Inking down numbers isn't sufficient for a rational argument; the reasoning needs to be sounds, and the Economist's is not just wrong but openly dishonest:

Britain, which cut almost 1m public-sector jobs in the previous parliament, would have been a cauldron of discontent. In fact voters’ satisfaction with public services rose.

Bait-and-switch. Britain is not just made up of voters. The poorest and least educated Britons are the ones who don't vote but the ones hardest hit by the cuts to public services. Ignoring them without a word means presenting a distorted view of the situation.

If you could create macroeconomic stability by bringing the Bank of England back under the government’s thumb, then Britain would not have spent the post-war decades lurching from politically engineered booms to post-election busts.

This is simply a literal non-sequitur, it doesn't make sense. We don't know if macroeconomic stability could be engineering by taking back control of the Bank of England because nobody has actually tried.

But scrapping university-tuition fees would be regressive and counterproductive. For proof, consider that in England more poor students go to university than when higher education was free, whereas in Scotland, whose devolved government has abolished tuition fees, universities are facing a funding crisis and attract no more poor students than they did.

Literally using the correlation-causation fallacy. Obviously tuition fees don't make more poor people enroll; more poor people enroll because of the availability of loans. But we don't need tuition fees to have loans or maintenance grants which, what a coincidence, Corbyn wants to bring back. Omitting both of these facts is, once again, dishonest.