Response to Owen Smith in Oxford Labour leadership rally, 16 August 2016

Response to Owen Smith in Oxford Labour leadership rally, 16 August 2016

In general, it seems to me, I have no real reason to doubt that Owen Smith is sincere in what he says. Apart from Trident and the Snoopers Charter, his voting record is pretty good. As far as they go, the policies he espoused at the meeting yesterday will benefit society.

Smith's role as lobbyist for private pharmaceutical company Pfizer does not help his case as an NHS advocate; there again, who am I to throw stones: I work for a private college that has tax-reducing charity status (shame!), with top executives on six-figure salaries yet teachers on "flexible" (i.e. convenient for the employer) casual contracts, some struggling on intermittent work, earning far below the national average; likewise, some big-name actors do popcorn movies to finance independent films or I suppose just to keep in work.

Overall, although in socialist terms, Smith's policies are only mildly reformist, if he were the only candidate, I would think he could do some good and vote for him.

Smith in yesterday's meeting denied a contradiction between policies and power, claimed that with him, policies would not need to be sacrificed to win a general election. From his repeated insistence of the urgency of Labour getting into power ASAP, the danger is that he will adopt the Tony Blair excuse, which I bought into at the time, essentially that once in government, we can change the system from the inside, that the end justifies hobbling our policies, that to win elections, Labour must do what is necessary to get into government. To win general elections, we must appeal to the wider electorate. If it is assumed now that these are UKIP-attracted Little Englanders, to get them on board at the next GE, Labour will need to soften its social policies. Above all, Labour will need to present a set of "credible" economic policies, i.e. ones favourable to current invested interests of business, finance and wealthy property owners, otherwise the media and press will be used against us.

Jeremy Corbyn's campaign has given hope for much more radical, truly socialist changes in policy and that is what has brought so many, like me, (back) to the party. Would I be right in thinking that the argument that a radical socialist platform cannot win an election has not been tested in the UK for a very long while, e.g. since before Thatcher's reign?

I believe that if people really understand democratic socialism and how it benefits everyone, the vast majority of people, even quite a lot of ethically-minded people in privileged sectors, will vote for it.  (Take Emma Watson, feminist, for instance: in what world would she not vote for a fair society?) The current socio-economic system is not a meritocracy: as Owen Jones argues in "Chavs" (2011), people are not rich or poor because of individual merit but because of the system; removing a financial reward system (salaries, wages, bonuses) from productive activity would not cause people to become apathetic - beyond basic needs financial rewards function mainly as a convenient bragging-rights status-flagging system that could be substituted for a more acceptable social kudos-acquiring system. What social system is more ethically defendable than "from each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs"?

The challenge for us is how to get the message out there, in ubiquitous accessible persistent high-impact persuasive forms. Suggestions?