It’s coded only in the sense that you have to know what the words mean to understand what the author is saying. Any piece of writing is “coded” in that sense. Choosing to write in a plodding, completely literal style also conveys a subtext.
I'm not sure why you refer to “padding”. “Hoi polloi” is just as concise as any of its less flavorful synomyms (e.g. “common people”). The use of this phrase actually makes the piece more concise, as it removes the need to explicitly indicate the (already fairly obvious) attitudes of the upper classes to the people below them. Some things are significant enough to be worth indicating but not important enough to be worth mentioning.
If you aren’t familiar with “hoi polloi” (and again, it's not actually a very obscure phrase at all!), it takes a few seconds to look it up in a dictionary.
That’s not what coded language means. I don’t think anything used in the article was obscure. The style depends on making things as clear as humanly possible so readers are beaten over the head with the subtext.
As a simple experiment, take the article and write down the meaning being conveyed including subtext next to it.
Ok, I am going to approach this sideways. There is a somewhat related linguistic technique used in the cold war where a politician would go on TV and give a long speech that used the format “If the American people want peace, and the Russian people want peace, and (various junk), and Americans move their missiles out of Crimea, then we can have peace. (more platitudes)” An US intelligence officer would then translate this 20 minute speech into a few sentences of English that contained the relevant information.
Effectively the information could be lifted directly from the speech and was very straightforward, but hidden among a lot of meaningless drivel. I am saying the author’s stile similarly lets the add a lot of padding due to their approach to conveying information.
I'm not sure why you refer to “padding”. “Hoi polloi” is just as concise as any of its less flavorful synomyms (e.g. “common people”). The use of this phrase actually makes the piece more concise, as it removes the need to explicitly indicate the (already fairly obvious) attitudes of the upper classes to the people below them. Some things are significant enough to be worth indicating but not important enough to be worth mentioning.
If you aren’t familiar with “hoi polloi” (and again, it's not actually a very obscure phrase at all!), it takes a few seconds to look it up in a dictionary.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hoi%20polloi