Challenge: Blair v. Cameron

Let's say that Blair decides to seek a fourth term, unprecedented since WWI. Who would win? I'm going with the three-term rule UK pendulum, and when you scrape through (ex '92), it merely delays the inevitable massacre.
 
Let's say that Blair decides to seek a fourth term, unprecedented since WWI. Who would win? I'm going with the three-term rule UK pendulum, and when you scrape through (ex '92), it merely delays the inevitable massacre.
I would say Blair scrapes it although the fight is bloodier than a bloodbath in a butchers shop.
 
No, to an extent Blair is even more hated than Brown allthough I can't see why. He is blamed for Iraq, would be blamed for the economic crisis and New Labour is seen as purely his pet project. I don't think his carisma would be enough to carry him though.

How do you get Blair to get back on his word with his power sharing deal with Brown?
 
What he could do is how Mackenzie King held minority governments together for 12 years (of 22.5 in the PMO): a defacto one with the third party supporting the government from outside, but not receiving Cabinet posts like a formal coalition.
 
This question is flawed in the sense that it handwaves away Brown. If Blair is going to seak a fourth term then he will have to face down Brown in some way, and that means a shitload of party squabbling, at least in the short term. That will do nothing for Labour's standing.

Blair would also have the continung stain of Iraq hanging over him. The left are by no means struck of Brown, but they hated Blair because of Iraq.

Blair would certainly have been more formidable than Brown but he is clearly going to face an immensely difficult set of political circumstances.
 

Thande

Donor
It's a very tricky question. Despite everything, I think Blair would hypothetically do a bit better than Brown will in OTL. But the situation will be different, both for the reasons V-J mentions and the fact that Blair is unlikely to be as much of a cowardly ditherer and leave the election to the absolute last minute, which is blood in the water for anyone who has eyes to see.
 
Waiting until the fifth year never pays off, it means you want to secure the last cents (or euros, BTW) of your pension. Look at 1964, 1979, 1992, 1997. Though you in the UK have a stronger five-year tradition than we do.
 
which is blood in the water for anyone who has eyes to see.
Actually, if your going to stop Brown and keep Blair, thats the scenario I was thinking of. Browns eyesight gets worse earlier and causes him to go blind. He steps down to spend more time with the family etc. Blair remains in office, no bloodbath within the Labour Party.
 
The Tories are the ones who are fond of internal coups. After all, the first one was conducted by the Earl of Beaconsfield. I imagine it would be like Chretien v. Martin here, but the incumbent wins...
 
Top