A World Without Tony Blair

Exactly what it says on the tin. In particular would Labour have returned to power in 97, if not would they ever, and if so how long would they have stayed in power and with what leader(s).

Oh, and if we could avoid any unnecessary 'war criminal' flame-bait that would be nice :)
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Brown will replace him in the broad-strokes. Assuming you mean that Blair simply never rises to the Cabinet levels, then Brown would be most likely to succeeded John Smith and win in 1997. Assuming you mean Blair is literally never born, the butterfly's for Labour in the 1980's and 90's are numerous and uncountable. Firstly, there would be a different leader of the Modernizing faction, and it is possible that, without Blair leading the charge, Trade Union bloc voting my not be abolished, and Article IV never abandoned. This would mean Labour never drifts towards the Middle Class like IoTL, and could potentially change the 1992 Leadership election. Assuming the same candidates are in play, Smith would likely still win, however it is possible more members drift into the contest, such as Brown and Cook, but it would probably be Smith, who, assuming he still dies ITTL, would be succeed by either Brown or Cook. So, what we'd be looking at is that, without Blair, Labour would still retain the trade union bloc voting, Article IV would last into the next Labour Goverment (again, assuming fewest butterflies, 1997), the Modernizing wing of the Party would be weaker, and there would be less of the Labour Middle-Class.

Now assuming that Smith dies and is succeeded by Gordon of Cook, both is going to win in 1997. Perhaps less then Blair, but they would win. Neither push for a war in Iraq, and with Cook's 2005 Death presumably unbutterflied (which is a big presumption, I'll admit), you'd be looking at 1997-2005, Robin Cook. I think Labour would more than likely last this long, even on a smaller Majority, although the 2005/2006/2007 election would be very. In the end, if Cook becomes Leader, I can see Brown succeeded him. If Brown becomes Leader, I think Brown would step down following the 2005/2006/2007 election.
 
As others have said, Brown would probably take his place and win in 1997, and Labour would win at least 2, and probably 3 terms as in OTL. One big change would be that New Labour would be more favourably by the without Iraq, and Brown as its figurehead, who was more like a traditional Labour leader in his background than Blair. He would probably be viewed like Bill Clinton is with the Democrats now,though he enacted some policies which run against the left wing grassroots, he is still liked, or at least not hated as viscerally as Blair is in the Labour Party right now. Of course, there probably would be a move to the left after they lose power, as is traditional in Labour, but it probably wouldnt go quite so far, as there is not so much of a backlash against the party's past as in OTL.
Brown will replace him in the broad-strokes. Assuming you mean that Blair simply never rises to the Cabinet levels, then Brown would be most likely to succeeded John Smith and win in 1997. Assuming you mean Blair is literally never born, the butterfly's for Labour in the 1980's and 90's are numerous and uncountable. Firstly, there would be a different leader of the Modernizing faction, and it is possible that, without Blair leading the charge, Trade Union bloc voting my not be abolished, and Article IV never abandoned. This would mean Labour never drifts towards the Middle Class like IoTL, and could potentially change the 1992 Leadership election. Assuming the same candidates are in play, Smith would likely still win, however it is possible more members drift into the contest, such as Brown and Cook, but it would probably be Smith, who, assuming he still dies ITTL, would be succeed by either Brown or Cook. So, what we'd be looking at is that, without Blair, Labour would still retain the trade union bloc voting, Article IV would last into the next Labour Goverment (again, assuming fewest butterflies, 1997), the Modernizing wing of the Party would be weaker, and there would be less of the Labour Middle-Class.
Couple of points
1) wasnt it Smith who got OMOV done in OTL, so would the presence of Blair really change that?
2) didnt Blair press Brown to run for leader in 1992, with him as his deputy? If he isnt around, surely that would make it less likely that someone else would decide to jump in the 1992 contest?
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Couple of points
1) wasnt it Smith who got OMOV done in OTL, so would the presence of Blair really change that?
2) didnt Blair press Brown to run for leader in 1992, with him as his deputy? If he isnt around, surely that would make it less likely that someone else would decide to jump in the 1992 contest?
1) I'm under the impression Blair was the internal driving force behind this reform, 2)Then I think Cook would be likely to run instead.
 
1) I'm under the impression Blair was the internal driving force behind this reform, 2)Then I think Cook would be likely to run instead.
I was not aware of the first point, thanks for letting me know. On the second though, why would Cook run against Smith in 1992 if Blair isnt around? Since neither he nor Brown ran anyway, the situation wouldnt have really changed from OTL. Besides, I am unsure why Cook might challenge Smith, given that from what I hear they were very similar ideologically, europhiles on the right of the party, but not in favour of the ultra modernization that Brown and Blair wanted.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
I was not aware of the first point, thanks for letting me know. On the second though, why would Cook run against Smith in 1992 if Blair isnt around? Since neither he nor Brown ran anyway, the situation wouldnt have really changed from OTL. Besides, I am unsure why Cook might challenge Smith, given that from what I hear they were very similar ideologically, europhiles on the right of the party, but not in favour of the ultra modernization that Brown and Blair wanted.
Ah, I thought you meant '94, because you were talking about Blair/Brown. So I agree Cook would not challenge Smith in '92, and Smith would likely still become leader. What I meant was that Cook would be in a better position to succeed Smith in '94.
 
Ah, I thought you meant '94, because you were talking about Blair/Brown. So I agree Cook would not challenge Smith in '92, and Smith would likely still become leader. What I meant was that Cook would be in a better position to succeed Smith in '94.
Perhaps, but I also hear that Cook didnt run the in part due to family circumstances, so if Smith died at the same time, he might stand aside as he did in OTL.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Perhaps, but I also hear that Cook didnt run the in part due to family circumstances, so if Smith died at the same time, he might stand aside as he did in OTL.
That's certainly something to consider. Also assuming we see few butterflies, his extramarital affairs might cause issues.
 
That's certainly something to consider. Also assuming we see few butterflies, his extramarital affairs might cause issues.
This scenario is probably impossible to predict if you think to much about butterflies. I find it hard to believe Smith would have a fatal heart attack at precisely the same as OTL if you remove a man who had been elected to parliament 11 years previously from history.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
This scenario is probably impossible to predict if you think to much about butterflies. I find it hard to believe Smith would have a fatal heart attack at precisely the same as OTL if you remove a man who had been elected to parliament 11 years previously from history.
Yeah it's a bit too unpredictable. He could have a heart attack, he could not, it might be as severe of less severe, the butterfly's of a Blairless world are a bit of a cluster. I'd stick to Smith having a heart attack around the same time, if only to simplify the timeline, but this is still an issue.
 

Wallet

Banned
Regardless who is PM, if you still have Bush in the US going into Iraq your going to have British troops.

Maybe they won't be Bush's sidekick or partner in crime, but Britsh troops are going in
 
Wallet, look at what both Wilson and Heath did with Vietnam.

Or for that matter Chretien and Iraq. Harper was correct at the time in pointing out that Canadian soldiers were always sent into whatever conflict the UK and US wanted to use them as cannon fodder for. And both Harper and Martin were quite clear on wanting to continue this. But Chretien did not line up with Bush and Blair on Iraq.

The Chilcot Report, by the way, also concluded that diplomatically the UK would have been find not participating in the Iraq invasion.
 
,
Regardless who is PM, if you still have Bush in the US going into Iraq your going to have British troops.

Maybe they won't be Bush's sidekick or partner in crime, but Britsh troops are going in
America's allies have been known to refuse to take military action with them before, the UK did so with Vietnam, and the French in Iraq.

Let's say Robin Cook became leader of the Labour party in a world without Blair, and Labour won a big victory in 1997, but not by quite as much in OTL. As a result, the europhile faction of MPs remains more in tact than OTL, and Ken Clarke is elected Tory leader, and he takes enough seats from Labour at the next election to remain so for another term. Under such circumstances, you would have a situation where all three major party leaders (presuming the Lib Dem leader is Kennedy or Campbell) were against the war, including a PM who resigned for it in OTL. They would also all be Europhiles who cared more for Britain's relationship with Europe than America.

I am not saying this is the most likely scenario, but it is a plausible one where I find it extremely difficult to believe Britain would be involved in Iraq. So there are scenarios where British involvement was not inevitable. And that is just the most extreme scenario I can think of.
 
Last edited:

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Regardless who is PM, if you still have Bush in the US going into Iraq your going to have British troops.

Maybe they won't be Bush's sidekick or partner in crime, but Britsh troops are going in
Why? Assuming Cook wins Leadership and later the Premierhip, you have a Leader who IoTL opposed the War without the second resolution to the extent he resigned from a great office of state, and with Brown you have a man who, without Blair to push for war as early as '99, feels no obligation to follow America into a situation he finds deeply problematic. Even our other alternatives, such as Prescott and Beckett, personally opposed to the War. Also bear in mind this is a PoD that is in 1953, with the butterfly's only really becoming apparent from 1985 onward's, so Bush being President is not a given. But assuming he does become President still, 9/11 happens, and Bush feels obligated to launch an invasion of Iraq for the reasons he did IoTL, you have four alternative Prime Ministers who oppose the war without the second resolution. America can invade Iraq, but without the Second Resolution, you have a Britain that is unlikely to touch that hot mess.
 
I wonder how the NI peace process and the GFA would play out without Blair? For all the deserved hits he takes for Iraq, his relationship with Bertie was a cornerstone of getting it across the line and keeping it going in the decade it lurched through.
 
I am a bit surprised people think Cook would win the leadership - he didn't run OTL in 94 because he thought he was "insufficiently attractive" to win the election, but even if he had he wasn't particularly popular within the party (more respected than liked in the words of Chris Mullin). Brown seems the obvious choice to me.
 
I am a bit surprised people think Cook would win the leadership - he didn't run OTL in 94 because he thought he was "insufficiently attractive" to win the election, but even if he had he wasn't particularly popular within the party (more respected than liked in the words of Chris Mullin). Brown seems the obvious choice to me.
Brown was feared rather than liked and a man of poor judgement on the whole. Turned on the spending taps and was incredibly clumsy in his selling off the gold reserves. Many of the consequences of his poor judgement would not have become apparent any sooner than they did when he was Chancellor it is true, but ultimately he was not enough of a team player to sit comfortably in the top job.
Much of his "popularity" came from the fact that he was replacing Blair and quickly dissipated once it became apparent that he had little more to offer than being "notBlair". In a non-Blair environment would he have presented as being up to the job? Mind you, all serious economic commentators had realised he was not a competent Chancellor about three years into his time in that role (the general public took a bit longer to catch on) and it speaks volumes for the lack of capacity in this field of the remainder of the Labour Front Bench that he was regarded as the Party's economics expert.
 
Top