The core motivation is more or less correct, as is the base of the analysis: the political duopolies in the UK and US are a reflection of ruling class interests and preside over policies that pick your pocket.
But it is robbed of its essential political economic essence via an anemic look at history and politics, and the biggest indicator of this is that the only "solution" provided suggests a liberal policy outcome ("tax the rich") without any vehicle for doing so. You can also see how detached this is from the actusl mechanisms of struggle and geopolitics, as he describes your great-great grandparents as being poor and the only reason things got better was that people voted for taxing the rich and voting for the NIH, etc. Were the politicians of yore not beholden to ruling class interests? If not, why not? It is easy to say, "oh they just had different opinions" without questioning why they carried weight or why ruling class politicians would capitulate or why there were parties not fully aligned with the immediare interests of the ruling class that were permitted to exist. There was no discussion of colonialism or neocolonialism, imperialism, the primary source of differential wealth for the OECD countries. There was no discussion of the historical development of the welfare state and what powers were at play, the role played by labor, the role played by imperialists getting shamed by socialist-run countries and made to fear their iwn workers doing the same.
There was no real discussion of what Starmer and his faction represent, which is not "sensibilism", they are just a bulwark against the left. Starmer is the punch left, he does not have any real policy changes outside of placating his TERF base and he will turn (and increasingly has) turned on immigrants. Starmer is in power because ruling class interests aligned with taking down Corbyn and his faction. They threw their entire media apparatus at him with bullshit accusations of antisemitism and turned this into a loss and a purge if the left, such as it is, from labour. Starmer's faction led that charge internally. How would "vote to tax the rich" ever contend with that? Your votes are fptp and subject to a duopoly. You at least require the death or subjugation of labour by a new party, something that requires much more than voting. It requires organizing an institution not beholden to ruling class interestd, an organization that will oppose them, and that requires having an anti-capitalist program, not a "tax the rich" slogan.