UMUNNA ON THE MOVE AGAIN.

What a surprise !

Having failed to become leader of the Labour Party or, indeed, to make any lasting impact on it, and then failed in his bid to establish a new breakaway party, the mightily ambitious Chuka Umunna has now joined the Liberal Democrats. One is tempted to wonder exactly what are his political beliefs, if any; is he just an arch opportunist ?

It seems that Umunna is one of those politicos who actually have no firm beliefs, just a desire to get to the top, somehow, anyhow. He cares not what banner he waves, although in his case Brexit appears to be an over-riding issue, and will nail his colours to whatever flagpole is available. In reality, the Liberal Democrats are probably where he belongs, being a group of mildly left wing euro-fanatics whose policies and objectives are mainly focused on offering Nirvana to all and sundry at no cost to themselves. In other words, "pie in the sky"

With a return to the Labour Party all but impossible, Umunna may well have decided that his best chance of ever achieving any sort of high office is with Liberal Democrats who are also going through a time of change. The aged, arrogant and increasingly barmy Vince Cable is off to the funny farm and a leaden process to elect his replacement is underway; although Umunna cannot be a candidate on this occasion, what about next time ? At a mere 40 years of age, he must be well placed to get the job at a later date, when either Jo Swinson or Ed Davey receive their P45 from the party.

So there we are. A man who 4 years ago put himself forward as a candidate to lead the Labour Party, and withdrew 3 days later, is now positioning himself to become leader of the Liberal Democrats. What does that say about him or, indeed, both of those parties ? 

UMUNNA'S PATH TO GLORY ?

Way back in 2015, Chuka Umunna first put himself forward as a potential leader of the Labour Party, after Ed Miliband's resignation, and then withdrew from the contest citing a reluctance to accept the degree of scrutiny which being a candidate would bring. Ever since, he has made his home on the back benches of the House of Commons, sniping at both his own Party's leadership and those of any party who supported the result of the Brexit referendum. 

Yesterday, he emerged as the de facto leader of the small group of otherwise largely anonymous Labour MPs who resigned from their Party and set up 'The Independent Group'. Umunna talks in lofty terms to the effect that "our politics is broken" or "we need a new kind of politics" or "politics has become too tribal" and so on. By all of these grandiose terms, what he really means is that the Labour Party isn't doing what he wants, so he's left it. Good for him.

However, what does he do next ? If it wasn't for Brexit, none of this would have happened. Umunna would have remained a back bencher and bided his time until the next opportunity for high office came along, for he is nothing if not ambitious. In Brexit, he's seen an opportunity to make a name for himself as being the man who saved the nation from disaster; his obvious hope is that other MPs will now leap to their feet and rush to join his rag-bag of a Group and that, together, they'll stop Brexit. He'll become a hero and succeed Jeremy Corbyn as the new leader, and Saviour, of the Labour Party, having been welcomed back into the fold. After that, it'll be huge electoral triumph and the door of number 10 wide open for him.

How naïve. 

Umunna is an oily, arrogant, disingenuous and privileged (yes, he went to a private school) member of the liberal elite. He has nothing in common with the bulk of Labour Party membership nor, it must be added, with the bulk of Conservatives. He has no understanding of democracy, and cares nothing for it, as is demonstrated by his total lack of respect for the result of the 2016 referendum. Typical of a certain type of politician, once elected, he will do what he wants regardless of what the electorate wants, because he knows better than they what is good for them.

When Umunna shied away from challenging for the leadership of the labour Party in 2015, could it really have been because he didn't want the spotlight directed at him ? Given his behaviour since then, not least his high profile action of yesterday, this seems most unlikely. Far more likely is that he realised that he had little if any chance of winning and would probably have come close to bottom of the poll, as did his chosen endorsee, Liz Kendall. Rather than risk this, an outcome which could have been fatal to any future leadership challenge, he chose to withdraw for the most fatuous of reasons; for heaven's sake, being a Member of Parliament automatically draws attention and scrutiny and he's always sought it.

His ambition is to be Prime Minister and yesterday's staged event was simply an attempt to set himself on the path to glory in a different way. It might easily turn out to be his political death knell instead.

"GANG OF SEVEN" MAKE THEIR MOVE.

Almost 40 years, 4 prominent Labour politicians resigned from their Party and established a new one, the Social Democrats. Roy Jenkins, David Owen, Shirley Williams and Bill Rodgers (few ever remember him) had fallen out with the left-wing leadership of their Party as exemplified by the likes of Michael Foot and Tony Benn, and believed that the new Party would give them a springboard to much greater things.

They were wrong. The SDP never 'took off' and struggled on for only a few years before until it merged with the Liberals, in 1988, to form the current Liberal Democrats. All of the 'Gang of Four' left the House of Commons fairly quickly and gravitated to the Lords, where they vegetated as representatives of a largely irrelevant group. Their action in forming the SDP has been largely forgotten and, if it is remembered, it's only as an example of the futility of political gestures.

Today, 7 Labour politicians of a different generation have announced that they've resigned from the Party and have set up a new group which they term 'The Independent Group'. They have said that they consider all of the existing parties to be incompetent and to have failed; they've also made the usual vacuous remarks about leaving 'tribal politics' behind and dumping 'old fashioned politics'. In short, they're unhappy.

What they are unhappy about is a number of things. They are all rabid pro-Europeans, fiercely opposed to Brexit and prepared to do anything to stop it from happening, while the leadership of the Labour Party is less enthusiastic. Perhaps legitimately, they are unhappy about perceived anti-Semitism within the Labour Party and the Party's failure to take appropriate action. Thirdly, they're not supporters of the current Party leadership, in particularly Jeremy Corbyn, and see him leading the Party evermore leftwards.

Given their clear differences with the Party, leaving it seems to be a logical step, but is it not also doomed to failure ? In order for the move to bear fruit, many more parliamentarians need to be persuaded to join them and, as was the case after the 1981 split, this is unlikely to happen. Members of Parliament are protective of their own positions and party leaders have a limited lifetime; Corbyn won't be there for ever and many Labour Members will simply hunker down and wait for the inevitable change. Why risk their lucrative positions when time will resolve all ?

Is it likely that Members from other parties will feel emboldened and join in ? Again, why would they ? It would lead to deselection and the probable loss of their parliamentary seats, with an almost inevitable loss of influence. In any event, what are the real similarities, apart from Brexit, between the 7 and, say, the current Conservative 'rebels' ? The answer must be "very few".

Chuka Umunna, Chris Leslie, Angela Smith, Luciana Berger, Gavin Shuker, Mike Gapes, and Ann Coffey; how many of these will still be in Parliament after the next general election ? How many will we still remember in 30 or 40 years ? 

HOW MANY REFERENDUMS SHOULD WE HAVE ?

Listening just now to the rather supercilious Chuka Umunna arguing for a second referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union, I'm driven to the conclusion that arch-Remainers such as him will use any and every spurious argument in pursuit of their objective. 

Umunna is very clear that he wants the UK to reverse its decision and remain within the EU. He is a firm supporter of calls for a second referendum, part of his reasoning being that there are many people who will be affected by the decision to leave who haven't had a chance to have their say, principally referring to those who were too young to be able to cast a vote in the 2016 referendum. For a supposedly highly intelligent man, Umunna appears to have a particularly blind spot when it comes to seeing the basic illogic of this position.

When the UK voted to stay in the forerunner of the EU, the Common Market, in 1975, there were just as many young people who were denied a vote and whose views were not taken into account. No one suggested that there should be another referendum a few years later in order to rectify this 'problem'. Indeed, had there been a second referendum at that time, surely logic would then have demanded that there should have been a third, fourth and fifth referendum, followed by an infinite series, so as to ensure that the views of those who were not even twinkles in their grandparents' eyes in 1975 were ultimately taken into account; after all, there will always be a new batch of 'young people' who should be allowed to 'have their say'. The UK could have done the 'Hokey-Cokey', joining, leaving, joining, and leaving, for ever and a day as the results of a never ending stream of referendums see-sawed.

Umunna's approach simply doesn't hold water. A referendum is a one-off way of determining the views of the populace at a point in time for the purposes of finding a path to follow. It is not a mechanism for allowing Parliament to avoid its responsibilities, nor to try to get an answer which the elite likes. Having held a referendum in 2016, our representatives were given a clear direction - the people of the United Kingdom had had enough of the European Union and wanted to leave. That should be the end of the matter.

Arguments about 'types' of Brexit, the vote not being fair as young people didn't have a say, the people who did vote not having 'all of the information' and the rest of the Remainers' armoury of nonsensical drivel are irrelevant and the sooner the likes of Chuka Umunna accept it, the better.

Leave means Leave.