First, he turned out, on seeing him, not to be at all like the extreme Lefty loony portrayed by the media; and many of us hate the media trying to brain wash us when we see the truth.

Second, many of us who feel the Establishment globally has screwed up wanted a change. That's a reason Trump and Macron got votes.

Third; Jeremy talked great sense. Whilst right wingers screamed the usual "where's the money going to come from?" cliches, Corbyn provided the answers - taxation - a small increase in the tax on the wealthy and corporations, most of which could easily afford it and some of whom actually felt it was a good idea. Very few before have dared speak such a dangerous concept out loud, fearing losing votes and - more worryingly - taxes as those hit went abroad.

But these days a small increase would probably not lose many money makers but would increase the Treasury a lot.

And increase borrowing.

It has become conventional wisdom that we must cut back national debt but why? If it means the poor are less poor, the NHS works better, benefits increase, schools are better, police improve, prison conditions improve, many would say - borrow and hope to pay back in the future. Austerity seems to be failing; why? Because "we are cutting back our international debt" is starting to feel like a bad idea when you're starving or hurting or raising uneducated kids.

I think those are essentially the three reasons for Jeremy's deserved success. He has adapted the extreme left ideas to be more acceptable in modern society. Yes; his reasoned and calm approach was also attractive; whilst robot May was howling hatred at Jeremy, he refused (and still refuses) to go personal. Yes; nationalisation is a dodgy concept but many whose experiences of railway strikes under private ownership think things could only get better.

I've always said there is a lot of good in the concept of communism, but a lot wrong in the extreme version. Jeremy and John seem to have borrowed the best and abandoned the worst.