Go through the full list of 200 policies and the same thing happens with each. Smith has essentially produced a list of talking point policies and they are doing their job. Getting us talking, but within a frame in which he wins, because the underlying assumptions favour him. This may not, in the end, be enough to defeat the emotion that powers the Corbyn surge but it is an approach that contests not merely the leadership but the battle terrain itself. The challenge to Corbyn to debate head-to-head is a bold move to contest the framing of the debate and win over support. If Smith can get those debates and find an emotional appeal about the future that matches his policies, then he is in with a chance.