2015 was the true defining year in British politics

L-R: Chuka Umunna, Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham (Image: New Statesman)

In Britain, commentators often talk about how 2016 was one of the most defining years in modern British politics. To a certain degree, they're right - the fallout of the Brexit referendum, which took place now more than 10 years ago, is still raw and, arguably, we have not recovered. Now that Sir Keir Starmer has resigned as Prime Minister, the country will soon welcome its seventh leader since that fateful vote a decade ago. King Charles must be bewildered at the thought that he will soon be confirming his third Prime Minister since the start of his reign almost four years ago, when his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, was in the same position eleven years into hers.

However, despite the madness of 2016, I want to trace back to the year before. When the Conservative Party won an overall majority at the 2015 general election, the Labour Party had a lot of soul searching. The party was convinced it had the keys to Downing Street, and that Ed Miliband was the man to take Britain to the next phase, after a Conservative-led government offered pain to so many with its crippling austerity measures, as well as hiking student fees to astronomical levels. But one bite of that cheeky bacon butty proved the difference between victory and defeat, and a new leader was needed. 

Looking back at my analysis of that leadership race makes for interesting reading - not because I eventually voted for someone who got a massive 4.5% of the vote (you're welcome, Liz Kendall), but the other names that were in the running are still lingering today. Yvette Cooper is currently Home Secretary, though that may not be so likely after this Summer Recess. Jeremy Corbyn is no longer part of Labour, though if he was and saw Starmer's resignation, he'd probably be pondering another crack at the top. 

But there are two names that came out of that election that provides the true Sliding Doors moment in British politics. The first being Chuka Umunna. He was the first to state his intentions after Miliband resigned. I remember being excited about the prospect of an Umunna leadership. He was young, charismatic and had the enthusiasm to take up such an important role - basically, the British Barack Obama. Sadly, this hope faded within days after he quickly stepped back, fearing the privacy of his family would be heavily compromised. I truly believe that if he stuck it out, he'd have been the only candidate, or be the unifying figure to defeat Jeremy Corbyn, if he wanted to run against Umunna (Corbyn decided to run at the last minute). 

With Umunna's unwavering support of the UK's membership of the European Union, who knows, perhaps that Brexit referendum result would have been different. I'm not doubting Corbyn's 'remain' campaign efforts, however, with the press at the time constantly citing his previous scepticism of the EU, there was no going back from that, no matter how much he wanted to backtrack. And who knows, Umunna may have been Prime Minister come 2020, assuming no snap elections in 2017 and 2019 and a full five-year parliamentary term be kept.

Rather than us fantasising about Prime Minister Umunna, he went totally the other way - he left Labour to form a political party that lasted for about 36 minutes and because of that epic failure, he's no longer involved in frontline politics. Today, he is "UK Head, Security & Resiliency Initiative, Global Banking" at JP Morgan Chase, whatever that is. Depressing, isn't it? You can read my previous frustrations with him back in 2019 here, while I continue writing this article sighing about the one who got away.

Anyway, the second name in the running in 2015 that is likely of major relevance in the weeks and months (possibly years, who knows) ahead, is Andy Burnham. The Labour membership in 2015 thought he was the best challenger to Corbyn, coming a distant second (he got 19% of the vote compared to Corbyn's 59.5%). He was rewarded with a Shadow Home Secretary role under Corbyn, but resigned a year later as part of that attempted leadership coup - remember when Owen Smith tried to oust Corbyn in 2016, but instead gave Corbyn an even bigger mandate (his vote share increased to 61.8% from the previous contest)? At that point, Burnham had enough of Westminster and ran for Mayor of Manchester, a role he held for nine years. 

Burnham is now ceasing on an opportunity. Probably ever since Starmer set foot into Downing Street, he was under pressure to resign, but these calls had escalated to almost unmanageable levels in recent months, and Burnham has been the central figure, hyped to lead and take over a Labour government into the next general election (scheduled for 2029) with greater confidence than Starmer would have. Certainly, he has enjoyed a relatively successful time as Mayor of Manchester. People there are said to be thankful for his robust leadership during the Covid-19 pandemic and grateful for improving the city's urban redevelopments and prospects. The city is unrecognisable today, compared to this time ten years ago, with skyscrapers aplenty and a significant upgrade and expansion to the tram line. 

But I question Burnham's intentions. They were clear in 2015 and back then, he offered a positive vision for Labour, and the reward was opposition lead, so something to build on. This time is completely different. He isn't just running for Labour leadership, but for Prime Minister. Is he just an easy name that people know and are semi-happy with, or is he going to be the latest name to be leader for five minutes before a large handful of bots on social media say enough-is-enough? I truly want to believe that he is the man who can unleash Britain's potential, and the British public be content enough for there not to be another Prime Minister battle in a year or two's time. 

We're living in hostile times - where one mistake or faux pas by someone in power is a sackable offence. This culture is a relatively recent phenomenon. Not that I want to sing praises for Margaret Thatcher or Winston Churchill, however, can you imagine if they led in times where baseless social media posts led news agendas? They wouldn't last five minutes, let alone eleven and eight years respectively. And heck, they made mistake after mistake. For Thatcher in particular, it was scandal after scandal, even with her internal party politics. Yet, it is that sense of seeing through an important job without distraction and allowing policies to take impact. No longer do we wait a full parliamentary term to determine whether the Westminster we voted for would be suitable enough for the full five years. 

Unless there's a scandal too scandalous to ignore, then there's always a case for a Prime Minister to go before the end of a parliamentary term. Starmer didn't have that. People can cry foul of his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as United States ambassador, despite the later discovery he was in the 'Epstein Files'. It was stupid to appoint him, but not sackable. It is okay for Prime Ministers to make some errors, so long as it doesn't cripple the economy and people's livelihoods. We can talk about his decision to cut Winter Fuel allowance, but that was u-turned a year later and, again, u-turning is okay, when appropriate. If we recognise this, and the Prime Minister can ignore the noise by the traditional and social medias, then British politics can heal. Whether it's Burnham or someone else from the Labour Party, let's give them the same respect that they would offer us, and allow them to run the country properly. Sure, scrutinise them for everything, but if they put a foot wrong, let's not call for their head.