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
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.
I can't decide if this or On and On is the 'aaaaaaa' optionI 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.
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.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.
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 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.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.
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?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.