I don’t even think it’s always as simple as benefits everyone / benefits the rich / benefits whoever.
I think most of us have experienced being chased down the street by a Chugger saying something like “but don’t you CARE about deaf children / monkeys / cancer” and for most of us the answer isn’t “no, I don’t give a shit,” it’s that “other things in my life are more important.”
We are able to apply this logic to charity quite easily. Most people who have any sort of standing donation choose the issues that are most important to them, usually (not always but I’d say in nine out of ten cases) something with a personal link. No one has an issue with this and on the contrary it’s often seen as both sensible and compassionate.
When electing a government similar principles tend to apply whether people realise it or not. So emotive rhetoric doesn’t work then either. You can say to someone ‘but don’t you CARE children go hungry under the Tory government’ but truth is it will have little impact for two reasons. One, because while Labour might handle it differently it still isn’t the personal responsibility of the person you’re shouting at and two, their answer is probably yes - but other things are more important to me at this moment in time.
For my part, I look back over the Blair/Brown years and I simply don’t see a utopia. I think they brought some good things in, such as the minimum wage, and I think that had a positive impact on the country as a whole. Other things may have appeared, in the short term, to have made positive changes. However, twenty years down the line perhaps they didn’t. Some will disagree of course: it largely depends on your own perception and your own beliefs.
Some parts of The North might be deprived, but deprived might not mean quite what you think it does. I spent the weekend in a frightfully posh place in rural Hampshire. It had beautiful country cottages and private schools on every corner and was quite the delight. Coming back to the grim north 
I can see perhaps if you contrast the two it’s easy to see deprivation and poverty. But it isn’t that simple.
I would say the typical voter who changed from labour to Tory is not someone living in a back room huddled over a gas fire and eating bread and dripping while his wife and children collect food parcels, their hollow eyes longing for a better life 
They probably live in a small house, but it’s clean: tacky by mn standards of course. They will spend a lot of money on a pram when they have their babies because that’s a status symbol. Children of the same sex are often dressed in identical clothing for the same reason (no hand me downs.) Smoking is far more common (and that’s not cheap.) What I’m trying to convey here is that class differences are almost like cultural differences: different diet and different way of doing things and different celebrations: even though ostensibly we might all celebrate Christmas there will be different ways of doing things.
These people are not helpless infants: on the contrary, they are often quite proud and sneer at the idea of accepting hand me downs, second hand clothes, food parcels.
Traditionally, Labour was the party for the working man. Labour fought long and hard for some rights at work and so they fucking should. Think back to the days when people lost hands, arms, lives in factories, mines and mills. Labour swung from this circa 1997. There’s no fight for the working man or woman because actually they hold the working man or woman in contempt. Public sector workers yes - union dependent. Mix of low pay and benefits or solely reliant on benefits - yes, a generous welfare system perpetuating poverty. A system where your average prole isn’t elevated to the middle classes via a worthless degree but is actually supported and respected in his or her working class home and job? Pffffffft.
And some of you dare call them thick for wanting something else? Well. I say YOU’RE thick!