AHQ: Effects of No British Participation in Iraq on British Politics

The Iraq War seems to me to have profoundly affected the British political landscape, mainly to the effect of boosting the Liberal Democrats while weakening the Labour Party, and Tony Blair himself. How would recent British political history have played out, had Blair decided against following Bush into Iraq, or a different American president not declaring war on Iraq in the first place? Would the Labour Party have managed a larger share of the vote and majority in the next election after 2001? Would that have meant that Blair could stay on after 2007, to surpass Margaret Thatcher as the longest serving British Prime Minister of the last 50 years? Would Tony Blair have reneged on his deal with Brown, or simply postponed the date of his departure?

What would the lack of the Iraq War meanfor the Labour Party in general? Would it mean that the Third Way is less discredited, and thus more powerful within the party? Could it have meant an even longer spell in government for Labour, managing to hang on, perhaps as a minority govern,ent or in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, after 2010? What would the priorities of Labour Governments with considerably more political and economic capital be, had they decided not to go into Iraq?
 
The thing is the Iraq war was firmly routed into Tony Blair’s value system. He believed even since the 1990s that dictators should be disposed with militarily as they were in the way of his vision of a modern, liberal and democratic world. He had had concerns on Saddam since at least 1998, and ever since his success in Kosovo in 1999 he saw his military mandate harden against over dictators. 9/11 was the final signal he needed for his assertion to use military force on dictators. Although he did blunder into Iraq because of 9/11 a little.

So it’ll be incredibly difficult to see how Tony would get out of Iraq should the US still want to invade-but it’s not impossible. For instance, Bush did offer him ways out many times during 2003, the one instance which sticks out in my mind was when the UN wouldn’t pass a resolution for the conflict. Let’s say at this point Blair stands in front of Number 10 and declares Britain couldn’t join Iraq, well he would still believe that toppling Saddam was a good thing, and would probably find ways to help the Americans on the side or conduct in air attacks or the like. I doubt that the public and press would completely trust him as much as they did before for even contemplating such a war. The US would still make a hash out of Iraq and I wouldn’t be surprised if they tried to spin at least part of the blame on Tony for drumming up the vision for Iraq with the American public and political system. He may have got Britain involved in the next year in some non military kind of role though.

You’d probably have to consider the massive personal defeat not being able to fight in Iraq would be for Blair. I think he found domestic politics a little underwhelming-and to have to be limited to that for the rest of his premiership would seriously sap much of the life out of him and New Labour.

That said, winning the respect back of the Labour Party, he may feel more confident to sack Brown as Chacellor and replace him with a pro-EU chancellor. Doing so would prolong the Euro question and it may come to a referendum in circa 2006 which would almost certainly be voted down and would be seen as another blow to Blair. Such a referendum would be Brexit mark 1, because Brown (who hated the Euro and would loathe Blair with all his heart and soul at that point) would go all out to get Britain to vote no. He’d probably leak all kinds of economic nonsense to the Sun and Daily Mail and turn Middle England off the Euro. Brown would be the de facto face of New Labour’s “No” camp to the Euro and would probably scare the British people into voting to keep the pound.

If this happens I can’t see how Blair could go on leading the government for too long because he’d be too weakened. Perhaps his Chancellor would quit for being the face of a failed economic plan which would mean Blair would have gone through three Chancellors in less than 10 years.

I’m not too sure when he would resign because I would need to write a proper ins and outs answer to your question but I have a feeling that as long as the Blair-Browm conflict still existed in this OTL New Labour would still get as toxic as it did in our timeline. A referendum on the Euro in mid 2000s would likely cause the same social cataclysm Brexit did but would blow bigger and bigger as we get towards the Lisbon Treaty and the Recession.
 
The thing is the Iraq war was firmly routed into Tony Blair’s value system. He believed even since the 1990s that dictators should be disposed with militarily as they were in the way of his vision of a modern, liberal and democratic world. He had had concerns on Saddam since at least 1998, and ever since his success in Kosovo in 1999 he saw his military mandate harden against over dictators. 9/11 was the final signal he needed for his assertion to use military force on dictators. Although he did blunder into Iraq because of 9/11 a little.

So it’ll be incredibly difficult to see how Tony would get out of Iraq should the US still want to invade-but it’s not impossible. For instance, Bush did offer him ways out many times during 2003, the one instance which sticks out in my mind was when the UN wouldn’t pass a resolution for the conflict. Let’s say at this point Blair stands in front of Number 10 and declares Britain couldn’t join Iraq, well he would still believe that toppling Saddam was a good thing, and would probably find ways to help the Americans on the side or conduct in air attacks or the like. I doubt that the public and press would completely trust him as much as they did before for even contemplating such a war. The US would still make a hash out of Iraq and I wouldn’t be surprised if they tried to spin at least part of the blame on Tony for drumming up the vision for Iraq with the American public and political system. He may have got Britain involved in the next year in some non military kind of role though.

You’d probably have to consider the massive personal defeat not being able to fight in Iraq would be for Blair. I think he found domestic politics a little underwhelming-and to have to be limited to that for the rest of his premiership would seriously sap much of the life out of him and New Labour.

That said, winning the respect back of the Labour Party, he may feel more confident to sack Brown as Chacellor and replace him with a pro-EU chancellor. Doing so would prolong the Euro question and it may come to a referendum in circa 2006 which would almost certainly be voted down and would be seen as another blow to Blair. Such a referendum would be Brexit mark 1, because Brown (who hated the Euro and would loathe Blair with all his heart and soul at that point) would go all out to get Britain to vote no. He’d probably leak all kinds of economic nonsense to the Sun and Daily Mail and turn Middle England off the Euro. Brown would be the de facto face of New Labour’s “No” camp to the Euro and would probably scare the British people into voting to keep the pound.

If this happens I can’t see how Blair could go on leading the government for too long because he’d be too weakened. Perhaps his Chancellor would quit for being the face of a failed economic plan which would mean Blair would have gone through three Chancellors in less than 10 years.

I’m not too sure when he would resign because I would need to write a proper ins and outs answer to your question but I have a feeling that as long as the Blair-Browm conflict still existed in this OTL New Labour would still get as toxic as it did in our timeline. A referendum on the Euro in mid 2000s would likely cause the same social cataclysm Brexit did but would blow bigger and bigger as we get towards the Lisbon Treaty and the Recession.

Yes entirely plausible. Saint Tony really was an innocent abroad with regard to global politics . ...however he knew how to fill his pockets...
 
Top