AHC: More left-wing Tony Blair

I have been reading about Tony Blair and his extensive history within Labour Party and his transition from the "soft-left" to the "left-of-centre" and Third-Wayism. I have also read plans were drawn up in 1994 for rail re-nationalization and were subsequently abandoned. What I am suggesting is Tony Blair governs along the lines of say, Helen Clark and not the Third-Way acolyte of Bill Clinton.
 
I have been reading about Tony Blair and his extensive history within Labour Party and his transition from the "soft-left" to the "left-of-centre" and Third-Wayism. I have also read plans were drawn up in 1994 for rail re-nationalization and were subsequently abandoned. What I am suggesting is Tony Blair governs along the lines of say, Helen Clark and not the Third-Way acolyte of Bill Clinton.

You might have to change a lot of PoDs maybe going back to at least having the Cold War tilt in favor of the Soviets, or maybe greater New Left influence in Britain. This might butterfly Blair's career altogether.
 
I have been reading about Tony Blair and his extensive history within Labour Party and his transition from the "soft-left" to the "left-of-centre" and Third-Wayism. I have also read plans were drawn up in 1994 for rail re-nationalization and were subsequently abandoned. What I am suggesting is Tony Blair governs along the lines of say, Helen Clark and not the Third-Way acolyte of Bill Clinton.
Blair said he was a communist in university and was inspired by Trotsky, so it’s not impossible. Maybe Cherie’s more left-wing influence is greater on Tony (have her elected to Parliament as well as her husband perhaps). 1983 not being a landslide loss (maybe without the Falklands) would also limit the influence of NewLabour.
 
Blair said he was a communist in university and was inspired by Trotsky, so it’s not impossible. Maybe Cherie’s more left-wing influence is greater on Tony (have her elected to Parliament as well as her husband perhaps). 1983 not being a landslide loss (maybe without the Falklands) would also limit the influence of NewLabour.

With the decline of the Soviet Union through, I feel it would require either some sort of social democratic consensus triumphing instead of the Reganite-Thatcher model triumphing, or Soviets win the Cold War, or greater New Left and Trotskyist influence in British society and politics.
 
I certainly doubt if Blair did remain a Trotskyist he would become beyond an M.P. However if he became a bit softer on a few things while still remaining typical of the British Left he could end up heading the Labour party but you may need the "New Labour" crowd to spilt off possibly joining the Libs. It would help if Blair becomes a little bit Nationalistic this could certainly him receive a broader audience should he become head of the party. I certainly don't see how else you could ensure him getting into office. Anyway if he was more left-wing, who is to say that he will remain Labour?
 
I certainly doubt if Blair did remain a Trotskyist he would become beyond an M.P. However if he became a bit softer on a few things while still remaining typical of the British Left he could end up heading the Labour party but you may need the "New Labour" crowd to spilt off possibly joining the Libs.
That had already happened literally in the decade before Blair became leader. The perceived failure of the SDP was one of the biggest reasons there hasn't been a breakaway under Corbyn. It wouldnt happen again when it was even fresher in MPs minds.
It would help if Blair becomes a little bit Nationalistic this could certainly him receive a broader audience should he become head of the party. I certainly don't see how else you could ensure him getting into office. Anyway if he was more left-wing, who is to say that he will remain Labour?
The OP isn't suggesting he'd remain a Trot, or even a Bennite. Even if he were, Labour housed plenty of radical leftists at this time, I can't see him leaving. But I think what is being asked is whether he could be a bit more like a Kinnock or a John Smith. He'd be more left wing, but still moderate enough to be elected off of the back of his charisma and the utter collapse of the Tories in 1997.
 
The OP isn't suggesting he'd remain a Trot, or even a Bennite. Even if he were, Labour housed plenty of radical leftists at this time, I can't see him leaving. But I think what is being asked is whether he could be a bit more like a Kinnock or a John Smith. He'd be more left wing, but still moderate enough to be elected off of the back of his charisma and the utter collapse of the Tories in 1997.
IMHO the utter collapse of the Tories in 1997 was in part due to Mr Blair and New Labour being as right wing as they were.

I think John Major and Mr Blair (correctly) deduced that what most British people wanted was One Nation Conservatism or "Thatcherism with a human face." John Major was unable to deliver it which left the field open for Mr Blair's "Thatcherism with a Cheshire Cat smile."

If Mr Blair had been more like John Smith or Neil Kinnock there would not have been an "utter collapse" of the Conservatives. I it would have been "merely" a collapse (i.e. less severe than OTL) at worst, but I think it would have been a "normal" victory with the Labour Party gaining a working majority.

The Liberals are likely to have done better in 1997 because some people who voted Labour IOTL would vote Liberal had Mr Blair been more left wing. However, because of the first pas the post electoral system it's likely that the increase in Liberal votes would not have produced a corresponding increase in the number of MPs elected.
 
IMHO the utter collapse of the Tories in 1997 was in part due to Mr Blair and New Labour being as right wing as they were.

I think John Major and Mr Blair (correctly) deduced that what most British people wanted was One Nation Conservatism or "Thatcherism with a human face." John Major was unable to deliver it which left the field open for Mr Blair's "Thatcherism with a Cheshire Cat smile."

If Mr Blair had been more like John Smith or Neil Kinnock there would not have been an "utter collapse" of the Conservatives. I it would have been "merely" a collapse (i.e. less severe than OTL) at worst, but I think it would have been a "normal" victory with the Labour Party gaining a working majority.

The Liberals are likely to have done better in 1997 because some people who voted Labour IOTL would vote Liberal had Mr Blair been more left wing. However, because of the first pas the post electoral system it's likely that the increase in Liberal votes would not have produced a corresponding increase in the number of MPs elected.
It's very possible that New Labour's centrism is part of what won it such a ridiculous majority in 1997, but it was only one factor amongst many, the others being Blair's personal charisma, and Black Wednesday and the UK's weariness with eighteen years of Tory rule. Those last two aren't going away if Blair is more left wing. He probably wouldn't win over 400 seats, but a triple digit majority is still very likely imo.
 
It's very possible that New Labour's centrism is part of what won it such a ridiculous majority in 1997, but it was only one factor amongst many, the others being Blair's personal charisma, and Black Wednesday and the UK's weariness with eighteen years of Tory rule. Those last two aren't going away if Blair is more left wing. He probably wouldn't win over 400 seats, but a triple digit majority is still very likely imo.
"New Labour. New Danger!"

"Old Labour. Old Danger!"


Having written that I largely agree with you. My personal opinion is that a Labour Party victory in 1997 was a "dead cert" even if they hadn't shifted to the centre.

My personal opinion is that the odds ITTL were 2:3 for a working majority and 1:3 for a triple digit majority. The further it moved to the centre, the bigger the landslide.
 
Top