Inexplicably (to me) the current favourite to be the next leader of the Labour Party is Chuka Umunna. I thought Bill Mitchell gave quite a good assessment of the problem with Umunna in a longer post about the problems Labour-type parties are having across the developed world. Umunna, and (let’s face it) most if not all of his rivals have eerily similar thoughts on where Labour have gone wrong. Here’s Bill’s assessment:
In the days following last week’s election, various candidates for the Labour Party leadership have emerged. An apparent front-runner, Chuka Umunna exemplifies why British Labour and Labour-type parties around the world are failing and have lost meaning.
He told the press on Sunday (May 10, 2015) – ‘No-one is too rich to be in Labour’: Chuka Umunna sets out leadership stall:
1. “Labour was wrong to run a deficit before the financial crisis”.
2. Condemned “Ed Miliband’s attacks on ‘wealth creators’”.
3. “Labour can regain power within five years if it is ‘pro-business’ and makes clear no one is ‘too rich to be part of our party’”
4. “you can’t be pro- the jobs we want to see unless you are backing the people that create them”.
5. “Labour must appeal to middle income voters in England who have ‘ambition, drive and aspiration to get on and do well’”
He is a lawyer by background.
He is being championed by the pompous and scandal-prone Mandelson, part of the New Labour movement in Britain which destroyed the nature of the Labour Party once and for all in that country and turned it into another pro-business party with tenuous claims to its past.
There is nothing I have heard since the election disaster last week that indicates that anyone who is likely to lead the British Labour Party understands they have no existence if they continue to think that capital is the wealth creator and workers get the benefits of that endeavour, that a political party has to be ‘pro business’, that mass consumption and indvidualism is to be prioritised over decent work and collective well-being.
I agree. Why would anyone vote for a red Tory, when they could have the real thing?
alittleecon 
Chuka’s main talent seems to be the ability to write 500 word articles in an earnest fashion that says absolutely nothing of substance.
See also David Miliband.
I popped home from the count early hours friday and I caught an interview with Tristram Hunt just after the Battersea result came in and he said about the losing Labour candidate that he was a strong candidate as he works in financial services so is a wealth creator.
Haha! WTF?
To be honest, all four of the “supposed” frontrunners for the leadership of the Labour party after Ed’s resignation were Blairites, so it’s highly likely they’ll return to the right of centre after this. Much is a pity.
Reblogged this on nearlydead and commented:
Blair and Mandelson will be pulling Umunna’s strings.
Reblogged this on sdbast.
As usual with Blue Labour, the words ‘greedy rich’ are substituted with ‘wealth creators’.
None of the actual/likely contenders seem to offer anything new or inspiring or reassuring. Chukka is too Blair in politics – but without the communication skills.
Isn’t he a PWC mouthpiece? I note they supply his office staff.
Reblogged this on markcatlin3695's Blog.
But aspiration.
Interesting that a host of interviews with “senior figures” gave used identical jargon, as if someone handed out cards on Thursday.
The Labour party has been run for a small clique for some time, left – thinking folk need to begin the process of taking their energies elsewhere or having a coup.
Reblogged this on Britain Isn't Eating.
Reblogged this on HUMAN RIGHTS & THE SIEGE OF BRITAIN POLITICAL JOURNAL.