Lisa's point is women on the left who hold gatekeeping positions of power in the media enabled austerity.
Her point is that they sanitised austerity and helped to hide it from view of the middle classes, who don't see it in their everyday lives.
They didn't report issues relevant to the left and betrayed the principles of the left in the process. They 'sold out' working class women for the sake of their jobs and power instead of standing up and screaming about the injustices that they were facing as a direct result of austerity. Instead the narrative of 'the undeserving poor' or the 'benefits scroungers' went relatively unchallenged and was legitimised in the process, even by the left wing media. This affected the attitude of those who would otherwise normally have been sympathetic to the cause.
I think she has a point. There are a lot of middle class people I know who regarded 2010 - 2015 as brilliant. They were completely untouched by austerity. The thing is, I suspect many would have been utterly horrified to know the reality if it had been in their face day after day and it had been explicit about the injustice of austerity and that would have changed political narratives a great deal. A lot of the shit hitting the fan in the last couple of years - Grenfell and Windrush being two of the biggest stories - has utterly shattered that and left people disgusted. But these are just the latest issues which are a consequence of austerity being ignored by the media for years.
Instead Labour has continued to support austerity as part of Popularism even under Corbyn. At the last General election the Labour Party manifesto offer LESS to the lowest income households than the Liberal Democrats. Instead it focused simply punishing those on more than £80,000. Think about that. That's not how it's played out in the media and in popular belief but it's what analysis of the manifestos revealed. No one has challenged it - including women on the left in the party. I think Lisa would argue that's because too many are middle class themselves and unaware of what's really going on, on the ground.
At the last election Labour wanted to give less than the Lib Dem because they were pandering to a particular section in society - those working and struggling to make ends meet who believed that those on benefits were a drain on society. Why? Because this group vote but those who are right at the bottom don't. Because they don't care about the principles they say they hold, and promoting the value of them and overall benefit to society. Instead they think populism and identity politics are a better short cut to power and to hell with the damage that causes in the process. Plus there was a sense of not wanting to damage middle class position and interest.
The point being that even if the left are not in power, they still have the ability to hold the government to account and make austerity as a policy unpopular and force the government to change its approach. The opposition is not without power - it has a different kind of power. Corbyn's Labour Party has repeatedly abdicated this responsibility.
Personally I don't think it's fair to blame women here. I don't see why Owen 'don't call them chavs' Jones wasn't able to call out the same thing. Men and women have been equally culpable. But I guess women having more to lose is why Lisa directs anger at women because it exposed women more without them realising.