Charlatan?

As I watched Owen Smith on the television this evening the word that came to my mind was “charlatan”.

I voted for Jeremy Corbyn last year, but in the light of all the criticisms from his PLP colleagues, I was prepared to listen to the arguments of his opponent with an open mind.  I was sadly disappointed.

Smith’s primary argument, to which he kept returning, seemed to be that he is electable but Corbyn isn’t.  A classic case of “begging the question” (in the proper sense of that expression).   I found his repeated attempts to shift the topic on to “electability” disingenuous.  In particular his claim that he is the “unity candidate” rang hollow.  He accused Corbyn of being incapable of leading the 176 Labour MPs who had voted for a motion of no confidence.  But whose fault is that?  

I also questioned Smith’s attempt to position himself as a left wing candidate.  If that is really true, why is he supported by the majority of the PLP?  And if he were to be elected would the PLP allow him to continue to be a tribune of the left?

I was most irritated by the exchange on alleged anti-semitism in the Labour Party.  Unfortunately, neither candidate pointed out the obvious distinction between anti-semitism and anti-zionism  (You are actually allowed to criticise the government of Israel and its illegal occupation of Palestine).  But I was particularly disgusted by Smith’s attempt to smear Corbyn with the statement that allegations of anti-semitism in the Labour Party had only occurred in the last 9 months.  Smith needs to ask himself who is making these allegations and why.  Any way, he got roundly and deservedly booed for this attempted smear.

So I shall vote for Corbyn again.  Not because he is a charismatic personality or a “Great Leader”, but because of his record over many years of consistently calling it right – on Iraq, on austerity and welfare cuts, on repealing anti-trade union laws – and much more.  I shall also vote for him because he represents principle rather than expediency – the view that you argue for what you believe in (even if it initially appears to be unpopular) rather than adjust your policies to pander to the prejudices of uninformed swing voters in marginal constituencies.