No Iraq War - how much longer does Blair get?

[Ingsoc]

A flash to the future, a moment of clarity, or his entire cabinet saying they'll resign - however it happens Blair doesn't do Iraq.

How much longer does he get, how much better does he do in 2005, and with a thumping majority can he demote Brown and kick on?

 

[Stateless]

I think a stronger 2005 victory is almost guaranteed, though New Labour fatigue will still inevitably cause Labour to suffer losses.

I don't think it makes much difference to the length of his premiership. Unless he intends to fight and win a leadership contest against Brown, he has to step down at some point. Demoting Brown with a POD of 2002/3 just brings that leadership contest forward. Now, without Iraq it is more plausible that Blair could fight and win a leadership election, in which case there's not an obvious not-Blair candidate. But health and legacy wise I don't see him wanting to stay much beyond 2008 at the latest.

Policy wise, ID cards and super casinos are the biggest things I can see getting achieved.

Of course, if Iraq's not happening at all then maybe we go to Iran.

 

[Roger II]

No Iraq has fairly big economic and social effects, no? At the very least it would affect US economic policy, which would affect global economic issues. And you'd have a different set of left-wing ideas about internationalism, etc.

 

[Ingsoc]

No Iraq has fairly big economic and social effects, no? At the very least it would affect US economic policy, which would affect global economic issues. And you'd have a different set of left-wing ideas about internationalism, etc.

Not saying Bush doesn’t go - just saying Blair doesn’t

 

[Milo]

I think Blair will still go but he might try and beat Thatcher's record but that means assuming I ignore the butterfly's the recessions hits and spoils his legacy. I do think Brown will put up a fight though he's not going to go quietly and will want a firm date of Blair resigning.

 

[SteveBP]

Not saying Bush doesn’t go - just saying Blair doesn’t

I don't think Bush would go without Blair unless he got a significant coalition of the willing elsewhere. So those butterflies would be pretty interesting.

 

[Ingsoc]

I don't think Bush would go without Blair unless he got a significant coalition of the willing elsewhere. So those butterflies would be pretty interesting.

Nah Bush offered Blair an out after the marching in London but he was still pot committed to go it alone

 

[Blackadder Mk2]

It'd be tricky to have Iraq without Blair for a variety of reasons. Him being a paid-up neo-con/liberal interventionist, absolutely dedicated to the Special Relationship, and also some sense that the first term was just four wasted years. If you butterfly away Iraq and focus on Britain only, I think we can get somewhere instead of drilling into American economics.

Blair has a lot more room for his other big-things which were public sector reform and the Euro. A lot of political capital and affection went into Iraq just to get it through Labour in Parliament, but he'll likely use it to push for stuff like academies, foundation hospitals, and other stuff. One of the reasons Blair dropped Milburn was because Brown threatened to boycott the 2005 campaign, in a TL where Blair isn't as exposed, he might call the bluff and go with Milburn's health reforms.

Expect a punch-up over a Euro referendum since Blair infamously snapped during a Treasury presentation that said the tests hadn't been met. Whether he goes for it with a Chancellor, Foreign, and Home Secretary all sceptical about it is hard to say. I'd lean towards no. But stuff like splitting the Treasury to weaken Brown without a direct fight might be pursued ITTL. Blair's also going into the mid-2000s without his reputation in freefall. He only promised to resign in the third term because of Brown/party pressures and went for 2007 because backbench MPs were signing letters demanding it. Brown was taken by surprise by it and was afraid it'd get tied to him.

Blair could conceivably last until 2010, although by then I expect some tensions over his reforms and Brown realising that Tony rather likes being Prime Minister. The financial crisis is the big one. If Blair survives the eventual dispute with Brown, there's going to be troubles over the deficit. Blair in his autobiography got heat from the likes of Ed Balls for hinting that he backed some form of austerity. It's not going to be as bloody or sudden as Iraq, but the Labour Party will likely fall out of love with Blair over policy. Electorally, 2005's going to be better and 2010 might come out in a more Well-Hung Parliament, barring Labour having the Prime Minister and Chancellor hate and brief against each other. On the other hand, it was similar with Brown and Darling and they turned out alright.

The thing with Blair is that even at his lowest, he claimed he now knew what he wanted to do. Personally, I suspect he'd have to be dragged out from office. Even now he flirts with returning to politics, despite being one of the least popular politicians in Britain. As for resignations, it'd have to be from a collapse of authority whether by electoral defeat, coalition formation, Blair/Brown going nuclear in 2009, or even a defeat on a 2004 Euro Referendum.

TLDR; Blair probably leaves office when he loses office.

 

[AgentRudda]

There's an argument to be made that Iraq made Blair more determined, and had more scope, to stay in office for longer than the likely 2004 handover. He had a war to lead, and the consequences of the occupation after the 'easy victory', plus Blair viewing iraq as a personal mission rather than just a strategic objective, all meant that Blair didn't want Brown to take over so early on. Also, no war, just a gradual and boring decline in the opinion polls and the onset of fatigue, would've made the speculation about the leadership more fervent.

 

[moth]

I suppose Blair may step down for the European Presidency in 2004; he did consider it, especially after his heart attack, but stayed on for the reasons that AgentRudda discusses above. I could see him using the European Presidency as a way of jumping before he's pushed ITTL.

 

[Gorrister]

I suppose Blair may step down for the European Presidency in 2004; he did consider it, especially after his heart attack, but stayed on for the reasons that AgentRudda discusses above. I could see him using the European Presidency as a way of jumping before he's pushed ITTL.

I can't decide if this or On and On is the 'aaaaaaa' option

 

[Elektronaut]

Will just drag up what I posted a while back on the other place:

"Well, the intention IOTL was to go in around 2009 - which I think, if we read between the lines, was based on exceeding Mrs T's time in office, thus becoming the longest-serving PM in modern times. That was in OTL though.

I'm not sure that holds in a 'no Iraq' scenario though, because that was predicated on the 'full third term' promise. Given how Blair today openly fantasises about still becoming PM again - dear lord - I think it's a reasonable assumption that he would have always been one of those types who had to be forced out of the job. And as I'm sure you know, Brown was always ultra-reticent about putting the knife in, even with Blair tanking his reputation through Iraq, and Brown, not Blair, assuming the Labour asset mantle.

I think it's about 50-50 that he tries to just go on, and on, and on, and probably does, until electoral reality intervenes."

I don't know the exact date of termination of this indefinite, Mrs T post-1987 clinging on, but I find the notion that he'd dodge out as early as 2004 without Iraq wild talk. (Even if the Euro referendum comes back with a minus 20% return, I think he's going to be strong enough to shrug that off)

 

[Blackadder Mk2]

I don't know the exact date of termination of this indefinite, Mrs T post-1987 clinging on, but I find the notion that he'd dodge out as early as 2004 without Iraq wild talk. (Even if the Euro referendum comes back with a minus 20% return, I think he's going to be strong enough to shrug that off)

For me, seeing his reaction to Brexit, I thought that maybe if it looked like a big rejection in 2004 (IIRC this is also when rebate negotiations were being held), he might have made an emotional decision in the face of Britain burning the bridge. It depends on how much he'd invest his authority as PM into the referendum. However, I think it'd be one of those things where no one wants him to go over this and may overstate how much that's a factor. After all, he didn't resign when the referendum itself got shut down.

The dynamic I think Blair would deal with is that he'd want someone closer to his ideas succeeding him instead of Brown, so he'd probably stay-on until he finds it. Only Brown also liked to shoot down said rivals and Blair rarely did much about it. ITTL, I think Milburn and Reid would be the stars, IIRC David Miliband's status as Blairite-in-Chief came when Brown gave him the Foreign Office. Here, he might take longer, especially as the Blair/Brown wars intensify.

ITTL, the LibDems would have less luck with portraying themselves as the leftier-than-Labour bunch without something big like Iraq, so I can see a similar trend to OTL where Kennedy's couped, Campbell flatlines, and then either Huhne or Clegg take charge. The big thing IMO is how 2009 goes as that's when Labour's economic reputation falls and Blair has an excuse to remove Brown from the Treasury. The expenses scandal isn't going to help either.

 

[Ingsoc]

For me, seeing his reaction to Brexit, I thought that maybe if it looked like a big rejection in 2004 (IIRC this is also when rebate negotiations were being held), he might have made an emotional decision in the face of Britain burning the bridge. It depends on how much he'd invest his authority as PM into the referendum. However, I think it'd be one of those things where no one wants him to go over this and may overstate how much that's a factor. After all, he didn't resign when the referendum itself got shut down.

The dynamic I think Blair would deal with is that he'd want someone closer to his ideas succeeding him instead of Brown, so he'd probably stay-on until he finds it. Only Brown also liked to shoot down said rivals and Blair rarely did much about it. ITTL, I think Milburn and Reid would be the stars, IIRC David Miliband's status as Blairite-in-Chief came when Brown gave him the Foreign Office. Here, he might take longer, especially as the Blair/Brown wars intensify.

ITTL, the LibDems would have less luck with portraying themselves as the leftier-than-Labour bunch without something big like Iraq, so I can see a similar trend to OTL where Kennedy's couped, Campbell flatlines, and then either Huhne or Clegg take charge. The big thing IMO is how 2009 goes as that's when Labour's economic reputation falls and Blair has an excuse to remove Brown from the Treasury. The expenses scandal isn't going to help either.

I wonder if Blair in a debate with Cammo might have had better luck with the "no time for a novice" crack? Also, any chance of getting an election in before the crash?

Basically I want to get a set of circumstances where Blair fights and wins a 2009 election.

EDIT - Actually what's the biggest Blair wank we could get? So we copy @The Red and have Blair hold off the 2001 election until after 9/11 due to foot and mouth, leading to Labour being on, what, 450? 470? And then no Iraq, so maybe down to 400 in 2005?

 

[Elektronaut]

EDIT - Actually what's the biggest Blair wank we could get? So we copy @The Red and have Blair hold off the 2001 election until after 9/11 due to foot and mouth, leading to Labour being on, what, 450? 470? And then no Iraq, so maybe down to 400 in 2005?

I don't think you have to do anything this drastic. Without Iraq I just can't see how there would be a meaningful diminution of the majority in 2005 - that parliament would be focused on the Tory internal dramas and the general catastrophe they made of that parliament and, if we're coming off a Euro referendum, a much more confident right-wing.

And with Labour probably still somewhere around about 380 seats I just can't see how the Tories win a 2009 election straight up. Labour would have the Brown-Blair psychodrama in full swing and the financial crash - but Brown had the same, and three years of utter hell and self-destruction, up against Supa Dupa Heir to Blair Cameron, and with Iraq already poisoning Labour's credibility before that. And yet the Tories only won a hung parliament on a very unimpressive victory share of the vote.

I can see the Tories winning fifty or sixty seats net in 2009 but Blair remaining in power with a fag-end majority. Or even if it is a Labour-favourable hung parliament - without Iraq would the Lib Dems have any interest in displacing Blair? There would be a huge weakening of him in raw political terms but he could probably survive as the father of coalition, while setting a date for say 2010 or points east.

 

[Thande]

Labour would have the Brown-Blair psychodrama in full swing

I agree with the rest of your post, but I did want to say I've always felt Brown-Blair actually rather helped Labour (though it being combined with a big majority and a hapless opposition helped) - it meant the media focused endlessly on palace intrigue speculation in The Ruling Party rather than talking about the opposition. The Telegraph (I think) captured this nicely in a photo-montage thing they did for the 2005 election which showed Blair and Brown giving fixed smiles at each other and seeming to be roughly shouldering past each other, while Howard impotently stood behind them in the background trying to push them apart to get through, and Kennedy peeped over Howard's shoulder.

I think if Brown had somehow been removed from the equation (either he gives up and becomes head of the IMF or something, or else dies in a tragic accident) then it would ultimately hurt Blair alone because of this--suddenly it would be him against the Tories again.

 

[Artaxerxes]

I agree with the rest of your post, but I did want to say I've always felt Brown-Blair actually rather helped Labour (though it being combined with a big majority and a hapless opposition helped) - it meant the media focused endlessly on palace intrigue speculation in The Ruling Party rather than talking about the opposition. The Telegraph (I think) captured this nicely in a photo-montage thing they did for the 2005 election which showed Blair and Brown giving fixed smiles at each other and seeming to be roughly shouldering past each other, while Howard impotently stood behind them in the background trying to push them apart to get through, and Kennedy peeped over Howard's shoulder.

I think if Brown had somehow been removed from the equation (either he gives up and becomes head of the IMF or something, or else dies in a tragic accident) then it would ultimately hurt Blair alone because of this--suddenly it would be him against the Tories again.

Its just unfortunate that Blair and Brown did such a good job of ensuring the future front runners of the parliament were absolute plastic nobodies.

 

[Elektronaut]

The focus on Blair-Brown was just a function of the Tories being hopelessly irrelevant, it wasn't created to have that effect. Why even bother pretending, say, Hague was in with a shot at being PM? Nobody believed this, the only speculation was on whether he would have enough gains to stay on as opposition leader. 'The leader of the opposition was already in Downing Street. He was called Gordon Brown'.

(I think it mostly taking place in a benign environment for Labour is because for most of it, Labour just didn't have to bother about the opposition - after 2005 it became clearly more damaging and self-indulgent, but by then it was too big a habit)

 

[Blackadder Mk2]

I wonder if Blair in a debate with Cammo might have had better luck with the "no time for a novice" crack? Also, any chance of getting an election in before the crash?

Basically I want to get a set of circumstances where Blair fights and wins a 2009 election.

I get what you mean by this (fourth term for Tony), but I doubt Blair would call an election in 2009 in a No-Iraq TL. Why fight an election you can delay during an economic crisis?

But yeah, Blair would get a small majority in 2010 barring Brown having a nuclear-resignation. The Tories might actually try and fight a campaign ITTL since 2010 was built on 'Brown's rubbish and we know he is so wait for the voters to come to us by default while we sit on our hands'. ITTL, they'd be up against a man they called 'the Master'. IOTL, Cameron's Tories were actually outpolling Labour under Blair but that was under a general sense that the newer and shinier model was out, not like the weirdo who wanted to bomb Lebanon.

Since Blair's still the future, at best the Tories will break level at the worst of the crisis, but ultimately suffer from the fact that Blair's still popular, Labour's majority is too large, and that much of Cameron/Osborne/Gove's main vision is ultimately a continuation of Blair's ideas. Blair called free schools 'a great idea', after all, and said Britain 'wasn't ready' to talk about for-profit schools. Blair post-2009 would likely offer austerity with a sad face, from what I've seen about his few statements on it, so that'd be a foundation for a coalition with the LibDems if Cameron somehow reduced the majority.

Of course, we've seen how Blair managed with a majority under 100 seats before and there's no telling if he decides to resign now that the only viable successors are his children, or if he decides he likes staying Prime Minister. I personally gravitate towards the former as, even if it was a LibDem Coalition, I can't see why they would make him leaving one of their conditions barring a collapse in popularity.

 

[Ingsoc]

I get what you mean by this (fourth term for Tony), but I doubt Blair would call an election in 2009 in a No-Iraq TL. Why fight an election you can delay during an economic crisis?

But yeah, Blair would get a small majority in 2010 barring Brown having a nuclear-resignation. The Tories might actually try and fight a campaign ITTL since 2010 was built on 'Brown's rubbish and we know he is so wait for the voters to come to us by default while we sit on our hands'. ITTL, they'd be up against a man they called 'the Master'. IOTL, Cameron's Tories were actually outpolling Labour under Blair but that was under a general sense that the newer and shinier model was out, not like the weirdo who wanted to bomb Lebanon.

Since Blair's still the future, at best the Tories will break level at the worst of the crisis, but ultimately suffer from the fact that Blair's still popular, Labour's majority is too large, and that much of Cameron/Osborne/Gove's main vision is ultimately a continuation of Blair's ideas. Blair called free schools 'a great idea', after all, and said Britain 'wasn't ready' to talk about for-profit schools. Blair post-2009 would likely offer austerity with a sad face, from what I've seen about his few statements on it, so that'd be a foundation for a coalition with the LibDems if Cameron somehow reduced the majority.

Of course, we've seen how Blair managed with a majority under 100 seats before and there's no telling if he decides to resign now that the only viable successors are his children, or if he decides he likes staying Prime Minister. I personally gravitate towards the former as, even if it was a LibDem Coalition, I can't see why they would make him leaving one of their conditions barring a collapse in popularity.

So that’s conceivably 18 years of Blair. Handing over the reins to Euan in 2015?