Tony Blair dies suddenly in 2003

Ak-84

Banned
Historically, he had some heart trouble at this time and it showed, he began to look his age for about the first time ever. What if they were worse and he died. What if, his arrhythmia led to sudden death, as they sometimes do.

How would his affect British politics. Brown becomes PM four years early, I think he would stil lead labour to victory in 2005. effects on Iraq? Will, when Robin Cook dies as in OTL, will they insist on cardiac screening for all of the Labour front bench?:eek:
 
I think that he really started to look bad in a "Oh my god real life is just horrible" way was after the death of Kelly.
 

Ak-84

Banned
It happened in Autumn 2003 IIRC. He complained of chest pain and was rushed to hospital.
 
Hmm well Iraq's happened, Browns presumed pacifism may help reassure people however. Brown will win the next election regardless, you don't lose elections with that sort of majority, in fact with IDS leading the Tories they might make smaller losses than OTL if anything with the Lib Dems possibly making a few more gains.
 
Hmm well Iraq's happened, Browns presumed pacifism may help reassure people however. Brown will win the next election regardless, you don't lose elections with that sort of majority, in fact with IDS leading the Tories they might make smaller losses than OTL if anything with the Lib Dems possibly making a few more gains.

It's actually not a bad scenario for Labour. The big taint of Blair is gone via Iraq, Gordon can safely call an election with a certain sympathy vote and IDS, is as you say, the quiet man. Plus Gordon still looks like the Iron Chancellor, so there aren't the doubts which had started in 2005.

Mind you, 2008 would be an interesting year for another election....

Possibly end up with Lab 40, Con 32, LDm 22 and a few more Lab and a handful more LDm. Tories would continue their holding pattern in turbulence.
 
Butterflies might scupper Cameron. Who needs an heir to Blair if the new man in town is a tough-talking church school boy? Step forward one Mr Davis...
 
It's actually not a bad scenario for Labour. The big taint of Blair is gone via Iraq, Gordon can safely call an election with a certain sympathy vote and IDS, is as you say, the quiet man. Plus Gordon still looks like the Iron Chancellor, so there aren't the doubts which had started in 2005.

Mind you, 2008 would be an interesting year for another election....

Possibly end up with Lab 40, Con 32, LDm 22 and a few more Lab and a handful more LDm. Tories would continue their holding pattern in turbulence.

Agreed, any idea what this would like in terms of seats?
 
Butterflies might scupper Cameron. Who needs an heir to Blair if the new man in town is a tough-talking church school boy? Step forward one Mr Davis...

I'd think the Tories would want a leader who can handle losing their first election after this alternate 2003, so a younger man might be better.
 
I'd think the Tories would want a leader who can handle losing their first election after this alternate 2003, so a younger man might be better.

Hmm, but it's too early for Cameron or Osbourne.

Cometh the hour, cometh the man. It's Boris time.:D

Seriously - DD or Howard.
 
Agreed, any idea what this would like in terms of seats?

Difficult, it's not 2005, it's a very different environment and I'm a few thousand miles from my reference library. I make it very little difference for the LibDems except they would hold Guildford and might snatch a seat from Labour - I'd say Islington S would be a goner in 2003. I think Respect (or an anti-war indy called *spit* Galloway) would still take Bethnal Green and Bow and might take the old Birmingham Sparkbrook and Small Heath - although Madam wasn't that well organised at the time.

Labour should, however, hold 16 or so seats they lost to the Tories.
 

Ak-84

Banned
How would Blairs legacy be? He has in this TL, had the good grace to die before Iraq goes really bad. Will Brown be the guy saddled with the Iraq baby?
 
I can't see Brown holding a snap election. Only two years into a parliament, with a major conflict ongoing - a snap election would look bad in these circumstances. What's his pitch going to be? 'We just started a massively unpopular foreign war, vote for us'? With Iraq anger probably at its height, it would be a liability for Labour. On top of Brown's own indecisiveness, I can see him simply letting the parliament run out until 2005, by which time he can distance himself from Bush and probably get some kind of drawdown agreement/plan in place.

How would Blairs legacy be?

If he cops it in 2003, much like OTL, I.E, very divisive. And this is another reason why I think a snap election is a non-starter. Post-Iraq Blair dying is simply not going to have anywhere near the sympathy vote that a pre-2001 Blair would have. Brown won't be riding on peace and prosperity and a dearly departed former leader in 2003. Both in politics and personality, the sheen had very much come off by that point. (Though the situation wasn't terminal on either count, as it would become under Brown)
 
Last edited:
Top