I was discussing this yesterday with my fellow liberals, Rowntree.
Frankly, I think that although the central tenet is valid; that of representing those at the bottom, there aren't enough people down there anymore to build anything close to a parliamentary majority. Therefore, there aren't many votes in it.
Forty or fifty years ago the nation was polarised across class boundaries far more than today. Lifestyles for most have improved in leaps and bounds and will continue to do so as the decades pass, so those down there are left behind.
Also, and let's be blunt, the underclass, the Jeremy Kyle bunch, have never really shown much interest in anything beyond puff and tupping their own grandmothers. No votes there. I know the concept of the deserving and undeserving poor is controversial, but I think it exists. How do you filter one from the other without the deserving being hit?
When Osborne talked about people who stay at home with the curtains drawn while others work the reason it resonated was that many have experienced that. They haven't experienced the millionaires and billionaires taking the piss at the top, as some do. Those at the top and at the bottom who believe themselves beyond the basic rules of society need to be dealt with. Depending on where we stand in the political landscape neither grouping will ever be tackled to our satisfaction.