Today, there are almost no working-class Labour MPs in parliament; the party has been taken over by graduates.

They claim to be committed to liberalism and pluralism, while simultaneously avoiding or shutting down debate with anybody who might hold different beliefs to their own.

And in doing so, they have provided yet another powerful display of their distinction as a new ruling class that is distant from the rest of society. Values, Voice and Virtue offers a sweeping account of why British politics has come unstuck over the past half-century. The reemergence of immigration is a major issue which, curiously, Starmer failed to mention in his ‘five national missions’.

Matthew Goodwin, who has sparked conversation with his description of a ‘new elite’ running Britain. An increasingly liberalised, globalised ruling class has lost touch with millions, who found their values ignored, their voices unheard and their virtue denied. One of the other features of this definition of a new elite is how easily it can flex to accommodate the politics of those it needs to include: so Jeremy Corbyn is a member, and Boris Johnson is not.

Dominated by the new middle-class graduate elite, many institutions that focus heavily on diversity are not that diverse at all. It’s merely to point out that, today, whether we look at politics, the media, the creative industries, cultural institutions or schools and universities, we can see that the axis of power is now rapidly tilting away from that old elite and toward a new successor class. Over the past two decades, Labour has been seriously weakened by its decision to exclude the voices of working-class and non-graduate voters. Seven decades later, the British political scientist Matthew Goodwin similarly paints, in his new book Values, Voice and Virtue, a picture of “the new elite” in Britain.

Although it has been passionately praised and criticised across mainstream and social media, one shortcoming of most reactions has been to treat the book as a scholarly work. At the same time, Goodwin sidelines the most pressing issues that face ordinary people today, according to the people themselves. On Twitter, he posted a list of critics together with where they had attended university, adding "have I touched a nerve?The second argument against Luntz is that, contrary to what many liberal progressives would have you believe, Britain is not America. We might think of Starmer picking Stormzy on Desert Island Discs, or David Cameron’s professed love for West Ham/Aston Villa. According to Huw Davies and Sheena McGrae, Goodwin's "concerns about wokeism are a recurrent theme in his output".

This has been visible not just in Westminster but in media, creative, cultural and educational institutions, where the voice of these groups is usually only noteworthy because of its absence. Recent polling by YouGov finds that while nearly 60% of British adults have heard of the term “woke” they have no idea what it refers to. Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties.

Even today, five years after Brexit, while 52% of Remainers think that immigration has been good for Britain, only 9% of Leavers agree; while 63% of Leavers think that people are ‘ less free to say what they think’, only 37% of Remainers agree; while 65% of Remainers support the Black Lives Matter protests only 22% of Leavers do, a similar figure for whether footballers should take the knee before kick-off. There are several premises in Goodwin’s argumentation that, albeit not original, one would struggle to disagree with. Values, Voice and Virtue by Matthew Goodwin review — has the Tory party bungled the post-Brexit realignment? As the authors of the report conclude, “the ‘anti-woke’ position on our indicators has for the most part become less popular over time. By prioritising the exam-passing classes, and assuming the workers, non-graduates and pensioners had nowhere else to go, the party was easily outflanked by Farage, Brexit and then Johnson.