Quick summary of what Corbynomics seems to be about...

A certain level of deficit is affordable. It has become almost impossible to make this argument. Journalists and commentators know that it's true but they seem to be pre-programmed to howl it down. Corbyn et al seem for the moment to consider that it's best to leave that argument alone. 

Instead, they are pointing out that the underlying question of Who pays for that deficit? is a better one to make. As we know, the Tories have made a political decision to get the unpaid and the low paid to pay for it, and for all of us to have worse public services to pay for it too. Meanwhile, the super-rich have made a killing. (both sides of this equation have been admitted a) by Clegg when he 'apologised' to the low paid) b) by the Telegraph when it said the quantitative easing had enabled the rich 'to make a killing' (their words).

So, Corbyn et al, appear to be saying that they will do other things to deal with this deficit: find the non-tax payers, (100 billion?), not renew Trident (100 billion?), use Quantitative Easing to finance council housing and railways (stimulates steel, concrete, glass etc production, creates employment, increases tax yield for government), increase tax take from super-rich. 

This argument would, they think (I'm guessing) put the journalist-politico deficit mob on the back foot because they would have to argue against this on the basis that it's bad for rich people and good for poor people???!!!!