Corbyn wins by default in first Labour leadership debate, Smith needs to be clearer: what makes him a better leader?

Jeremy Corbyn faced his challenger Owen Smith for the first time at the Cardiff Hustings on Thursday night. Photograph: Corbyn speaking in Manchester in October 2015.

Last night, Cardiff hosted the first hustings of the Labour leadership contest. Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Smith took to the stage to answer the write in questions and debate one another on their positions. The debate itself didn't offer much separation between the two candidates, a task made particularly difficult when they continuously agreed with each other all night.

The first question of the night was perhaps the most poignant. Are you the candidate Theresa May least wants to face at an election?

Owen Smith opened the night, saying he believed that Labour needed to offer a more vigorous opposition. But he wasn't particularly clear how he'd offer that. Corbyn defended his work so far, saying he had changed PMQs, to end the 'public school theatre' and bring PM under more public scrutiny - using methods like questions from the public.

However, Smith pointed to the low polling numbers that Labour have posted in the past month to say the party has fallen behind under Corbyn's leadership. Corbyn responded by stressing all the progress the party has made, winning at the local elections, and turns the point on its head to says that the fall in the polls was caused by MPs resignations that have disunified the party and damaged its image.

Smith seemed to take that as a personal slight saying hadn't been part of any coup and instead went to Corbyn looking for a way forward, but was disillusioned by his answers. Smith emphasises that he is running to prevent the party from splitting, that he wants unity, but Corbyn simply asks when then did he quit the Shadow Cabinet?

The audience had been fairly controlled up until this point, reserving just small applause for the answers they agreed with. However, it didn't take long for tensions to rise. When the subject party disunity arose, it was Owen Smith who bore the brunt of heckling, although he handled it well.

Corbyn responded to Smith's interpretation of events, saying that Smith cannot deny that his #ShadowCabinet reached out well beyond his own ideological positions - clear a call from Corbyn beyond the audience out to MPs to recognise that it is they that needs to meet him halfway.

The current leader made repeated reference, to highlight the fact, to how he has worked with others across the party, in particular Owen Smith himself, to fight the Tories. He also took a slight stab at Smith, saying he was glad to see the party in harmony on policy, as Owen Smith's policy announcements were all previously announced Corbyn & McDonnell policies.

Smith took the opportunity to suggest that Corbyn was very much in the back seat on those issues, like welfare, on which he was the true leader. He used lots of "I" and "me", saying "It was me" that took on the Tories on Welfare. Corbyn's response to that was short and crisp: "It was your job".

Next up where back-to-back questions on economics for the candidates. First: What is your Industrial Strategy for making UK competitive?

Corbyn pitched his National Infrastructure Bank and how it might stimulate and rebuild the British economy - investing in education, to develop skills, and investing in well paying jobs. He stressed that it would be British workers skills & innovation that would make the UK a global competitor.

Smith called for reindustrialisation. He pointed to Germany as an example that the Thatcherite, and he admits Labour, policy of deindustrialising the UK was wrong. He argued that the UK could return to being an industrial and manufacturing centre that can provide good jobs and can still compete globally.

The second part of the economic double-header was to ask the candidates what they will do to show voters the party was fiscally credible.

Corbyn says the simple key to credibility was to spend sensibly, starting with smart public investment. As an example he points to the madness of pouring money into the hands of private landlords through housing benefit rather than addressing the core problem by building more social housing.

Smith said, categorically that Tory austerity has failed, having promised not to leave debts to our grandchildren and instead doubling the national debt. He stresses that the anti-austerity position, with public investment, is real path to credibility.

He infers, but doesn't actually say, a line he has been trying out recently - ditching the language of protest, of being against, as in anti-austerity, in favour of a positive position, as in pro-prosperity.

Both candidates comment on their similar pitch and emphasise their agreement. But Owen Smith returns to main question, which he hammers ever more as the evening goes on: who is the candidate most likely to convince the voters of these ideas in the key constituencies like Nuneaton?

The only matter on which the two took truly separate positions on the night was on trident. Corbyn received a big ovation for his opposition to Trident renewal. Corbyn stance was clear, that barbaric nuclear weapons offer no solution to the security concerns of the modern day and diminish our international standing.

Smith made the case to the room for multilateral disarmament. Smith argued that none of the 'great powers', amongst whom he sits the UK, is listening to, and following the example of, those who disarm unilaterally.

Smith said that he felt unilateralism was idealistic but naive. That unilateral disarmament put aside responsibility to lead the campaign for global disarmament - for which it was necessary to go the table with something in hand. For his part, Smith was clear that this was simply a difference of opinion, with room for different views.

The candidates fell back into agreement on immigration, both agreeing that it was positive and arguing that the pressures that people feel it is applying were the result of poor support for local government. For both the answer was proper local funding and local investment.

Smith and Corbyn also agreed that putting limits or caps on immigration are not the solution. Smith added that Tories proved that putting finite numbers on immigration doesn't work, while Corbyn argued that the humanitarian way to manage European migration was to work on getting conditions more equal across Europe.

The next question, on anti-Semitism in the party, raised tensions in the room significantly. Corbyn calmly laid out the measured steps he had taken as the leader to combat it, his position even coming with a note of caution to his opponent to respect due process, as Smith said he would take a zero tolerance stance.

Smith then got a poor reaction when he repeated his previously made claim that anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is a thing that has only happened and risen in the last year. Corbyn was markedly calm, stating in a measured way that many cases were much older and pre-dated his leadership.

While Smith tried to back down slightly, saying he didn't personally blame Corbyn, the audience didn't respond well. However, Smith then tried to turn the point, attempting to equate the hostile atmosphere in the room, with the hostility within the party, with the issue of anti-Semitism and a fall in the civility of party's internal dialogue.

If there was any point on which Smith clearly lost last night, then this was it. He looked every bit the candidate of MPs, rather than members, looking graceless as he tried to pin anti-Semitism to his opponent and petulant as he tried to pin it to those heckling him.

That brought the hustings to its final two questions. The penultimate was: How will you ensure that the third woman Prime Minister is from Labour rather than the Conservatives?

The host very particularly challenged both candidates. Corbyn was to be responsible for handling party misogyny, a responsibility he accepted. But Smith was more damagingly called specifically to address accusation of his own personal misogyny.

Smith said his positions would show his support for women. He also stressed that any plans to make a difference for women ultimately needed Labour in power, in government. Corbyn was clearer, saying glass ceilings needed to be tackled even at the roots in education, with encouragement for women to go into the sciences, technology and business, and then supported on their way up through legislation that ends social and workplace discrimination.

Finally, the candidates were asked what they would do for Wales? Both Corbyn and Smith answer that more funding is justified, but Smith adds - as was quickly becoming his tag line -  that the best thing for Wales is having Labour in power.

By the end Smith had repeatedly and overwhelmingly stressed the line, pretty much the key element of the Labour Right philosophy, that Labour has to be in government, has to have power, as soon as possible. When asked about making a difference for women, he said the answer was Labour in power. Asked what can be done for Wales, the answer was Labour in power.

That theme carried into the closing statements. Smith said the UK was in crisis and the answer was a Labour government - and he would take party back to power. Corbyn argued that Labour not only can win, but are - pointing to the mayoral victories at the local elections in may. He said the way to win was to mobilise & enthuse people by presenting a real alternative.

In this first debate, neither candidate did anything decisive to put themselves clear. But the reality of the leadership race weighs more heavily on Owen Smith, who needs to prove himself to be clearly the better leader than Corbyn. Otherwise, what would be the point of changing leader?

Last night, Owen Smith focussed heavily on the need to get Labour into Power. But he didn't say enough about how to get there and or it is that makes him the candidate who'll get the party there.

In an honestly close debate, Corbyn nonetheless wins by default for that one simple reason: Owen Smith didn't do the one thing he had to, which was show or tell why he is a better leader than Corbyn.

Never mind policy, never mind showing Corbyn's supporters that he can represent them as well as MPs. If Owen Smith wants to be the next Labour leader, he has to decisively show the skills and planning that clearly marks out his distinct path, from where Labour are now, to Labour in government.

Around the World: Renzi, Last Man Standing

Matteo Renzi, Prime Minister of Italy, speaking at a university in October 2015. Photograph: Matteo Renzi a San Giobbe by the Università Ca' Foscari Venezia (License) (Cropped)

In Italy, the Left-Right dynamic that emerged over the last two decades finally seemed to have broken in favour of the Left. Silvio Berlusconi's powerful populist Centre-Right groupings lost ground at the 2013 elections and have struggled in the polls since - falling below even the anti-establishment party Movimento 5 Stella (M5S).

Meanwhile, polling had put the party of the Centre-Left, Partito Democratico, consistently ahead as the only party with a truly national mandate. Even despite having had three separate leaders since the election, Pierluigi Bersani, Enrico Letta and now Matteo Renzi, the Democratici have remained the only stabilising force in Italy's political mainstream.

Matteo Renzi, as leader of the Democrats, is the centre point for what little stability remains. Yet he has staked it all on winning a controversial constitutional referendum - with opposition to be found in all corners of Italian politics - making the plebiscite a vote of confidence in his continued leadership and job as Prime Minister (Politi, 2016).

If that were not enough, on top of Renzi's struggle to change the political and electoral systems, he also faces a battle with the European Union over the rules regarding how he can tackle Italy's National banking crisis (Sanderson & Alex Barker, 2016) - a crisis which, if it where ever to fully unravel, would dwarf the chaos into which Greece has been plunged.

Italy's major national banks are drained of funds, burdened by impossible debts - €400bn in bad loans - and need recapitalisation. EU rules say, however, that the government cannot buy out the banks of their debt (Guerrera et al, 2016), despite support for the policy from the European Central Bank (Jones, 2016), unless the burden falls first on investors.

But in Italy that is all but impossible. The largest share of the debts now weigh heavily upon its citizens, thanks to retail bond and investment schemes. That state of affairs has already caused tragedies, when problems at regional banks led to suicides after families lost hundreds of thousands in savings (Poggioli, 2016).

To force creditors to take the burden is to invite the collapse of Italy's biggest banks and destroy the lives of and impoverish its people. Renzi has expressed his intention to defy the EU and save Italy's banking sector, to protect particularly the country's ordinary savers.

Renzi's government also has ambitious and extensive welfare plans in the works to help those in poverty. Intended to begin in September, after a significant trial period, a programme would extend support for hundreds of thousands of families with children living in poverty, covering a million people to €320/month (Conte, 2016).

The €750mn/year investment, to be doubled as the programme goes forward is conditional on meeting educational and job searching objectives, to spread the governments aim of increasing 'income inclusion'. But it could make a massive difference for the most vulnerable.

But future action depends upon Renzi and the mandate of the Democrats surviving the referendum, which looks to be taking place in increasingly heated circumstances. Anti-establishment and anti-European sentiment seem to be rising hand in hand. The banking crisis and the intransigence of European institutions is not helping. It's no big surprise then that September's vote is being touted as the next big turning point for the future of European institutions after Greece and Brexit.

In that toxic atmosphere, Renzi has staked his efforts against his own position - not the Prime Minister's first act of brinkmanship as he tries to reorganise Italy, having made a similar move to pass same-sex unions (BBC, 2016). But the move stakes more than just his own career on the vote: Renzi is virtually the last man standing in the Italian political arena.

The Democrats are internally divided (La Repubblica, 2016) and only the anti-establishment, anti-elite and Eurosceptic populists M5S, who sit with UKIP in the European Parliament, have something approaching the national mandate to take over.

Making the matter personal by making it a vote on Renzi as well is a dangerous move, not least in this political climate - as former President Giorgio Napolitano stressed (Politi, 2016). It clouds motivations, particularly when Renzi is the central figurehead of the establishment, pushing through reforms that are each time controversial to some large group - from labour reforms (BBC, 2014) to same-sex unions, to the banking crisis currently unfolding - and likely only to feed anti-establishment populism.

Europe finds itself now, once more, with a crisis on it hands. The only leader with a modicum of a mandate is risking his position and the country's stability each time he tries to push through a reform. And yet even as Renzi takes on that task, he finds himself also pressured by the EU that would force him to act punitively against citizens by nullifying their investment savings.

The institutional rules themselves are in essence intended as pro-market anti-trust regulations, aimed at preventing state-corporate collusion, as a bulwark against corruption. For progressives - who want to see an open Europe where all parts cooperate in mutual support for the common good - to see them deployed to prevent the state from performing its basic duty to the people is disappointing.

If Renzi falls, Italy risks falling back into political paralysis, much as Spain has been by its electoral deadlocks. The fact so much has come to rest on the career of one politician should be a disconcerting warning to Europe of the need to find stable ground for all of its member states. Yet at present, Europe institutions seems unwilling or unable to respond positively. Europe's present system of legal authority without sufficient democratic accountability has alienated.

Reform is needed. The need is pressing to argue the case against the flaws of the present system and for the building of a better one. The Democrats were elected in Italy on the slogan 'Bene Comune' - the Common Good. It is long overdue time to start rebuilding Europe under the same words.

Around the World: The Trump Insurgency

Donald Trump chose the Republican Elephant as the mount for his insurgent populist campaign that has ridden the divisive politics of the far-right deep into the American political system.

With the two main parties having settled - which might be an almost too painfully apt expression - on their respective candidates, it is now established who will stand, and for what they will stand, in the 2016 US Presidential Election.

Hillary Clinton will face Donald Trump - but only on the surface will it be a contest between Democrat and Republican. Beneath the party façade the Presidential race reflects a struggle that is a clear pattern emerging across the Western world, seen clearly in most of the recent elections in Europe, between the mistrusted mainstream and a Far Right insurgency.

Whether it was the Brexit referendum or the French regional elections, in this time of crisis progressives have found themselves having to wrestle with a difficult proposition: whether to oppose an imperfect mainstream at the risk of inviting in the Far Right, or to stand with the hated establishment, itself struggling for legitimacy against authoritarianism and sectarianism.

In the US, Bernie Sanders and his supporters tried to capture control of the mainstream Democrats so that the Left might lead from the front. Having failed, they're now left struggling with what to do in the face of Trump's mirrored insurgency succeeding in its capture of the rival Republicans. Despite Sanders' endorsement of Hillary, many of his supporters remain unconvinced.

Trump's insurgency has increased the sense of urgency, if not yet panic, across the Centre and Left. With no hint of irony, despite the hyperbole, even moderate commentators are expressing genuine fears for the future of American democracy (Finchelstein, 2016; Noah, 2016; Collier, 2016) - perhaps a part of which is an attempt to motivate the Left to fall in behind Hillary by stressing the seriousness of the fight ahead.

Political sensibility suggests that moderacy will ultimately win out - that Trump will eventually, whatever his rhetoric, have to bow to political realism. But that sensibility is cold comfort.

The most dangerous thing Trump has done is to force the coalescence of a constituency, previously scattered and with no common identity, that is persuaded by and supportive of authoritarian values (Taub, 2016). Trump himself, whatever his reactionary verbiage, is less of a concern than what this organised political movement, given common identity, might yet be used to accomplish.

The Republicans, the Grand Old Party (GOP), had already been through the long slow process, from Lincoln's time onwards, of coming under conservative control. But since the 1960s, conservatives have decisively consolidated their control over the party - including inviting the influx of Southern Democrats spurned by the embrace of the civil rights movement by the Democrats.

The consolidation definitively moved the GOP away from the Republicanism of Lincoln toward something more resembling the Republicanism of Jefferson - a parochial populist anti-establishment, or rather anti-elite, politics, with a strict and restrictive adherence to the constitution. Recent decades saw that combined with a sectarian Nativism and a politicised Evangelism.

What Trump has now rallied about the Republican Party is support for a popular authoritarianism able to cut across the distinctions, separating members of the coalition headed 'Republican', with a methodology: signified by a language that is brash, abrasive and often violent.

It is not surprising in the face of Trump's rhetoric that people have drawn connections between him and fascism. The theme of violence against others, against opponents, violence and conflict as decisive social positives, was a crucial tenet of fascism and has been inherited by its more 'democratic' successor populism (Finchelstein, 2016).

The Left and Centre getting behind the mainstream to oppose the rise of these violent ideologies is only the first step. Defeating it at one election is not the end of the matter. It does not address the reasons why people would seek out an abrasive, anti-establishment, anti-elite, strongman leader in the first place. The concerns of those voters must be understood, contextualised and addressed with positive solutions.

The angry, authoritarian-supporting, voters who would back a man like Donald Trump are not the enemies of progressives. For the most part they're victims of economic conditions, looking with misguided hope to strength and might for deliverance. The job of progressives is to extend a hand, show a better way to build a society and to expose the Far-Right programme for the fraud it is.