Effect on UK Politics of no Iraq war

What if the Iraq War never happened, or Blair decided not to join early on? How strong and long-lived could New Labour get? How long would Blair last? My prediction is Blair beats Howard in 2005 but with a 120-seat majority. Then in 2009 he retires just as the financial crisis hits, Brown takes the reins and in a 2009/2010 election Labour wins a tiny majority or gets a plurality in a hung parliament. What do you think would be the effects? What if?
 
Did the Iraq War play a significant role in the defeat of Labour? Blair, one of the main architects of that war, managed to win re-election in 2005. IIRC, that was after the war had begun to go snafu, and it had become apparent that the original rationale for the invasion didn't hold water.
 
Did the Iraq War play a significant role in the defeat of Labour? Blair, one of the main architects of that war, managed to win re-election in 2005. IIRC, that was after the war had begun to go snafu, and it had become apparent that the original rationale for the invasion didn't hold water.

The Iraq War played a big part in the unpopularity of Labour towards the end. Whilst in 2005 it might have begun to seem a mess, it wasn't actually that clear at the time. Also, 2005 represented a major failing by the Conservatives to put across a clear and compelling message to the electorate.

By 2010 Labour had had Iraq hang around its neck for five years.

But it also had the financial crisis to contend with, as well as voter apathy and desire for change.

I don't think its too hard for Labour to get a plurality in a hung parliament in 2010 and many Lib Dem party members would have preferred to prop up a Labour Government than a Tory one.

A few down-the-road changes to consider:

*The legacy of Tony Blair (and to a lesser extent Brown) are going to be very different. Whilst the party might feel the need to tweak New Labour formulas, the Blair era will be considered THE model for progressive government in decades to come for the party. You wouldn't see anything like the Corbyn-surge IOTL. Blair would be a respected party elder ITTL - same for other Blair-era figures such as Mandelson.

*You could well see the Conservatives splinter if Cameron fails - Tory leadership battles are bloody historically and in this scenario nothing has butterflied the appeal of Farage and UKIP.

*The Lib Dems probably get their boundary changes and AV ITTL. Labour was much more undecided on the issue than Cameron - probably Clegg is more of a power-player in years to come.

*The SNP is still lurking in the wings, however, as again this scenario does little to limit their appeal in Scotland. They are, even more than in our timeline, a timebomb waiting to explode any fragile Labour coalition come election time in 2015.

*Without the legacy of Iraqi intervention hanging over them, Labour is probably less gun-shy about intervention in Syria. It becomes a more black and white issue especially as France (presumably in this timeline much closer to the UK as they both protest the Iraq War) is going to bomb.

*Just my opinion, but I feel that Blair/Brown/whoever by 2015 would have handled the Syrian refugee crisis better. Even the most charitable of assessments must see Cameron as having dropped the ball on this, and whilst people will probably flame me for this in the thread Iraq aside Blair actually had (and arguably has) impressive humanitarian credentials.
 
You're on the right lines, Reydan, but if the Iraq War never happens, both Syria and the Syrian refugee crisis are heavily butterflied and almost certainly won't occur. So Labour's response to them is irrelevant. However, I agree they'd be less on-edge about intervention.

I'd also say that Cameron would probably survive 2010 - there was a sense when he was elected that Labour would win the next two elections and his was a 'two term project' to get the Tories back into power. I don't think they'd splinter, therefore, unless Labour won the 2014/2015 election too.
 
You're on the right lines, Reydan, but if the Iraq War never happens, both Syria and the Syrian refugee crisis are heavily butterflied and almost certainly won't occur. So Labour's response to them is irrelevant. However, I agree they'd be less on-edge about intervention.
I don't see the Syrian civil war being butterflied completely out of existence since the Iraq war was only one of many factors that contributed to that and the Arab Spring. Although Daesh wouldn't exist in this timeline it's difficult to say what state Al-Qaeda would be in since it would depend on how the war in Afghanistan and it's aftermath went.
I'd also say that Cameron would probably survive 2010 - there was a sense when he was elected that Labour would win the next two elections and his was a 'two term project' to get the Tories back into power. I don't think they'd splinter, therefore, unless Labour won the 2014/2015 election too.
Without Iraq there's less reason for Blair not to stick to the deal which could mean Brown fighting the 2005 election. If that happens it's going to change the perception of his involvement in the financial crisis. It may well be that David or Ed Miliband leads the party in to 2009/2010. Cameron's fate depends on what happens in that campaign. If he loses to David or Ed I could see him being pushed out before the next election. I think that Cameron's fate might depend on him fighting Brown in 2009/2010 and Brown passing the reigns before a 2013/2014 election.
 
Last edited:
You're on the right lines, Reydan, but if the Iraq War never happens, both Syria and the Syrian refugee crisis are heavily butterflied and almost certainly won't occur. So Labour's response to them is irrelevant. However, I agree they'd be less on-edge about intervention.

Oh, completely agree with you. I was just going down the option of UK non-intervention rather than a no-Iraq war scenario as the OP posted both. But yes, for better or worse a Labour party more at peace with intervention, although presumably Afghanistan continues to cause problems.

I'd also say that Cameron would probably survive 2010 - there was a sense when he was elected that Labour would win the next two elections and his was a 'two term project' to get the Tories back into power. I don't think they'd splinter, therefore, unless Labour won the 2014/2015 election too.

He might well survive, I agree, but any post 2010 defeat Conservatives would be thrown back into a UKIP inspired crisis 2010-2015. Would Cameron's centrist program that aimed at uniting the disparate factions of the party survive that loss? I don't know. I don't think this necessarily butterflies Reckless and Carswell leaving for UKIP and maybe taking a few more eurosceptic tories with them.
 
Did the Iraq War play a significant role in the defeat of Labour? Blair, one of the main architects of that war, managed to win re-election in 2005. IIRC, that was after the war had begun to go snafu, and it had become apparent that the original rationale for the invasion didn't hold water.

Good point, though it's also worth noting that the Conservatives were fully behind the war. Had they taken a stance against it, they could've done better-not enough to win, but they’d have held Labour to a smaller majority if their main opposition was against the Iraq war.

Back to the Scenario at hand though-and talking of opposition to the war, I suspect the Lib Dems do worse at TTL's 2005 election without the war as a backdrop, though they may still increase their parliamentary representation. I do wonder if this has any effect on Charles Kennedy's leadership-and who the party choose to succeed him in the event that he still goes on schedule.

I imagine the Conservatives do about as well as they did in OTL, assuming it's still Howard as leader and the butterflies don't allow IDS to stay on-or for someone else to put their name forward. Personally I think IDS is still no-confidenced in Oct 2003, though is there a possibility of it happening earlier, without the war as a distraction from internal party politics?

I agree with the contention that Blair is stronger politically minus the Iraq war, especially within the Labour ranks. Having said that though, on balance Brown probably takes over if Blair quits at around the same time-unless Blair can find someone else to quietly back. Could Robbin Cook be an alternative leader presuming he lives past 2005-and doesn’t resign over another issue in the ensuing years? In any case, there’s probably a good chance that the alternate post Blair leadership election isn’t the Coronation it was OTL, especially if Blair is able to hold on until the financial crisis occurs.

Also, I wonder what no war in Iraq does to the ministerial career of Jack Straw-and others directly involved in the war itself? How about other “Blairite” ministers? On another note, does Clair Short resign from the government eventually? Does Galloway still find an excuse to form ‘Respect’ TTL?

Years down the line, I wouldn’t rule out a muted version of Corbynism making an impact, though it wouldn’t be on the scale of OTL for reasons outlined.
 
He might well survive, I agree, but any post 2010 defeat Conservatives would be thrown back into a UKIP inspired crisis 2010-2015. Would Cameron's centrist program that aimed at uniting the disparate factions of the party survive that loss? I don't know. I don't think this necessarily butterflies Reckless and Carswell leaving for UKIP and maybe taking a few more eurosceptic tories with them.

I think it absolutely does butterfly that - the Tories' modern woes with UKIP are almost entirely a result of them entering government, and with the Lib Dems, no less. I agree the Tories would still have UKIP problems, just as they did in 2009 or 2008, but those were very different and much smaller problems (though we should remember that in 2015 it turned out not to affect them much when it mattered), and it's very hard to reliably predict the impact UKIP would continue to have on both parties under a continuing Labour government. You might well see UKIP hoovering up more white working class Labour voters while the Tories remain relatively stable.

Cameron's centrist programme was kind of done by 2010, and disappeared a few months into the coalition, and in the event of a defeat - as long as it was a 'good defeat' (i.e. they gain ground and it looks impossible for Labour to win 2014/2015, maybe even a small majority that means an early election is likely), the Tories would bind themselves together further. Remember the Tories are kind of the opposite to Labour (recent Labour, anyway): they unite in opposition, but pull out the knives very quickly once they're in power (Labour these days becoming terrifyingly united in power but squabbling like children in opposition). They are, as an organism, prepared to compromise and stand on the same stage as people they hate but grin through gritted teeth. Winning power is everything - then they become backstabby.

Of course, the IDS experiment seems to disprove that, but it was short-lived and, ITTL, is already over. The party had committed to Cameron by this point, and so as long as he makes some respectable gains (inevitable in an election where Labour are going for a fourth term, Blair or no Blair), he would be safe, and would get further loyalty. He would doubtless move right slightly in the 2010-2015 parliament, in return for the support of his backbenchers, but I really don't think UKIP would be anything like the problem for him that they were in OTL, because he isn't in power and therefore not having to disappoint potential UKIP voters by not 'delivering' on Europe or immigration (the latter being much more important).
 
Good point, though it's also worth noting that the Conservatives were fully behind the war. Had they taken a stance against it, they could've done better-not enough to win, but they’d have held Labour to a smaller majority if their main opposition was against the Iraq war.

I think this wouldn't work, though - if IDS and the shadow cabinet somehow came out against the war, their MPs and members simply wouldn't stand for it. This is the Conservatives we're talking about, they cannot be expected to oppose a gung-ho military action alongside our brave American allies. While it's probably ASB to get Iain Duncan Smith personally opposed to the war, if he somehow was convinced, you would still need a further trainload of ASBs to get his party - who elected him, if nothing else, to be a right wing leader - to follow him.
 
I think this wouldn't work, though - if IDS and the shadow cabinet somehow came out against the war, their MPs and members simply wouldn't stand for it. This is the Conservatives we're talking about, they cannot be expected to oppose a gung-ho military action alongside our brave American allies. While it's probably ASB to get Iain Duncan Smith personally opposed to the war, if he somehow was convinced, you would still need a further trainload of ASBs to get his party - who elected him, if nothing else, to be a right wing leader - to follow him.

Oh I agree that the Tories coming out on mass against the war is ASB, my main point was that they couldn't capitalise on the rising anti-war sentiment in the 2005 election, because of their support for it. That left the Lib Dems as the most credible party aposed to the war-and since they're clearly the 3rd party at that point, it's inevitable that the Iraq war-on the surface at least, didn't seem like the decisive factor you'd expect it to be in the 2005 election, even though it was hurting the Labour government in reality.
 
That brings up a separate question; without the Iraq War to alienate many on the left from Labour, do the LibDems rise as much?

If they don't (and thus never become coalition partners), then they presumably also don't suffer their recent backlash as well.
 
That brings up a separate question; without the Iraq War to alienate many on the left from Labour, do the LibDems rise as much?

If they don't (and thus never become coalition partners), then they presumably also don't suffer their recent backlash as well.

Iainbhx is a bit of an expert on Lib Dem fortunes, and IIRC he has said that when examined closely, the big gains in 2005 don't seem to have been as much to do with Iraq as they look at first glance. Something about a lot of long term work on certain seats and areas paying off at once, though doubtless aided by the media amplification of Charles Kennedy: War Opposer.
 
Iainbhx is a bit of an expert on Lib Dem fortunes, and IIRC he has said that when examined closely, the big gains in 2005 don't seem to have been as much to do with Iraq as they look at first glance. Something about a lot of long term work on certain seats and areas paying off at once, though doubtless aided by the media amplification of Charles Kennedy: War Opposer.

The Lib Dems biggest gains were in 1997. In 2005 they gained about a dozen seats, so this really wouldn't make that much of a difference to the Lib Dems or their future fortunes. Labour has a built in tribal floor, as do the Conservatives that no amount of war protests are going to break through. Not in one election anyway.
 
The Lib Dems biggest gains were in 1997. In 2005 they gained about a dozen seats, so this really wouldn't make that much of a difference to the Lib Dems or their future fortunes.

It was one of their worst electoral performances, though - they went backwards in the vote. 2005 saw them get to 22%.

Not really sure what you're saying, though - could you expand?

Labour has a built in tribal floor, as do the Conservatives that no amount of war protests are going to break through. Not in one election anyway.

I wasn't disputing that (or even talking about it), I'm well aware of it.
 
It was one of their worst electoral performances, though - they went backwards in the vote. 2005 saw them get to 22%.

Not really sure what you're saying, though - could you expand?

I wasn't addressing the raw numbers, since they don't really matter, as you know. I was pointing to the fact that the Lib Dem anti-war status did about as much for them as it could given the inbuilt support of the Tories and Labour, and it was marginal in terms of actual seats. So no Iraq War doesn't really help them any, in the short term. It will probably keep Labour in power in 2010 though, and no coalition can only be good for the party in the long term.
 
I wasn't addressing the raw numbers, since they don't really matter, as you know. I was pointing to the fact that the Lib Dem anti-war status did about as much for them as it could given the inbuilt support of the Tories and Labour, and it was marginal in terms of actual seats. So no Iraq War doesn't really help them any, in the short term. It will probably keep Labour in power in 2010 though, and no coalition can only be good for the party in the long term.

There's a pointed tone here I don't like very much, but I'm confused, or perhaps you are: 'So no Iraq War doesn't really help them any' seems to suggest you're arguing against me saying an Iraq-free world would be better for the Lib Dems, which I haven't done once in this thread, or - AFAIK - ever.
 
There's a pointed tone here I don't like very much, but I'm confused, or perhaps you are: 'So no Iraq War doesn't really help them any' seems to suggest you're arguing against me saying an Iraq-free world would be better for the Lib Dems, which I haven't done once in this thread, or - AFAIK - ever.

Then I must apologise. No tone was intended, and if one was put forth then I apologise unreservedly.

Looking back at your previous posts, I don't disagree with you. My commenting was mainly on the issue of their gains in 2005.
 
I think 2005 would go like this:

Blair-Labour: 386-17 39.0%
Howard-Conservative: 178+12 31.1%
Kennedy-LibDem: 53+1 19.7%
 
Then I must apologise. No tone was intended, and if one was put forth then I apologise unreservedly.

Looking back at your previous posts, I don't disagree with you. My commenting was mainly on the issue of their gains in 2005.

Ah, peace in the valley, then :)

I think 2005 would go like this:

Blair-Labour: 386-17 39.0%
Howard-Conservative: 178+12 31.1%
Kennedy-LibDem: 53+1 19.7%

Not impossible. Whether Blair now tries to stay on (Operation Teddy Bear?) would now probably dictate whether Labour win in 2009/10. ITTL he might not have said 'I won't be PM at the end of the next parliament'.
 
Top