What would the consequences be for Blair, Labour, and Britain if either a)Britain didn't go in Iraq in 2003 but America did or b)there was no Iraq war at all?
Blair without Iraq?
- Thread starter broken-arrow
- Start date
-
- Tags
- blair iraq united kigdom
Blair would leave office with his reputation intact. Prior to the Iraq war Blair was pretty popular in the UK, but the war destroyed that.
As to staying on longer, maybe, but then Brown was always itching to get his foot into number 10 anyway. The flip side is if Blair stays on and is still in charge when the recession hits in 2008, he might end up taking the share of the blame for it that Brown took.
As to staying on longer, maybe, but then Brown was always itching to get his foot into number 10 anyway. The flip side is if Blair stays on and is still in charge when the recession hits in 2008, he might end up taking the share of the blame for it that Brown took.
Another landslide victory in 2005 would be likely, particularly if they don't ditch IDS. Maybe Blair would feel strong enough to essentially ditch his promise to Brown and go on indefinitely, though he'd probably only be given one more election before stepping aside if that was the case.
Regardless of the leader, there is a good chance of Labour continuing into a fourth term with the Lib Dems after 2010, even if they lose the popular vote, though the Tories would probably get back in the time after that.
In terms of legacy, Blair wouldn't be universally detested by his own party in quite the same way, in fact he might even be liked, though there would still be criticism of his handling of the economy from those inclined toward the left. Think Bill Clinton for the Democrats. That probably also means that those from the right of the party like David Miliband would stand a better chance of leading it one day, and Labour would probably remain somewhat centrist when it eventually goes into opposition, though this might not last
Regardless of the leader, there is a good chance of Labour continuing into a fourth term with the Lib Dems after 2010, even if they lose the popular vote, though the Tories would probably get back in the time after that.
In terms of legacy, Blair wouldn't be universally detested by his own party in quite the same way, in fact he might even be liked, though there would still be criticism of his handling of the economy from those inclined toward the left. Think Bill Clinton for the Democrats. That probably also means that those from the right of the party like David Miliband would stand a better chance of leading it one day, and Labour would probably remain somewhat centrist when it eventually goes into opposition, though this might not last
Does this mean Britain doesn't join the war or that there is no Iraq War at all?
In the first case, would the special relationship be damaged with no participation or even simple logistical and political support?
In the first case, would the special relationship be damaged with no participation or even simple logistical and political support?
Without Iraq he’ll try and join the Euro, that was supposed to be the centrepiece of his second term. I read something recently that apparently he’d told Gordon Brown that if he’d dropped his opposition to a referendum on membership then he’d stand down as soon as we’d joined.
Blair at the height of his powers is about the only person who could have pulled it off. Untainted by Iraq he’d go for it.
Blair at the height of his powers is about the only person who could have pulled it off. Untainted by Iraq he’d go for it.
samcster94
Banned
What about "Euro-lite", where they don't join, but connect their debt to the Euro like what Ireland did for a while(the only English speakers on the Euro)?
He would probably go for it without Iraq but in terms of polling I think even at the peak of pro-entry sentiment it never went higher than about a third. I suppose it's technically possible during a campaign Ken Clarke and Blair saying 'Please, please, please let us get what we want' would swing 20% or more but you certainly wouldn't bet your garden shed on it.
Perhaps in foriegn affairs he pays more attention to the crisis in Zimbabwe which led to some genuine musings on military intervention. No Iraq to distract or ruin Blair's fairly successful military track record (Kosovo, Sierra Leone), maybe Britain and Commonwealth forces from South Africa and Zambia end up launching a 'humanitarian intervention'? Not incredibly likely but is an area that got overlooked due to Iraq.
On Blair staying longer, I'm not that sure. Obviously Iraq hurt him but he clung on viciously - IOTL he did ten years, even much more popular overall, entropy kicks in eventually. His legacy would be interesting though, Iraq is central to the pre-Corbyn Labour left that ultimately took over and has made Blair basically a dirty word in the party. Without Iraq he becomes even more of a Labourite Thatcher figure with the 'Progress' section maintaing larger popular support while Brownites remain a credible centrist faction in the party. Although a Momentum shift isn't impossible without Iraq the Blairites are nowhere near as toxic. Actually saying that the odds of a Corbyn/McDonnell nomination are much lower so more likely an 'outsider' movement, maybe getting co-opted by that ideological chamaleon Andy Burnham?
Hell maybe die-hard Blairites end up a super pro-Europe faction that causes issues for Labour (ala the Thatcherite Masstrict rebels). Come a Brexit scenario the Europhiles of Progress end up the darlings of Remain Guardianistas.
Also where are the Liberal Democrats in this TL? Iraq was central to their 2005/2010 surge.
No Iraq could help the Tories to some extent - it did them no real favours as they supported the war - if events similar to what TOS says happen with Blair pushing the Euro, and similar unpopular drives like for ID Cards, the Conservatives can get a decent angle on the Government, then come the Crash they can clean up with the economy with a much weaker Lib Dem third force to combat.
I was going to say no Iraq would help the deficit but given how high it has risen since 2010, similar Tory spending plans (or alt Labour spending plans) might make it a relatively unimportant saving.
On Blair staying longer, I'm not that sure. Obviously Iraq hurt him but he clung on viciously - IOTL he did ten years, even much more popular overall, entropy kicks in eventually. His legacy would be interesting though, Iraq is central to the pre-Corbyn Labour left that ultimately took over and has made Blair basically a dirty word in the party. Without Iraq he becomes even more of a Labourite Thatcher figure with the 'Progress' section maintaing larger popular support while Brownites remain a credible centrist faction in the party. Although a Momentum shift isn't impossible without Iraq the Blairites are nowhere near as toxic. Actually saying that the odds of a Corbyn/McDonnell nomination are much lower so more likely an 'outsider' movement, maybe getting co-opted by that ideological chamaleon Andy Burnham?
Hell maybe die-hard Blairites end up a super pro-Europe faction that causes issues for Labour (ala the Thatcherite Masstrict rebels). Come a Brexit scenario the Europhiles of Progress end up the darlings of Remain Guardianistas.
Also where are the Liberal Democrats in this TL? Iraq was central to their 2005/2010 surge.
No Iraq could help the Tories to some extent - it did them no real favours as they supported the war - if events similar to what TOS says happen with Blair pushing the Euro, and similar unpopular drives like for ID Cards, the Conservatives can get a decent angle on the Government, then come the Crash they can clean up with the economy with a much weaker Lib Dem third force to combat.
I was going to say no Iraq would help the deficit but given how high it has risen since 2010, similar Tory spending plans (or alt Labour spending plans) might make it a relatively unimportant saving.
Last edited:
Burnham is not the sort of politician who could connect with the Labour memberships views in quite the same way as Corbyn could. Its likely that the 'change' candidate would initially be the same as OTL; Ed Miliband, though he'd probably stand less of a chance against his brother without Iraq to divide them. Beyond that, there is no reason why there should be a Corbyn style outsider. Putting ideological shifts aside, a PoD over ten years prior to his election would easily prevent what is probably one of the most easily butterflied events in British politics. Maybe Abbott or McDonnell gets on the ballot at some point, but I don't think they had the qualities that allowed Corbyn to win anyway. More likely is that you either have no change candidate at all and the election turns out to be a thoroughly uninspiring one, or someone more radical than Burnham like Owen Smith or Lisa Nandy runs. Or maybe someone with more charisma like Khan.
Blairites aren't all pro Europe, and not all pro Europe Labour MPs are Blairites. Maybe a firmly pro remain stance could enhance the popularity of some of the MPs from that faction, but it wouldn't effect how people feel about them on other issues, as there will be figures on the left of the party who resist Brexit (if it happens) just as they do now.
If he does call it, and I think he would by 2003/4 without Iraq taking up so much political space and capital, it'd be interesting to see the effects of an explicit rejection of the Euro by a decent margin. I think Blair could still swing a lot of votes as the golden boy but it'd be at most 40% and that's with some generous failings from the NO campaign. IIRC, 2004 had arguments over the rebate which would probably do more to turn the debate into a referendum on how voters feel the EU treats them. Blair wanted Euro membership as a way to remove the 'poison' of British Euroscepticism at the time, but that could turn against him. I doubt it'd lead to a referendum on Lisbon, the EU Constitution would have more kicking and screaming with the failure of the Euro in mind, but the precedent's now there.
I think Blair's offer to Brown was more out of desperation than anything, but from what we've seen of him post-2016 suggests that he'd go full-force on Yes2Euro. What that means for voter perception and fall-out assuming he loses is up in the air. I doubt he'd resign, beyond a bit of contemplation and Brown 'subtly' supporting the idea, nor do I think it'd effect 2005 much (apart from maybe Howard going more Eurosceptic, smelling blood in the water) beyond a better Labour result, but it'd probably be the first chink in the armour. Without Iraq, he'd also have more capital to push public-sector reforms which could mean more show-downs with internal opponents and far less pressure from polls means less need to appease Brown. That might be the main reason for the party, at a smaller scale and over a longer period of time, falling out of love with him,
What happens in 2009 when the crash hits is the big question. Blair in his book said he'd have gone for something like what Osborne did, which riled Ed Balls, but that'd be controversial. Is Brown going to accept that, or being moved if he doesn't?
Well, the intention IOTL was to go in around 2009 - which I think, if we read between the lines, was based on exceeding Mrs T's time in office, thus becoming the longest-serving PM in modern times. That was in OTL though.
I'm not sure that holds in a 'no Iraq' scenario though, because that was predicated on the 'full third term' promise. Given how Blair today openly fantasises about still becoming PM again - dear lord - I think it's a reasonable assumption that he would have always been one of those types who had to be forced out of the job. And as I'm sure you know, Brown was always ultra-reticent about putting the knife in, even with Blair tanking his reputation through Iraq, and Brown, not Blair, assuming the Labour asset mantle.
I think it's about 50-50 that he tries to just go on, and on, and on, and probably does, until electoral reality intervenes.
Bolt451
Gone Fishin'
With lots of neon signs. Its a thematic dystopia, there needs to be neon signs.
Grey Wolf
Donor
Well, I might be misremembering but both policies were to be trialed by Labour. Brown nixed both of them due to his protestant moralism, but a Blair who hangs on longer would presumably see them both trialed. I certainly remember the bidding process for the super-casinos, and even seeing plans and diagrams for some to be built in the Blackpool area. The prostitutes were more controversial, but I definitely recall the discussion about trialing this too.
I'd forgotten this - Part of the expansion and redevelopment plans for St James' Park was based upon a Newcastle Super Casino and hotel complex built on land owned by the club. I am tempted to write a TLIAD where a retired Blair takes the role of honorary chairman of Newcastle United, and at our 60,000 capacity Stadium watches an obscenely wealthy NUFC do regular battle at the top of the Premier League, funded by the casino relieving travelling stag dos (and Premier League Footballers) of their cash.
IIRC, Brown's reaction to the backbench revolt that toppled Blair was something akin to panic that it'd be traced back to him. I'd say the reaction to the crash would be a question of whether Blair's inability to confront Brown on economic matters is stronger than Brown's inability to escalate things beyond sabotaging any other successor and trying to block policies.
Blair wouldn't have a reason to call an election in 2007, mostly because Labour/Brown's poll bounce was because Blair was finally gone, but it'd only be by the financial crisis that the Tories would start out-polling Labour. If 2005 goes better for Labour, I don't know if it'd help Cameron more or less against Davis. On the one hand, it's clear proof that the Tories can't rely on Europhilia being unpopular and that they need to modernise, but on the other hand, it wasn't exactly a close-call IOTL either. I think Cameron would still win, although it'd take longer for something like "you were the future once" to become a resonant attack-line.
2010 would be an interesting election. The shine would have gone off Blair and the party-base may not be as defiant as they were IOTL about defending the record and keeping the Tories out, but if the Tories run a similarly shit campaign, it's up in the air. How the LibDems are affected by no-Iraq might be important. There's no reason that Clegg's victory isn't butterflied, but I can see by early 2010 some commentators getting into a frenzy over a potential National Government to sort out the economy. In the end, it'd be a boring Tory-LibDem coalition, maybe less harmonious initially or after a longer negotiating period as Blair's more open to making a deal than Brown.
I suspect that Blair would eventually have to be forced out by his heart issues, especially if he ends up having to lead a response to the banking crash.
I don't understand what you mean by this. Ireland is a full member of the Eurozone.
Do you mean the UK would peg its currency to the Euro, as in the ERM? Seems unlikely given the 1992 experience but YNK. Or issue debt denominated in euros? That would be a No-No.