Perhaps if the Observer stopped describing Cobyn as "hard left", and instead viewed the popular re-nationalisation of railways and energy as part of a long-term economic strategy to reduce the massive £93bn annual corporate welfare bill, and stressed how the regulation of private landlords would benefit millions of tenants and aspiring home-owners, as well as the economy in general, Corbyn`s proposals might be seen in a more sensible light. Increasing the income tax rates for the very rich should be seen as essential for the maintenance of the basic elements of our welfare state; insisting on higher levels of corporate tax simply puts the country on a more equal footing with our competitors; offering more than silly "smell the coffee" soundbites, to make individuals and companies pay their fair share of tax, appeals to all but the avoiders themselves.
As many top economists acknowledge, governments` support for trade unions can help reduce inequality, and improve productivity. Quantitative easing for banks to re-capitalise, to the tune of £375bn, was never seen, even though there was no kickstart given to the economy, as economic madness in 2009, so why should the press describe it as such now, when the aim is to pay for essential infrastructure projects? Does the middle ground not want to see increased social mobility? Is there general agreement that hedge funds in the City should be sold taxpayer-owned RBS shares for £1.1bn less than their value at any time, let alone at a time of austerity and belt-tightening?
As Will Hutton rightly concluded, "the prime minister and chancellor should beware", especially as the time is nearing when those suffering, because of Tory policies, will not only be Labour or non-voters!