More unreasonable criticism arose because detailed answers have not yet emerged to such problems as "employment rights", graduates` employment prospects and "life chances of children in inner-city schools taught by an endless string of supply teachers". The Observer, however, is well aware that Corbyn`s Labour is totally opposed to the Tories` Trade Union Bill, will support any attempts to increase social mobility, and favours returning more powers over education to local authorities. Instead of condemning the government`s housing strategies, which have led to most young people being either priced out of ownership[, or exploited in the rental sector, the editorial complained of Labour lacking a coherent policy, when it is quite clear already that a Corbyn-led administration would introduce more regulation of Rachman-like practices, and build more social housing.
Corbyn`s Labour is even attacked for failing to solve the problem of "the growing influence of Islamic State", as if the rest of the world`s powers, who have faced the issue for a number of years, have any answers, other than bombing!
If the Observer really does oppose increased privatisation in the health service and elsewhere, is against austerity measures which hit the most vulnerable the hardest and the richest not a jot, and supports taking action which will reduce inequality and tax avoidance, and increase social mobility, why does it continually criticise a leader of the Opposition who actually is developing policies along these very lines? It doesn`t make sense!