YOU HAVE TO HAND IT TO HIM...

This programme seems reasonable.

Looking at his proposals individually...

Why would you call a wage you can't live on a "living wage"? And why should the taxpayer subsidise employers who refuse to pay enough to live on? Corporate welfare, while they tear welfare away from the sick and the poor.

Why do big companies get away with not paying tax? So that government ministers can secure lucrative directorships after they get their seat in the Lords? If not ...why else?

Austerity takes money out of the system. Usually money that would have been spent, not stashed away in a Jersey bank account or a British Virgin Islands trust fund. It doesn't work. In any case it's only austerity for some. I don't see Charlie Windsor Saxe Coberg on the bus! His income has gone up, as has his mother's. 

Investing in infrastructure has many advantages. Firstly you are improving the infrastructure... (and heaven knows, it needs it). You're building new bridges, better roads, faster communications, 21st century railways (fuelled by electricity, not diesel), less congestion, better internet speeds... 

And then it provides jobs. These things don't just happen. People have to design them, build them, conveyance the contracts, sell the workers tea and bacon rolls... These people earn money; mostly they spend that money and create other jobs which in turn...well you know. And all the material has to come from somewhere, be shipped and transported. That's all work.

It's a joke that some parts of the UK the average wage does not cover the cost of renting a modest home. Why are we paying out benefits to landlords for excessive rents, sometimes from slum properties? More corporate welfare. But then, ask yourself how many MPs and Lords are landlords.

I'm not advocating taxing people who are making a modest but decent salary. Most of them, in Britain, have student debt and mortgage debt not to mention credit card debt already and struggle. 

But when people earn really high salaries I see no reason why, on that part of their salary that is over around 6 times the national wage, they should not pay 50% of it in tax. That won't make them poor. Their kids won't go without. In any case many will just give themselves another pay rise.

Some organisations can be run by private companies, but essentials should be owned by the people. Utter necessities must be under the control of the elected government, even if private companies have minority shares in them. 

Water, Electricity, Gas for starters. Then let's look at the Post Office, telecommunications, the railways. And there should be no private ownership of the health service or for the services of the Department of Work and Pensions. It's madness.

We're not endorsing the Labour Party here. At least we would NEVER endorse the the bunch of numpties they have in Scotland. But Corbyn's people have some good ideas for the 90% to take back the country from the 10%.