Laura Kuenssberg: Labour - damned if they dare, damned if they don't?

Too boring? Too serious? Too left wing? Too right wing? Too much of a mystery still?

For a long time, Keir Starmer's Labour has been miles ahead in the opinion polls. And even before that, for a very long time, he has faced calls to be more explicit about his priorities.

Even then, he carefully refused to say if his politics were closer to Jeremy Corbyn's or Tony Blair's.

This week though, and this weekend at a left wing love-in in Canada with like minded leaders, Keir Starmer is very deliberately picking a subject and sticking to it, talking about border security and immigration.

This episode illustrates exactly the opportunity and dilemma the Labour leadership faces.

Say too much? The plans can be shredded (or nabbed!) by opponents, or cause grumbles closer to home.

Say as little as humanly possible, and face accusations that you stand for nothing, and have no ideas of your own.

After attacks on the border security plans presented alongside Keir Starmer's carefully-choreographed trip to Europol, in the Netherlands, is Labour damned if they dare put policy out there, and damned if they don't?

The plans, which you can read more about here, were met with what could have almost been a pre-scripted response.

There were squeals from the right immediately, with highly debatable claims that the Labour would automatically open the door to an extra 100,000 migrants a year.

That estimate assumed that a Labour government would sign up to an EU-wide quota deal that is not yet in operation.

Labour says they would never sign up to the continent-wide scheme, even though they do want closer cooperation.

Some Conservatives reckon Starmer has made a "strategic mistake" by focusing on these plans, opening himself to accusations of cosying up to the EU on immigration.

But one shadow minister played down the attack, saying the "Tories are struggling and so it means they are going to make stuff up".

On the other side, there was some obvious discomfort too at the message the leadership has been pushing.

Union leaders and charity bosses branded it as "pandering", "knee-jerk" language just to grab "headlines in the Sun".

Certainly, promises to "smash the gangs", or treat human traffickers like "terrorists" are not designed to tickle the bellies of the Labour membership - those who'll be leafing through all 116 pages of the party's policy document, which will be argued over and voted on at conference in a few weeks.

So if Starmer's had screams from the right and squeals from the left, then surely something's gone wrong?

Not so fast. It's politics! Not normal life.

It's a weird old business. You pick an issue, provoke a row. The row isn't a damaging thing, as long as it stays as a controllable spat, not an overwhelming bunfight.

The row is, in fact, the point.

Get your rivals on the inside and the outside to argue, the argument kicks off, then get the public to notice you are taking a stand on issues they care about, and bingo.

The impression is created, whether it's genuine or not, that the party understands voters' worries and will actually do something about it.

As one Labour source suggests, "in opposition you have to be prepared to have the row, that's the only way you get heard".

They say, "whether we are trying to claim the mantle of the economy, or the party to fix small boats - we have to show we can make progress on it".

That doesn't happen by shying away from a tricky subject, or only sticking to Labour crowd pleasers.

Credibility by caring about the right things and offering solutions is the aim. A shadow cabinet minister says the proposals are about being "practical", the political responses this week were predictable, and the priority is to "look like they are serious" about fixing the country's ills.

Labour HQ seems neither surprised nor perturbed by the rumpus their proposals this week caused.

Proposals out there - tick.

Attention grabbed - tick.

More images and coverage of Keir Starmer to come on his adventure to Canada and Paris - tick.

But there are, of course, still risks all around.

There is a sense among some voters that Labour still just attacks on issues where things are going wrong for the Conservatives, like immigration, rather than pursuing strong areas of their own.

One pollster says in almost every focus group they host, someone says of Starmer, "he just criticises" - the "risk is [the] public just think Keir is a moaner or a clever lawyer".

There is a danger, they say, "of Labour not having their agenda", so even if they win, "if things improve people don't stick with them, or potentially worse they have zero honeymoon when they get in, and no enthusiasm".

There is also a risk of stirring up too much unhappiness on the left, so that the party ends up preoccupied with internal fights again.

It is not true to say that this is the first time Labour has talked about immigration, or that the party has always avoided the topic.

Remember Gordon Brown's clamour for "British jobs for British workers" or Ed Miliband's awkward somersaults over the issue, accompanied by his bizarre branded mug which promised controls on immigration?

But Keir Starmer's trying to show something else - not just that he will talk about the issue, but that the party is comfortable taking on the concern and has credible solutions.

There are dangers for any opposition in saying too little or too much.

The thing Labour is most afraid of is not winning or losing any specific argument, but failing to win the country, and losing again.