No, they have always been the party of the elite. They pander to the "bread and circuses" crowd because they'd never get elected otherwise.
The ingress into politics has a vicious filter that works against working class people. I've been in the Labour Party and seen it in action. The tories have a native contempt for them too. It is a pretty grim thing that only the left most constituencies choose to field candidates whose lives are recognisable to the average person: Nadia Whittome is a great example of that.
I the Labour party were more like they were in 1983 I would vote for them! Not to the extent of abolishing the secret services, maybe, but definitely more control.
I there has also been a change of mindset. Politicians (correctly) recognize that these people are the experts, but they seem to forget that their job is to weight up these opinions, ask questions, consult other experts, and apply the subjective judgements required to make trade offs (in this case security against privacy).
Same, it was a good era of Labour policy, regardless of what people say.
I don't think "experts" are always what they're cracked up to be. Partisan writers funded by anonymous third parties etc try to put themselves on a par with eg, university professors. Both groups like to ignore people's actual experiences too, preferring abstraction that misses key things.
Ultimately experts can't answer the question of what a good society looks like. Their job is to make it happen - if they're intellectually honest enough to try even when they don't agree with the starting point the politicians and electorate come up with.
The ingress into politics has a vicious filter that works against working class people. I've been in the Labour Party and seen it in action. The tories have a native contempt for them too. It is a pretty grim thing that only the left most constituencies choose to field candidates whose lives are recognisable to the average person: Nadia Whittome is a great example of that.