weejockmcplop
Vital Champions League
I don't disagree with any of this tbh.I think the difference is that poor no longer means working class, it means under class. Poor no longer means a handful of industries dominated by trade unions. Poor no longer means socialist.
It's been a long time since the term working class was anything remotely resembling a homogeneous group.
Your link is telling - Blair enjoyed a far greater support than Corbyn from low income voters, and for that matter Thatcher resonated with them too. So middle of the road and far right politics can work.
The big issue is narrative. Blair had one, Thatcher had one, and for a brief moment it looked like Corbyn did but he threw it away with a muddled campaign, no charisma and like it or not a very middle class Guardianista agenda.
Poor means you can be right, left or central if you're offered hope and a believable path forward. Corbyn didn't have a working class socialist vision, he had a middle class socialist vision.
I think all the labels being used are out of date.
The inference was that poor people can't afford to think like socialists, so none of them do. To me that's just silly.