Basically:-

1. Complains that Marx is just too obscure/complicated for his liberal know-nothing peabrain. (in a earlier version of the article, lets slip that he's definitely lying about having read anything written by Marx)
2. Gets a "Babby's First Marxist Analysis" explanation of economic class contradiction from Ken Loach, and immediately thinks he's completely disproven Marx by asking "what about Premier League footballers though?".
3. References an LSE/BBC study about class in Britain that that places crude social and cultural signifiers on equal standing with a deliberate misunderstanding of economic relations - apparently, your economic class has all to do with your income level, whether you're a homeowner, and your savings, and nothing at all to do with how you earn a living - and acts surprised when it makes him feel confused about his own class position. And this is after he already admits earlier in the article that judging class through "superficial markers" is "prejudice and almost certainly wrong".
4. Gets a slightly more in-depth explanation of the Marxist conception of the petit-bourgeoisie, and how petit-bourgeois people like him are increasingly being proletarianised by neoliberalism, but then dismisses the entire idea because being petit-bourgeois is not as romantic as being working class, and because it makes him feel "parasitic".