I disagree, GreyKitten. A significant proportion of the poorest 10% are single mothers and their children. Just think, for a minute, about their needs & you can see Labour's manifesto does address many of those.
Then think about what drives women and children into the position of being in the poorest 10% - it's often a narrative of background deprivation, beak-up with other parent, caring responsibilities impacting in employment, poor housing, then health and mental health issues.
Surprisingly common is the narrative of high-needs child, NHS and social care cut-backs, impossibility of combining that with employment, all adding up to further health and MH issues, relationship breakdowns, being absolutely hammered by UC 5 week wait, bedroom tax, limitations of 2 children rule on benefits, poor housing, caring now devolved to mother.
You can see that much of the Labour manifesto addresses all that as well as meeting needs of other sectors of siciety.
I think it also shows how many of us need the social care net to be cast further and be less thin.
So many of us need cheaper and more secure housing. So many of us suffer from poor MH provision and an under-funded NHS. So many of us are stretched so thin, we cannot carry the extra weight of a purely individual approach to care.
So many of us would be helped by a less ubiquitous system of redistribution of profits. This squeezing from us of every drop of our labour, with so very little in return for most of us, just cannot go on. It has to change.
So it's no surprise that the Labour manifesto has much in it that appeals to the middle class - who really are a precariat. For a lot of us, things really are just a few steps away from being pretty damn desperate.
All it takes, often, is illness or a relationship break-up and we're swiftly amongst the poorest 10%.
And, in London, I think it's closer than that.
So I think Rory Stewart is a bit wrong with that.
I would also suggest that it is precisely because Labour does openly talk about policies aimed at the poorest that it loses some votes amongst the not-so-poor, who see it as giving free money to the feckless benefit scroungesrs.
Which is a shame.