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.
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: