I thought there was quite an interesting comment made below the article:

Drawing a compelling narrative for the nation, that tugs emotional strings, has always been something that the Right have been good at, as limitations imposed by the like of objective reality, historical fact and a sense of intellectual integrity never have to intrude. Keir Starmer would not be the first leader of a centre party steeped in pragmatism to struggle to come up with something that can compete.

The new Right is an unholy alliance stretching across the globe that informs and supports each other. Their common cause is the entrenchment of power among the unaccountable. It is the pursuit of a low tax, deregulated shrunken state that provides a safe haven for the selfish … the oligarchical kleptocrats skimming off the world’s cream, the future of the planet be damned.

A useful tool for these people is migration …… the fear of the unknown …. the blaming of “national decline” on the “other”. It is a hackneyed play straight out of the handbook. These people probably quite like the idea of the free movement of labour – it’s good for businesses, after all – but they see much more electoral value in simply weaponising it. And they do this because there is a widespread feeling out there that immigration is out of control. This is an unfortunate fact that progressives and centrists have to address, so it is very worthwhile to parse the issue out.

The UK – and much of the first world – have aging societies. The majority of people understand the need for immigration. However, they also don’t want to see an immigration system in chaos. It undermines confidence in the state and it breeds insecurities and suspicions. What is required is a system with transparent bureaucratic controls and appropriate regulation. This can provide the bedrock of assurance upon which the obvious benefits of migration can be appreciated and celebrated.

Starmer – and politicians generally - refuse to make the case for immigration. He has not taken the time to describe the demographic time-bomb in the West with its aging population. He has not extolled the vibrancy that migrants bring, both economically and culturally. He does not make the case that the ambition and drive of migrants, putting themselves through unimaginable hardships in the pursuit of opportunity and a better future, are exactly the sort of people a country could use.

Instead, the terms of the debate have been ceded to the Tories and the right-wing media, and in so doing Starmer has enabled the very worst instincts of the electorate. The outrage of the Labour frontbench to Tory policies on immigration is centred on a system that doesn’t work. The moral outrage at the Tory government …… at their inhumanity …… is largely being outsourced to less prominent figures.

I am happy to say that in recent weeks Starmer has begun to mention the benefits of immigration. He is a cautious, disciplined, methodical man. Let us hope that these are the first steps that signal his intended direction of travel

This is the best summary I could come up with:

They also seem to be furtively spending some of their time with thugs and bigots: the kind of people whom that great English social commentator Paul Weller once associated with the smell of “pubs, and Wormwood Scrubs, and too many rightwing meetings”.

In a similar spirit, Liz Truss decided to try to escape the disgrace of her lost weekend in 10 Downing Street by calmly standing on a platform while a fellow speaker lauded Tommy Robinson as a “hero”.

By way of illustrating the kind of politics such a move would assist, the former immigration minister Robert Jenrick – once an insipid Tory journeyman but now seemingly on a mission to become the full-blooded Enoch Powell de nos jours – has proposed an amendment to the government’s criminal justice bill whereby annual crime figures would include “migrant crime league tables”, based on the nationality and asylum status of every offender convicted in English and Welsh courts (according to a report in the Daily Telegraph, the government’s main concern is about the plan’s practicality, “as ministers have no ideological objections to it”).

In among this daily carnival of nastiness and attention-seeking – regularly enlivened by noises off about National Trust scones, flags on football kits and the other small change of current Tory politics – sits David Cameron, who once sold himself as the representative of something very different.

Next month, the writer Geoffrey Wheatcroft will bring out a belated and very lucid sequel to his 2005 masterpiece The Strange Death of Tory England, titled Bloody Panico!, in honour of a phrase used by a long-forgotten postwar Conservative MP named Sir Morgan Morgan-Giles.

Keir Starmer’s technocratic approach to politics has obviously worked short-term electoral wonders, but it has also left a space that the re-energised post-Brexit right will sooner or later move to occupy: the one reserved for emotion, stories and narratives about what Britain is.

The original article contains 1,246 words, the summary contains 315 words. Saved 75%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!