THERE has been much mockery of ‘Corbynomics’, delivered with aloof and sneering attitudes by people who seem to take umbrage at anyone daring to challenge the awful and baffling consensus that austerity is the wise choice.

The policies of Jeremy Corbyn, the surprise frontrunner in the Labour leadership contest, are probably not without their minuses. And, while the SNP has railed against austerity, there is still an astonishingly widespread view in the UK that Osbornomics are sensible, with many people seemingly oblivious to years of evidence that the Chancellor’s policies are flawed.

Mr Corbyn’s policies have not been put to the test, and maybe they never will be tried out. There has been much chatter from inside and outside the Labour Party that Mr Corbyn will be unelectable. That remains to be seen.

Signs in the last General Election that many people were swayed by image and superficial presentation rather than substance may not bode well for Mr Corbyn. Nevertheless, the “unelectable” claims seem disrespectful to a man who is, much to his credit, at least putting across some alternative ideas about how to create a stronger and fairer economy.

In terms of his actual policies, there is perhaps understandable concern about proposals around printing central bank money to fund infrastructure projects.

Then again, while so-called “people’s quantitative easing” might have significant drawbacks and might not be required at this juncture, it does not seem any worse than the somewhat experimental £375 billion QE programme of bond-buying we have already had from the Bank of England.

The Bank admitted in the early days of QE that it did not know exactly what the transmission mechanisms would be for this programme, aimed at stimulating the economy and warding off deflation. There is now, however, a view that individuals and institutions in the financial sector have been key beneficiaries of QE. It is worth recalling that this was the sector that triggered the global financial crisis and ushered in the deep recession of 2008/09 through ill-judged speculative activity.

While “people’s QE” is clearly a matter for debate, Mr Corbyn also has some very good ideas.

You can hardly argue with the idea of a National Investment Bank, aimed at promoting upgrading of infrastructure and supporting innovation. And Mr Corbyn’s idea of funding this by re-directing resources currently poured into corporate tax breaks and subsidies seems well worth considering. After all, George Osborne’s very deep cuts in the main UK corporation tax rate have failed miserably to persuade businesses to invest to the extent required to ensure a balanced economic recovery.

That said, it would be important to ensure properly-targeted tax breaks for businesses committed to investment remained in place.

The Scottish Investment Bank has shown, on a small scale, what can be done to stimulate innovation by investing public money in growth firms. And Mr Corbyn’s focus on infrastructure investment is welcome, given the jobs created in construction phases and the continuing economic benefit from well-chosen projects.

While there has been much attention devoted to Mr Corbyn’s idea of women-only rail carriages, his idea of bringing train services back into public ownership should not be dismissed lightly. It also seems eminently possible, given you could take them back into taxpayer hands as franchises end.

The suggested re-nationalisation of electricity and gas companies, while not necessarily a bad idea, would probably be far more difficult to implement.

Public ownership, as shown in the past in the likes of Scotland’s electricity sector, allowed rational investment decisions to be taken for the long-term good of the country, not with an eye on immediate profits. And look at the shambles of Railtrack, when the railway infrastructure was in private ownership. Things seem to have been much smoother with the track back in public ownership, under Network Rail. And what about the various passenger rail franchise debacles?

Then there is the argument that benefits from assets that are state-owned remain wholly in the taxpayer’s pocket because there is no private sector player taking a profit.

It is worth observing that we have a curious situation, where overseas state-owned concerns are running privatised UK assets. EDF (Electricite de France) owns the UK’s nuclear power plants. And Abellio, the overseas arm of Dutch state-owned railway Nederlandse Spoorwegen, is now running ScotRail.

Turning from Mr Corbyn’s ideas to the policies pursued by Mr Osborne, what can we conclude?

We have had a belated, stuttering and unbalanced recovery, the composition of which has been bad for society.

Mr Osborne, in his March 2011 Budget, promised us “a Britain carried aloft by the march of the makers”. In the second quarter, the UK suffered another fall in manufacturing output. The makers are not marching. It is worth reiterating the point that the huge corporation tax cuts, a central plank of Conservative economic policy, appear to have failed to deliver.

The Conservatives might be crowing about the UK’s current growth rate, highlighting how impressive it appears relative to other nations in the Group of Seven leading industrialised nations.

But it is important to put this in context. The likes of the US and Germany returned to their pre-2008/09 recession levels of output much faster than the UK, as Mr Osborne’s austerity dragged down the economy.

What is evident is that Mr Osborne has a lamentable, short-sighted and damaging focus on spending and has failed to address the top line, in terms of what might be delivered in terms of tax revenues by sustainable growth.

In the last week, we have had a renewed focus on the Conservatives’ savage welfare cuts.

As well as being bad for society, the welfare cuts are ridiculous from an economic perspective. The economy needs all the demand it can get right now. Strathclyde University’s Fraser of Allander Institute has warned of the very direct effect of welfare cuts in sucking demand straight out of the economy, given most people on benefits have to spend all they have to live.

So how about some constructive criticism of Mr Osborne, rather than this baffling consensus that his austerity is just the kind of nasty-tasting medicine the country needs?

It tastes nasty for sure, but it is no kind of remedy at all.