Labour loses in 2005- who would lead the Party after Blair.

Ok, my scenario features multiple PoDs:
1)The 1993 WTC bombings are successful and and the ''War on Terror'' starts 8 years earlier. US is not involved in either Afghanistan or Iraq and instead atatcks Sudan (which hosted Al-Qaeda back then) and generally focuses more on Africa during 1990s- more troops in Somalia (no Black Hawk down), proper intervention in Rwanda. Plus, in Yugoslavia Serbs and Croats are successful in partitioning Bosnia by 1995 while playing on the anti-muslim narratives that emerged earlier in this world (and NATO not intervening in Balkans in 1990s).
2) Kenneth Clarke is elected Tory leader in 2001. As I know the IRL Tory leadership election of 2001 was kinda close and Portillo is a just a too controversial figure to be elected at the time, while Clarke is a staunch Europhile, he is a still generally more respected than Portillo.
4) Gore is elected in 2000 due to "9/11"-esque halo around Clinton and no Lewinsky scandal.
3) So, there is no war in Iraq and the alt-''War on Terror'' fades away by 2000s. But we know that IRL Blair had terrible personal relations with Robert Mugabe and even considered invading Zimbabwe after Mugabe started to conduct his land reform.
5) By 2003, there are two liberal internationalists ruling both US and UK. So, there is a US-UK-South African invasion of Zimbabwe taking place of the IRL Iraq. The Coalition justifies it by saying that Mugabe "genocides local white minority" and "falsifies elections". By 2004 they establish a MDC government uder Tsvangirai with Mugabe loyalists startig a guerilla war.
6)Without IRL 9/11 of 2001, the invasion of Zimbabwe backfires Blair even worse than IRL Iraq. Without the shock of recent terrorist attack, there is even less people who support the war. The 2005 elections end in Labour losing it's majority and Ken Clarke forming a coalition with LibDems.
7) So, with Blair being screwed even more than OTL, would we see the transition to Brown in 2005 according to the Granita deal or an earlier leftward turn with everybody associated with Blair being marginalized? Which option sounds more plausible? And how much left Labour is going to turn? As I know, the IRL Iraq war was one of the main factors that contributed to the rise of Corbyn and hard leftists inside Labour. With war being even less justified, could we the earlier takeover of Labour by hard-leftists or it's going to be the soft left that comes after blairites? If it's the later could name somebody appropriate for the potential 2005 leadership election.
 
Last edited:
Jack Straw.
The problem with him is that he IRL backed the Iraq war following the Party line. While in my scenario Blair's war is even less justified, there is a chance that he might have also backed it. I think somebody more pacifist from the soft left is needed.
 
The problem with him is that he IRL backed the Iraq war following the Party line. While in my scenario Blair's war is even less justified, there is a chance that he might have also backed it. I think somebody more pacifist from the soft left is needed.
Ed Balls?
 
I struggle with the idea of such a large majority being overturned in 2005 if I'm being honest.

I'm far from convinced an invasion of Zimbabwe as you suggest is plausible. There would be enormous resistance in both the US and South Africa let alone the UK so that's where I struggle.

In OTL, Labour's majority was cut from 160 to 60 (roughly). With Clarke rather than Howard, I could certainly imagine a better Conservative performance but Clarke has his own problems with growing anti-EU scepticism within his party which would likely be as much of an annoyance for him from 2005-10 as it was for Major from 1992-97.

A combination of the global financial crash and an effective schism within the Conservatives over Lisbon and the pledge to hold a referendum leaves Labour clear to win back power in 2010. Brown was always going to be Blair's successor and would likely have become PM in 2010 albeit with the public finances in tatters and the country close to recession.
 
I struggle with the idea of such a large majority being overturned in 2005 if I'm being honest.

I'm far from convinced an invasion of Zimbabwe as you suggest is plausible. There would be enormous resistance in both the US and South Africa let alone the UK so that's where I struggle.

In OTL, Labour's majority was cut from 160 to 60 (roughly). With Clarke rather than Howard, I could certainly imagine a better Conservative performance but Clarke has his own problems with growing anti-EU scepticism within his party which would likely be as much of an annoyance for him from 2005-10 as it was for Major from 1992-97.

A combination of the global financial crash and an effective schism within the Conservatives over Lisbon and the pledge to hold a referendum leaves Labour clear to win back power in 2010. Brown was always going to be Blair's successor and would likely have become PM in 2010 albeit with the public finances in tatters and the country close to recession.
Like, I don't think that the US under Gore administration would really oppose such "humanitarian intervention". But yeah, South Africa stiucly opposed the violent regime change in Zimbabwe. Although, Zambia had a pro-Western president Mwanawasa in 2003 who despised Mugabe...

Personally, I learned about Blair's plan to invade Zimbabwe on this forum and decided to start this discussion because there were no posts about.

I just think that Blair being PM until 2009/2010 without war damaging his reputation is just kinda boring.

On Сlarke: Yeah, Clarke's leadership may actually result in more right-wing tories defecting to UKIP earlier, but that's for the second half of the 2000s.

And yeah, while I acknowledge that Brown succeeding Blair in 2005 is the most realistic result here, I just wanted to ask wether more leftish option due to larger anti-war reaction was possible or not.
 
Top