It’s a failure of analysis Paul. The Labour right, locked inside both ideological distortion and reliance on focus groups and other superficial survey data, think that the loss of seats like the ‘red wall’ was down to the Brexit and Corbyn factors - but mainly Brexit since even the most purblind politician has to nod to the huge pro-Labour swing under Corbyn in 2017.
Trouble is, this analysis doesn’t fit the facts (which do not include focus-group and opinion-survey results, since there is plentiful evidence that in these situations people frequently repeat what hey have heard in the media, not what they really feel). In fact, the loss of these seats is just a step in a long-term decline in the Labour vote in most of these places, ultimately shaped by long-term economic changes.
Labour support here was shaped by workplace politics - but as Piketty memorably demonstrated, capital has shifted from entrepreneurs to rentiers - recently abetted by quantitative easing etc - moving exploitation out of the workplace into finance: debt, rents, etc. So the former industrial seats have been changed by a double-whammy: loss of workplace labour organisation and movement of exploitation from collective into personal finance arrangements. In this context - capitalism now - the older debt-free home-owner even if they used to be a miner or whatever, is not at the sharp end of exploitation - but the 20-something child of a teacher might well be.
Piketty’s analysis absolutely implies the radicalisation of new, especially younger populations, and de-radicalisation of the older comparatively asset-rich, whatever their roots. But since the Labour right can’t see this, they think they will achieve popularity by aligning themselves with superficial focus-group opinions on relatively ephemeral issues like brexit.