WI: Blair losses Iraq War vote

What if in March 2003, enough Labour backbenches rebelled the whip and Cabinet ministers such as John Prescott, Jack Straw and Robin Cook resigned their posts? Jack Straw predicted that the government would fall, and another election would have to happen.

Would Blair win with a rump Labour Party? Would the Conservatives win the October 2003 general election, despite the unpopular leadership of Iain Duncan Smith?
 
This has been done before I think but the quick answer is that if the level of opposition was that high it would never come to a vote in the first place.

Not that the British PM needs a vote to bomb things.
 
This has been done before I think but the quick answer is that if the level of opposition was that high it would never come to a vote in the first place.

Not that the British PM needs a vote to bomb things.

No, but Blair staked a hell of a lot on it and he only just squeaked by even then. The battle wasn’t to win the vote as he could count on the Tories to vote with the Government. The real fight was to get a majority of Labour MPs to vote for him as otherwise his entire position would have evaporated under his feet and he would have been out on his ear whilst Gordo measured the curtains at No. 10. Ironically that threat was what won the vote for him as a lot of Labour MPs were terrified that Brown would become PM. And IIRC a lot of alcohol was sloshed around to persuade people. I think that Andrew Rawnsley’s “The End of the Party” describes it all quite well.
 

Heavy

Banned
I recall reading that Blair took the vote seriously enough that, if he lost, he might have gone to the country to try and gain a mandate for it.
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
Probably delays the invasion until 2004, the Americans might have just gone in alone.

In the U.S., Britain is ridiculed as the newest member of "Old Europe" The word Royal is banned from America. So, Royal Blue becomes Republican Blue. Crown Royal is relabeled Crown Republican. Royal Flushes are called Republican Flushes, so on. And the U.S. Goes it alone.
 
I recall reading that Blair took the vote seriously enough that, if he lost, he might have gone to the country to try and gain a mandate for it.
This would have been impossible. Had the majority of Labour MPs voted against it, Blair was out. Had he lost the actual vote, a significant majority of Labour MPs would have been on the other side over Iraq in a resulting election campaign. De-selecting such a large number would destroy the Labour Party and usher in the twins. Tony Blair would be remembered as a modern day Ramsay Mac.

To be blunt, the only honourable couse had he lost the majority of Labour MPs, let alone the vote would have been resignation.
 

Heavy

Banned
Oh, absolutely. As I understand it, that was his intention and there would have been very extensive debate and dispute within the party, but I doubt it would've actually come to an election. He would've been out.

However, if Blair left in 2003 I think he might be somewhat well-regarded in hindsight. I wonder what his prospects for a comeback might be.
 
Oh I agree this is a matter of internal labour politics, but he squeaked in with 70% of the PLP voting yes and virtually all of the big beasts so its a comfortable squeak.

If he has notice of a lot of senior MPs like Straw and Prescott voting against he has choices.

Go ahead anyway and force them to resign from the cabinet and bull his way through - it means a major split but if he feels strongly enough about it the labour opposition's option is to vote him out as leader or support a Tory no confidence vote on another issue with all the consequences at the next election that will bring, or live with it.

Go to the country and ask for a war vote, not really credible as, presumably, the opposition within labour would be effectively campaigning against him.

Pull the vote and do nothing.

Form a national government of Blairites and Tories for a while and fight over who is the labour party.

I suspect the tactical best answer with hindsight for Blair would be to bull it through and call an election, either national or labour leadership the day after Bagdhad falls. If people want to oppose him while all the news is of Iraqi's celebrating the overthrow of Saddam good luck.

The real game changer would be if Brown et al came out against but thats really a Brownite coup not necessarily a move against the war and has electoral consequences all of its own.
 

Cook

Banned
No, but Blair staked a hell of a lot on it and he only just squeaked by even then.

Labour had 413 seats in the Commons in 2003, an 83 seat majority. When it came to the vote for the approval for the invasion, the motion was carried with the assistance of the Conservatives 412 to 149 (some 80 of those neh votes being Labour), the motion wasn’t even close to being defeated. A further 131 members of parliament would have had to change their vote for the bill to have been defeated, so fully one third of the Labour caucus would have had to change their vote and bring down their prime minister. If there was ever even a hint that there was anything like that much dissent within the party the motion would never have been put forward in the Commons.

It is clear that a lot of mythology has been generated by the dissenters in the years since the vote to inflate their position, but while 20% of a party voting against their leader is significant for party cohesion, it is nowhere near enough to bring down that leader.

The other issue is who would lead such a party room rebellion? Gordon Brown firmly supported the motion so it would not have been him.

Now to the OP:
What if in March 2003, enough Labour backbenches rebelled the whip and Cabinet ministers such as John Prescott, Jack Straw and Robin Cook resigned their posts? Jack Straw predicted that the government would fall, and another election would have to happen.
As stated above, the vote was nowhere near close, and as Gannt has stated, if the opposition within party ranks were that high it would never have been put to a vote. If opposition to the issue within the Labour Party had been a majority, then the power brokers within the party would have told Blair that his position was at stake. He would have then either had to modify the government intention to go to war, or faced a challenge within the party room. If a challenge were successful the party would have a new leader and Britain a new Prime Minister; there would was no requirement to go to the polls.

In the very unlikely event that the Labour Party split over the issue, Blair and his supporters breaking away and forming a new party, Labour lead by those who had been the rebels and who would now be the leadership, would have at least 211 seats in the Commons. That would mean that they would still have been the largest party in the Commons (although not a majority) and would have the first option at forming a working coalition government. If they had Liberal-Democrat support but opposition from ‘Blair’s Labour’ and the Tories, they would not have the numbers to form government. But they may have been able to form a minority government if Blair’s supporters, while opposing them on some issues, were willing to support them on the budget. It would depend on how much hatred resulted from such a split.

Assuming Blair had 202 votes, he would have the next option of forming government, either in coalition with the Tories or as a minority government with Conservative support for the budget. In neither situation would a general election have to be called.

Since calling an election is the prerogative of the Prime Minister and under the circumstances would clearly be a disaster for both Labour and ‘Blair’s Labour’ it wouldn’t matter which part of the now divided party wound up on the treasury benches, the last thing they’d want to do would be call an election. It would only be if the two former parts of the Labour Party were unwilling to support each other sufficiently for a minority government to form, and Hague refusing to support either of them in an effort to force an election (one in which he would be bound to gain considerably) that a general election would be necessary.

But splitting the Labour Party would be an enormously drastic undertaking, likely to result in them being consigned to the wilderness for a generation (or worse, falling permanently behind the Lib-Dems to third party status); it would not be something anyone in the party except the most reckless and irresponsible would want to consider; someone would blink and back down before that.
 
However, if Blair left in 2003 I think he might be somewhat well-regarded in hindsight. I wonder what his prospects for a comeback might be.
Until the Duelfer and Kay reports came out.
Of course, it's likely that David Kelley might still be around. Plus Greg Dyke might have gotten to retire on a high note. Perhaps there would have been no London bombings.
 
Thank you for your speedy but insightful comments. Sorry that I didn't search properly before making this thread but I suppose otherwise I'd be bumping a year-old thread.
 
Top