UK AHC: Effects of no Iraq War?

Without Iraq, how much would UK politics change? I assume Labour wouldn't be weakened on their left flank as they were IOTL '05. Can they hang on for another term in '10 or not? Effects on the succession?
 
I can't really add much but agreement, as I don't remember much about the politics of then.

It'd keep Blair stronger at least, and hopefully it'd keep Brown away.

I wonder how it'd effect relations with the USA, or the perception of the UK internationally?
 
IMO, Labour lost the 2010 general election primarily because of the economy and voters generally being tired of Labour after 13 years in power. Iraq wasn't a major issue by then and they won the 2005 election when it was much higher up in people's minds.
 
That won't change anything for the United Kingdom except avoiding lots of deathes of some people as well as probably higher oil prices as Saddam still controls the Iraqui Oil fields.
 
That won't change anything for the United Kingdom except avoiding lots of deathes of some people as well as probably higher oil prices as Saddam still controls the Iraqui Oil fields.

On the contrary- no Iraq means much less anger at Labour in general and Tony Blair in particular, which probably means a third landslide win in 2005, with the Tories gaining ten or fifteen seats at best, and the Liberal Democrats possibly even going backwards. A Labour majority of, say, 130, will be near impossible to overturn at a 2010 election, no matter how unpopular Labour is, so the Labour Party is able to win a fourth term- it almost certainly won't go much below 300 seats. A small Labour majority seems likely to me, or a Lib/Lab coalition.

Tony Blair remains personally stronger in the Labour Party, and is better able to stand up to the Brownites for a while longer, perhaps until the autumn of 2008? By this point, the economy will be coming under increasing trouble, so Gordon Brown's succession to the Labour leadership may be contested, though it's very unlikely he'll be beaten.
 
On the contrary- no Iraq means much less anger at Labour in general and Tony Blair in particular, which probably means a third landslide win in 2005, with the Tories gaining ten or fifteen seats at best, and the Liberal Democrats possibly even going backwards. A Labour majority of, say, 130, will be near impossible to overturn at a 2010 election, no matter how unpopular Labour is, so the Labour Party is able to win a fourth term- it almost certainly won't go much below 300 seats. A small Labour majority seems likely to me, or a Lib/Lab coalition.

Tony Blair remains personally stronger in the Labour Party, and is better able to stand up to the Brownites for a while longer, perhaps until the autumn of 2008? By this point, the economy will be coming under increasing trouble, so Gordon Brown's succession to the Labour leadership may be contested, though it's very unlikely he'll be beaten.

So I guess by now in this ATL Gordon Brown would still become Prime-Minister of Britain but much latter in TL probably by now.
 

Hyperion

Banned
How much money did the British pump into Iraq to support the rather large number of British troops in country?

No British involvement in Iraq, that could translate into tens of billions of Pounds that could be freed up for other purposes. Even if the money is used for military purposes, it could still vastly change the British military setup. Maybe having more Type 45 destroyers. Perhaps the new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers are funded and construction starts on at least one of the two a year or so earlier.
 
On the contrary- no Iraq means much less anger at Labour in general and Tony Blair in particular, which probably means a third landslide win in 2005, with the Tories gaining ten or fifteen seats at best, and the Liberal Democrats possibly even going backwards. A Labour majority of, say, 130, will be near impossible to overturn at a 2010 election, no matter how unpopular Labour is, so the Labour Party is able to win a fourth term- it almost certainly won't go much below 300 seats. A small Labour majority seems likely to me, or a Lib/Lab coalition.

Tony Blair remains personally stronger in the Labour Party, and is better able to stand up to the Brownites for a while longer, perhaps until the autumn of 2008? By this point, the economy will be coming under increasing trouble, so Gordon Brown's succession to the Labour leadership may be contested, though it's very unlikely he'll be beaten.

This, basically. I think 'No Iraq' means Blair is able to serve out that 'full third term'. We could get a retirement as late as the Blairite ideal date of 2009, by which time there could very well be a genuine leadership contest, most likely with Miliband, D, as the Blairite standard-bearer.
 
Wait, are we talking about the entire Iraq War being averted, or the UK staying out? Because if it's the latter, didn't Blair say he would resign if he lost the Parlimentary vote on entering the war?
 
People can say one thing in polls before an election but when it comes down to it, it is going to be about the economy.

I can't think of a single person I know who said they voted the way they did because of Iraq despite complaining about it before the election..
 
How much money did the British pump into Iraq to support the rather large number of British troops in country?

No British involvement in Iraq, that could translate into tens of billions of Pounds that could be freed up for other purposes. Even if the money is used for military purposes, it could still vastly change the British military setup. Maybe having more Type 45 destroyers. Perhaps the new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers are funded and construction starts on at least one of the two a year or so earlier.

It'll going into spending on election winning schools 'n' hospitals under Gordon Brown's Chancellorship, not the military. No doubt about it.
 
If Iain Duncan Smith remains leader Labour may actually GAIN seats in 2005, a fourth term at least but probably also a fifth.
 

Falkenburg

Monthly Donor
If Blair manages to avoid Iraq you might never see Brown in Number Ten.

Blair maintains his teflon status, cements his hold on the Party and (Following the Third election victory) finally sacks Brown.

Brown would retain some influence but he'd pissed so many people off that it is entirely possible Blair could squash him.
A few aspersions cast on 'regrettable mistakes', a few leaked stories of 'rough handling', sould do the trick.

David Milliband might get the Chancellorship, if he's being actively groomed a successor.

Cameron would seem far less persuasive against an untarnished Blair and a confident MilliDee.
So a Fourth election victory for Labour (Under Milliband) leaves them to deal with the current economic turmoil.

Still substantial cuts and massive shock to economic confidence but perhaps presented better (or at least the turd would be polished).

Government programmes and investment begins to turn the tide but the electorate are tired and bear a grudge.

Conservative victory (at last, they'd cry) in 2014/15

Falkenburg
 
It'll going into spending on election winning schools 'n' hospitals under Gordon Brown's Chancellorship, not the military. No doubt about it.

Agreed, Brown practically hated the military. Despite undergoing an economic boom (regardless of how rotton it was) he still, having been party to sending the forces into Iraq in the first place, in 2003-2005 cut their budget and forced them to downsize. Part of the reason the military is in such shite state now (besides Conservative incompetence) was because the ever greedy Brown constantly underfunded them.

Instead, see even more PFI hospitals and schools.

Russell
 

Thande

Donor
I've considered this question before and it's quite a hard one to answer, because based on numbers, you would think that without Iraq, Blair could be PM basically forever, yet a sense of reality tells you that sooner or both the Labour Party and the voters would get tired of him, so exactly what could lead to his tenure ending either from within or without?

The Lib Dems would probably do not quite as well without the cause of Iraq (though they'd still have tuition fees) and the Conservatives would probably do a bit better as they'd be able to distinguish themselves from Labour more easily rather than being seen as two sides of the same coin. But I really don't know.
 

GarethC

Donor
If Blair manages to avoid Iraq you might never see Brown in Number Ten.
I agree with this statement, but fundamentally, it all hangs on whether Northern Rock is going to have a run on it. My guess would be that a combination of credit crunch and a Labour-fatigued electorate will still be fatal to the party's chances, but with no Iraq war, there is definitely room for the US in particular to do things that might mitigate the housing bubble.

But if the economic wheels come off as in OTL, then whoever is the Chancellor* will get a kicking for not having used Parliament, the FSA, and the BoE to ensure that banks are not so heavily leveraged into bad-mortgage-backed CDOs with unregulated swaps for "insurance".

Robert Peston will still get his fifteen minutes of fame as the person the Beeb wheels on to be very smug while explaining it all as if it were very complicated and really too difficult for ordinary peons to understand, and in the wake of his nasal condemnation of the Chancellor as being the person wot ought to have seen this coming all along, there will be a schism as Brown/Balls/MillibandJunior/etc brief against Tony like it's going out of style.

My bet is that if Blair managed to rout Brown enough to stay on for a full term, that there would be a pukka leadership challenge to him in the way that OTL Brown managed to avoid.

And whoever wins, Labour still goes down to a bigger defeat in 2010 than it did under Brown.

*If Brown, he would then have been responsible all along. If a Blairite replacement, he or she will get the blame for the economy's slump into recession, while Brown's preceding tenure will have seemed stable and prosperous, unfair though that characterisation may be.
 
How much money did the British pump into Iraq to support the rather large number of British troops in country?

No British involvement in Iraq, that could translate into tens of billions of Pounds that could be freed up for other purposes. Even if the money is used for military purposes, it could still vastly change the British military setup. Maybe having more Type 45 destroyers. Perhaps the new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers are funded and construction starts on at least one of the two a year or so earlier.

With 'I've saved the world' Brown you want get anything extra to defence.
 
Agreed, Brown practically hated the military. Despite undergoing an economic boom (regardless of how rotton it was) he still, having been party to sending the forces into Iraq in the first place, in 2003-2005 cut their budget and forced them to downsize. Part of the reason the military is in such shite state now (besides Conservative incompetence) was because the ever greedy Brown constantly underfunded them.

Instead, see even more PFI hospitals and schools.

Russell

Not to mention PFI tankers.......guess we should be lucky there not much possibility of PFI warships etc.
 
Top