So, J.K. Rowling, then.

A recap: recently, she’s been tweeting her opposition to Jeremy Corbyn, and has been dealing with quite a lot of angry responses. Some of the replies have suggested that she is “afraid of Corbyn winning”, that she is trying to protect her class interests, and that she only opposes Corbyn because she is a multimillionaire.

This is the weird prism through which certain parts of (what claims to be) the left now view things. Disagreement in good faith is simply no longer possible. To oppose Corbyn, you must have an agenda that sits outside of simply wanting a Labour government.

The thing is, Rowling is a Labour supporter. She wrote the first Harry Potter book whilst relying on benefits, and recently praised New Labour for providing help to those who needed state support. She is a passionate defender of the welfare state, and refuses to keep her money in offshore tax havens because she feels it is right to support the benefits system that supported her.

How the hell did we get to a point where some of the left are now treating her as the enemy? She is a proud, prominent advocate of things we should believe in, whether she supports Jeremy Corbyn or not.

So, let’s talk about Corbyn. Last month, he announced that he doesn’t consider himself wealthy, despite earning £137,000 and owning a £600,000 home. This wasn’t a one-off; in May, he was uncomfortable admitting that he is middle class.

One can only imagine what a pre-Potter J.K. Rowling might have made of those statements.

Clearly, Corbyn is embarrassed about the fact that he is either a member of “the 1%”, or very close to being so. But he shouldn’t be. Being middle class shouldn’t in itself preclude anyone from leading the Labour Party, nor from trying to help the poorest in society. Clement Attlee and Tony Blair were firmly middle class, yet their governments achieved huge things for those in poverty.

There is a problem with the level of working class representation in the House of Commons, but that is not to say that middle class people can’t or shouldn’t represent Labour. To believe otherwise, as Corbyn seems to, is to internalise the “champagne socialist” argument.

“Champagne socialism” is an ugly term, one which is thrown at people who are wealthy and yet for some reason persist in believing in things like the welfare state. The Mail, always one to hate on anyone not acting selfishly, explains that rich people are drawn to socialism “because it is trendy, or to assuage middle class guilt”.

This is nonsense. We should applaud those who are well-off and still support social justice; Rowling and Corbyn both seek to act against their own personal interests for the greater good.

We shouldn’t attack Jeremy Corbyn for being born into a middle class family, nor for earning a good wage. The problem is not that he is wealthy. The issues are that he doesn’t seem to realise how important a Labour government is, nor does he seem to understand the people he claims to represent.