Gordon Brown is probably seen as much like Blair otl
Couple of pointsBrown 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.
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.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?
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
That's certainly something to consider. Also assuming we see few butterflies, his extramarital affairs might cause issues.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.
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.That's certainly something to consider. Also assuming we see few butterflies, his extramarital affairs might cause issues.
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.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.
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.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.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
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.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.