during the Brexit campaign. He was against Brexit - but failed to rally Labour against a xenophobic referendum lead by the right.

The Blair types are out for blood - but Corbyn in some ways handed them the knife.

Hell, I really don't have a grasp of the British political all parties. Seems most labels are used to mean the opposite of what they mean.
My wife's brothers and sisters are hardcore RWNJs. They accuse me of being liberal. I explain being free to destroy the earth and ravaging our economy to hoard commodities rendering them unusable for the masses no matter how many are killed or forced to live a life of destitution is the height of liberalism.
I say I'm a conservative who feels if you keep the world nice it'll continue to give. You keep the workforce happy and healthy they'll continue to produce great product. Pay a decent wage and they'll create more demand for the product keeping the wheels of commerce and the economy rolling.

Neoliberalism is what defines our era, no?

but you aren't one of them.

You've always been consistently unconfused.

The quotation below is from the publishers introduction to Graham Harman's book "Bruno Latour: Reassembling the Political"

In his early days, Bruno made a major contribution to Actor Network Theory that is widely used on social sciences.

Graham Harman is a young philosopher who has brought Bruno Latour's work to the philosophy community and many other areas.

Here are a couple of paragraphs which have other stuff about Bruno and the book and other stuff, but the term Truth Politics and Power Politics might be useful to you.

Yet there is a different polarity in modern political theory, one that cuts across the Left/Right distinction and is also of far greater relevance to the political theory of Latour. I speak of the difference between what we might call Truth Politics and Power Politics. I have already mentioned Rousseau and Marx as exemplars of the Left version of Truth Politics: the truth is basically already known, but is prevented from becoming reality by various social, economic, or ideological obstructions. Yet there are also Right versions of Truth Politics, as found for instance in the teachings of Leo Strauss. Here Socrates is interpreted not as someone who seeks the truth without finding it, as the name philosophia suggests. Instead, Socrates already knows the truth: that humans are not equal, but are arranged in a permanent hierarchy of types that transcends all historical context. Philosophy is dangerous for the masses, yet philosophers must conceal this fact with coded writing and esoteric signals, convincing the masses that they are normal patriotic and religious citizens in order to avoid the fate of Socrates himself. But this elitism is merely the reverse of the supposed egalitarian truth, since both think the truth is already known to some smaller or larger group. This sort of Truth Politics has nothing at all to do with the thought of Latour, who completely forbids any direct access to a “truth” that might trump the uncertain struggles between competing actors.

Power Politics also comes in both Left and Right flavors, though it is perhaps more common on the Right. For Hobbes, nothing can be permitted to transcend the Leviathan. To appeal to a religious truth beyond the edicts of the State, or even to a scientific truth beyond such edicts, is to risk a bloody civil war of all against all. Transcendence is therefore forbidden. In the case of Schmitt, politics begins only in the sovereign’s decision that it is no longer possible to reason with one’s enemy, so that an existential struggle commences. We see Left versions of this Power Politics in various postmodern theories that dispense with the category of truth altogether. While Latour is naturally allergic to any form of Truth Politics, he remains permanently tempted by Power Politics, and fights these temptations for the remainder of his career. The young Latour shows open delight in defending the claims of Hobbes and Machiavelli, in erasing the purported distinction between Might and Right, in admiring a hypothetical Prince who would not just destroy or manipulate his human rivals, but would successfully arrange gas, water, and electricity lines as well. This early phase, in which Latour broadens Hobbesian politics to include inanimate beings alongside humans, ends in his 1991 classic We Have Never Been Modern. When Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer claim that the power of Hobbes outstrips the truth of scientist Robert Boyle, Latour suddenly intones: “No, Hobbes was wrong!” This is not because Boyle was right instead, but because both Hobbes and Boyle are wrong— by reducing the world either to Irrefutable Right or Irresistible Might. Both truth or power are employed by turns to efface the always uncertain play of political networks, in which rhetoric and proof, strength and weakness, all stand on the same footing.

From
Between Truth and Power: Latour’s Political Philosophy

Here is another article by Graham Harman on the book

On the State of Nature Hobbes saw life as nasty and brutish, while Rousseau argued humans lack inherent differences in power and strength. A better framework for understanding division in modern politics: Truth Politics versus Power Politics.

the root of neoliberal is "liber-" which is Latin for "free."

But so much of neoliberalism requires the strong arm of the state to direct the flow of profits in the intended direction (through privatization, trade agreements, etc.). So while we can import toxic toys from China, we can't import safe prescription medication from Canada. As they say, the free market isn't free. Maybe that is the meaning of "neo" in this term; the liberal economic idea was a market operating independently of the state, and the neoliberal model requires the state to be what it is. Corporations, remember, are legal entities that governments allow to be created. There could be no corporate sector without a state backing it up. Please someone correct me if I'm off here.

So when a neoliberal starts singing from the hymnbook of freedom, even that needs to be immediately challenged as a distortion of reality.

In Nixon Agonistes, Garry Wills does a remarkable job of tracing the parallel threads of the two main US liberal traditions -- one manifested in the Rockefeller Republicans, the other manifested in the New Deal Democrats.

Much of what you've described as liberalism (as you once thought it) is more properly labeled, in the American tradition, as progressivism, or populist progressivism, or progressive populism, or some such.