Skidelsky et al just cannot get away from the idea that "infrastructure" is "good". Somehow the politicians are best judges of productive investment. Never mind that the EZ collapse is littered with unproductive infrastructure, nor that Japan and China are suffering from the same disease.

Most development/infrastructure banks have a lousy record. They favor the establishment, are influenced by politicians into backing silly projects, and the good projects could have been financed anyway.

Skidelsky never stops to ask if we may have entered a very different economic world where simply borrowing to restart growth is not a long term plan. Simply changing the funding mechanism doesn't change anything - just putting lipstick on the pig. As for redirecting tax benefits to support infrastructure, that is a tax increase. Far better would be to remove those tax benefits and subsidies , lower tax rates and continue to pressure for higher wages as well as plan for the future by making people save for their retirement.

PS. UK governments spent 30 years trying to boost the North with infrastructure and NIB style lending. The result was an even worse mess than might have emerged from a moderate policy of help to adjust. As for infrastructure what exactly does he have in mind? Where is the glaring deficit? It would be nice to HS3 built sooner but beyond that? (Corbyn hasnt been a loud support of HS2 which is a necessary precursor).