It was Blairism which repositioned Labour towards free market liberalism. It then coopted American identity politics due to the influx of younger members in the late 2010s and that is the unholy Labour 'movement' we have now.
It doesn't really reflect the concerns of working classes anywhere in the UK and the middle classes pay lip service to it cos it benefits them career wise.
One really significant aspect of this (which has attracted barely any notice) is that the Labour party adopted the "compensate the losers" strategy from the Democrats in the US. Basically, the concept was that there was little point in fighting against free market liberalism, so you would, instead, use the wealth it created to compensate the working classes for their growing marginalisation. This was, for instance, the driver behind tax credits and the like, rather than a policy which would focus on jobs, driving up wages, and so on. High immigration might actually drive wages down, but, if people were underemployed, and received benefits to ensure they could have a decent life, what could possibly go wrong?
Everything. Everything went wrong.
The thing is, people want jobs, and they want to be able to subsist on their own wages without benefits, and like communities (and don't necessarily want to live in a big city, without any connection with place), and want opportunities for their children, which don't necessarily require a postgraduate degree, or going overseas to work. Most of the population of Britain have very straightforward desires, which are not only not served by the major political parties, but are often dismissed as outdated, or even problematic. And then politicians and the media wonder why the support of radical parties is on the increase.