Simple enough proposal, complex execution. My preferred PoD on this is that Blair makes no deal with Brown and (as expected) beats him in the 1994 leadership election. Beholden to no-one, he faces no pressure to stand down before 2005 (this was the original deal, as we now know) and doesn't have the Brownite faction of the party trying to edge him out throughout the 2005-2010 years.
Now, there's probably still going to be internal problems for Blair within the party, but not on the scale of the Blair/Brown factionalism. Let's say he stays in the post and calls a General Election in either 2009 (more his style) or 2010. World events happen otherwise the same, Iraq, Recession etc. By 2009 he will have outlasted Margaret Thatcher as the longest serving post-1945 PM.
The real questions here: do Labour win the election? Cameron believed Blair to be 'unbeatable', and Clegg (if elected in this TL) would probably be seen as even more of an irrelevant lightweight by the electorate as in OTL. The TV debates, if Blair agrees to them (no sure thing) would surely be dominated by Blair, so it's debatable (pun intended) as to whether Cameron would ask for them in the first place. The other question is when it would have been - mid 2009, as was Blair's style, or May 2010 to go as long as possible to help the economy?
My gut says Labour would have hung on, depending on how Blair runs the financial crisis and who his Chancellor is - does Brown stay on? Perhaps having been fairly beaten in 1994 means he's had 16 years to get over it and pledges to serve the economy as best he can. If not, who is Blair's chancellor? Like the OTL last election, Iraq is unlikely to be a big issue (though with Blair still in the job it might come up more often). My gut also tells me that Blair would lead a Labour government pushing for a middle ground between the Brown and Clameron stances on the deficit - public investment in vulnerable places (see the Regeneration programme for Blair-era examples of that) but serious cuts, too.
The final question is, of course - when does he bloody well go? Does he stagger on til 2015 and surely lose the election? I would think he would rather stay in for a year or two, see that 'his' cuts are working and the economy is perhaps superficially working, then stand aside for David Miliband.
Now, there's probably still going to be internal problems for Blair within the party, but not on the scale of the Blair/Brown factionalism. Let's say he stays in the post and calls a General Election in either 2009 (more his style) or 2010. World events happen otherwise the same, Iraq, Recession etc. By 2009 he will have outlasted Margaret Thatcher as the longest serving post-1945 PM.
The real questions here: do Labour win the election? Cameron believed Blair to be 'unbeatable', and Clegg (if elected in this TL) would probably be seen as even more of an irrelevant lightweight by the electorate as in OTL. The TV debates, if Blair agrees to them (no sure thing) would surely be dominated by Blair, so it's debatable (pun intended) as to whether Cameron would ask for them in the first place. The other question is when it would have been - mid 2009, as was Blair's style, or May 2010 to go as long as possible to help the economy?
My gut says Labour would have hung on, depending on how Blair runs the financial crisis and who his Chancellor is - does Brown stay on? Perhaps having been fairly beaten in 1994 means he's had 16 years to get over it and pledges to serve the economy as best he can. If not, who is Blair's chancellor? Like the OTL last election, Iraq is unlikely to be a big issue (though with Blair still in the job it might come up more often). My gut also tells me that Blair would lead a Labour government pushing for a middle ground between the Brown and Clameron stances on the deficit - public investment in vulnerable places (see the Regeneration programme for Blair-era examples of that) but serious cuts, too.
The final question is, of course - when does he bloody well go? Does he stagger on til 2015 and surely lose the election? I would think he would rather stay in for a year or two, see that 'his' cuts are working and the economy is perhaps superficially working, then stand aside for David Miliband.