An accurate assessment of Chuka Umunna | alittleecon

This blog has only two photographs of Chuka Umunna at the moment.

This blog has only two photographs of Chuka Umunna at the moment.

It seems some of you won’t accept This Writer’s word about Chuka Umunna. Here, alittleecon quotes Bill Mitchell (who?) on the subject:

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.

Source: An accurate assessment of Chuka Umunna | alittleecon

9 thoughts on “An accurate assessment of Chuka Umunna | alittleecon

  1. Charles Norman Hay

    On this occasion Mike i agree with you 6 months ago i would have been in line to second this mans nomination as the leader of the Labour party , but after recent disclosures from him on his thoughts and political aspirations for the party this definitely not the person to lead this party in fact i get the impression he is in the wrong party he should be in the Tory party as he has more in common with them than Labour.

  2. Ian

    Number 4 on the list. This ‘wealth creator’ thing (and why is a Labour leading light using the language of the American right?) has always bothered me. Me and you are the actual wealth creators. Jobs create wealth, markets create jobs, we create markets buy wanting things and buying things. It’s a cycle. Problem the right has it thinks wages should be lower in order for rich people to get richer and then bestow his bounty upon us all. Trickle down theory. It doesn’t work. If business wants our money in return for goods and services then first of all we need to actually have money to spend. The right won’t address this, that’s partly why the economy went piriform – we’re replacing the decent wages we had with debt. That’s why nobody in Parliament is goig to anything meaningful about the housing crisis – house values keep rising enabling borrowing on that rise. And, of course, the likely deflation in house values were enough houses ever to get built.

    Anyway, rambling aside, we are the real wealth creators in as much as we are the ones that buy stuff that drives the economy and creates jobs. Business are mere intermediaries, by and large. Middlemen.

  3. jingoistic

    Having spoken to activists if anyone of the right become the leader of the Labour party they will lose a lot of us.

Comments are closed.