No political party or individual politician is perfect or beyond reproach but guess what, nor are most people.
I don't like Boris and wouldn't have voted for him to lead his party, but his membership did just that. He is crass, a philanderer, and not half as funny as he thinks he is, but he has a reputation for surrounding himself with bright people, giving them a task and letting them do it, which makes him a whole lot better manager than those who micro-manage (who usually get swamped by the detail and end up unable to decide).
On the lying charge, I learnt as a writer in business that when the Chairman writes "We plan to do x" and shareholders ask about progress the following year, the reply is along the lines of, "Yes, it was the plan then but in between, y and z happened. Y was a great opportunity and has done well, and Z was a problem we needed to address urgently. X remains on our horizon and we continue to consider it a desirable medium-long term goal."
In real life, not every objective can be pursued simultaneously because there are other factors that force their way ahead of the queue or prevent progress.
I don't like Corbyn either, who is also a serial philanderer. He's not crass, but not funny and his ability to pick the right people and let them get on with it has given us D Abbott, J McDonnell et al, none of whom are very honest (tax rates) or competent (Diane's maths skills) and they are not cloaked in glory.
Reading both sets of policies, I conclude that while I don't accept either is uniformly appealing or realistic, I think the Tories have a better grasp of how the economy works.
From a CapX article about the pitfalls of renationalisation:
"The profit motive has raised billions of people out of poverty by encouraging innovation and ensuring finite resources are used productively. We live in a country where almost everyone can afford a shelter over their heads, food on the table and a phone with access to the world's information. [bits in between omitted] Downgrading the importance of profit removes the essential accountability between shareholders, whose investments are at risk, and corporate executives."
Of course there are thousands too many people living a precarious existence and finding themselves relatively strapped, and the help available inevitably has to be rationed out, ideally fairly, efficiently and compassionately. But the history of nationalised industry (losses in every year, appalling service from rail, electricity and telecoms, chosen because I know more about rail, energy and telecoms than post and steel hardly strikes me as grounds to bring it back wholesale. Governments and politicians are lousy stewards of public assets, and shareholders hold executives' feet to the fire more effectively, because everyone who is in a pension fund is sharing the risk. And that is most people in work.
Apologies if that was mangled.