Labor without Iraq

At the height of Tony Blair’s power it seemed like Labour was simply unbeatable, having quashed the deregulation and austerity policies of the Tories. However Blair invested a huge sum of his political capital into the Iraq War that ended up driving his approval down considerably. He still had quite enough to muster one last election win in 05’ but at that point it seemed the dye was cast. Didn’t help either his heir apparent was the uninspiring and lackluster Gordon Brown. Question is without Iraq and the scandals how far could Labour’s dominance have run? Let’s say Blair had run again In 2010 as a referendum on one final term?
 
Not past the 2010 election. Somebody was going to be blamed for the economy, and it wasn't going to be the opposition.

I think you overestimate Iraq's importance as well. It mattered a lot in 2005 when it looked like the country was going to sever into different units and the Shiites and Sunnis were in a virtual civil war. By 2008, the economy had become way more important, and the surge and the Anbar awakening had largely stabilized things. By 2010, Iraq was a non-issue politically.

The expenses scandal probably leads to the OTL Lib-Dem surge.

Blair's leadership of the party ultimately was unsustainable past a certain point, though, and I don't see how he gets to 2010 anyways.
 
Top