Tony Blair stepped down in 2007 in OTL after much pressure from his party and Brown in particular. What if he'd done so earlier - even before Iraq? (though that's probably unlikely given his personality, and Lab's popularity giving him no obvious reason to). Could Labour have stayed in power longer, and would his wing of the party be less discredited?
WI:Blair steps down earlier
- Thread starter Southpaw
- Start date
The ‘Credit Crunch’ would likely have doomed Labour to defeat eventually, regardless of leader.
10 plus years in power ending in a pretty brutal recession is going to make a Tory victory (of sorts) all but inevitable. To keep them around longer, going to have to butterfly away that crash, at least in the UK.
10 plus years in power ending in a pretty brutal recession is going to make a Tory victory (of sorts) all but inevitable. To keep them around longer, going to have to butterfly away that crash, at least in the UK.
During the House of Commons vote in 2003 on Iraq, Blair said he'd resign if the vote failed. The vote failing is an interesting POD, since he'd be resigning in humiliation, but it would probably lead to him having more enduring popularity if the UK doesn't get involved in Iraq. I could see him trying to get back into Labour leadership to try to undo Brexit, which would be much more possible if he exits with 2003 levels of popularity.
According to many, the original plan was for Blair to stand down somewhere in the mid point of his second term in order to spend more time with his kids as they grew up. If he exited before Iraq, I could certainly see him being a good deal more popular afterwards.
Brown is, of course, the obvious successor. He wasn't anything like the campaigner Blair was, but he would be a fresh face and wouldn't have to contend with Iraq like Labour did IOTL, so a majority around about a similar size in 2005 seems likely. Given that he would've more years as PM under his belt ITTL, and Blair has set a precedent by standing down early, Brown wait till the economy stabilises after 2008, then go, maybe to David Miliband or a Brownite who has been given more prominence by his earlier rise to power, like Cooper or Balls. In such circumstances, maybe Labour can hold on in power in 2010 by doing a deal with the Lib Dems. I wonder if Blair himself might fancy a return to the job.
I do think Blair and the whole New Labour project would be less discredited if he had quit whilst he was ahead without Iraq, especially amongst the general public. If an EU referendum or Brexit happens, perhaps he could use that popularity to play a leading role in the anti-Brexit campaign. Labour might stick with centrist leaders for longer too, though ultimately I still think there would be criticisms of Blair being too pro free market that would surface as the wave of populism starts to take hold across the west.
Brown is, of course, the obvious successor. He wasn't anything like the campaigner Blair was, but he would be a fresh face and wouldn't have to contend with Iraq like Labour did IOTL, so a majority around about a similar size in 2005 seems likely. Given that he would've more years as PM under his belt ITTL, and Blair has set a precedent by standing down early, Brown wait till the economy stabilises after 2008, then go, maybe to David Miliband or a Brownite who has been given more prominence by his earlier rise to power, like Cooper or Balls. In such circumstances, maybe Labour can hold on in power in 2010 by doing a deal with the Lib Dems. I wonder if Blair himself might fancy a return to the job.
I do think Blair and the whole New Labour project would be less discredited if he had quit whilst he was ahead without Iraq, especially amongst the general public. If an EU referendum or Brexit happens, perhaps he could use that popularity to play a leading role in the anti-Brexit campaign. Labour might stick with centrist leaders for longer too, though ultimately I still think there would be criticisms of Blair being too pro free market that would surface as the wave of populism starts to take hold across the west.
In 2004, Blaid strongly considered resigning and stadning for President of the European Commission, letting Brown fight the next election.
Errr, you're gonna have to elaborate a bit here. Why would a government with what was at the time a crushing majority enter into a coalition with a party that was looking to acquire major party status, and had so much to lose? And why would this lead to a Labour majority, when they had no hope in hell of winning in most LD seats, which were mainly Tory marginals?
In otl charismatic Tony Blair won his third consecutive victory, however the Labour Party’s majority now stood at 66 seats compared to the 160-seat majority it had previously held. ITTL Gordon Brown is seen as a good leader but the party is unable to hold a strong enough majority and needs support from the Liberal Democrat who force a coalition.
After three to five year of stable government, Brown wins his majority in the next election
Well, since we're on querying peculiar responses, why did you seemingly butterfly away Iraq in your answer?
I don't see much benefit for New Labour in Blair resigning in 2004, as he was reasonably close to doing - politically he was very weak then as the blowback from Iraq began to hit, and personally was in a very low period - and none whatsoever for Blair personally. I think it's possible, probably likely in fact, that he's actually regarded as worse than OTL - it'll be said that he ducked and run on Iraq, got the country into it and then flounced off a la Cameron post-referendum, that he was pushed out due to his sunken status etc. He's certainly not going to be regarded more favourably than OTL. (He's not becoming President of the Commission either given how much he wrecked his reputation in Europe over Iraq)
I don't see Brown going for a snap election when the parliament is so advanced, IOTL there was an opportunity to bank a honeymoon popularity against a reviving Tories that might not have lasted for another few years, he'd probably just let it run out until summer 2005. Without having knifed Blair he'd be coming into office in a mildly less divisive way than OTL, which would benefit.
How the 2005 election goes really depends on how much Brown's honeymoon can keep up until the following summer, and how much public anger at Iraq is drawn by Blair going. Brown obviously isn't going to pull out of Iraq, but as IOTL he will be able to benefit for it not being his call to be there in the first place. I think it's likely the Lib Dems don't do as well as OTL. Overall you could make a case for Labour doing about the same as OTL, or a little better, or even a little worse - though I think the last of these is not too likely given the state the Tories were in and Blair being turfed out. I think it's easier to get a hung parliament in OTL with some small shifts than in this one.
I think it's a very fine judgement on whether all this would discredit Blairites less, more, or just about the same as OTL. In any case I don't see it as a panacea for them.
In response to the OPs suggestion about the possibility of him standing down before the war started, which I may have misread somewhat.
I suppose a great deal would also rest on what Brown does if he inherits the Iraq situation from Blair before the invasion begins. Blair certainly pushed it the most, but Brown wasn't terribly critical and might have considered it too late for a shift in stance, depending on when he takes over.
Whether Iraq happens under Brown or Blair, it wouldn't make much of a difference to how the latter is viewed now. After the Invasion, most of the damage had been done. It might dent Browns halo a bit, but that that wouldn't change a great deal in the Labour Party, because he'd just be taking on a lot of the resentment that went Blair's way IOTL. Maybe it would mean a worse result in 2005 leading to a Tory majority in 2010, though.
Blair suffered some heart problems in 2003/2004, if they were worst he could resign in office (like what @CanadianTory did in his TL).
Another option could be a referendum on the Euro being held and the anti-Euro side winning, Brown would want to take control in such an event.
Another option could be a referendum on the Euro being held and the anti-Euro side winning, Brown would want to take control in such an event.
If you want Tony Blair to resign early there is a way.
Have Brown resign and come out against the war prior to the vote giving approval to the war in Iraq, resulting in the majority of Labour MPs voting against the war. Blair aware he has lost the party on such an issue, resigns as Prime Minister. This causes Gordon Brown to become Prime Minister, keeping Britain out of Iraq.
This would create merry hell, with Britain turning at such a stage. The war plans would have been well underway and without the British to take Basra, the Americans would be forced at the very least to postpone the invasion. I expect the Murdoch press to turn violently against Labour in such circumstances, relations with the USA would also be harmed by a significant effect. In addition to this, the Labour Party would be divided over the fall of Blair.
Under such circumstances, I cannot see Brown going to the country until things calm down. Whether this happens, I cannot say. The butterflies for the USA are also present here, with the Iraq War postponed, if it doesn't go ahead, does Bush win re-election?
Politics would be radically different no matter.
Have Brown resign and come out against the war prior to the vote giving approval to the war in Iraq, resulting in the majority of Labour MPs voting against the war. Blair aware he has lost the party on such an issue, resigns as Prime Minister. This causes Gordon Brown to become Prime Minister, keeping Britain out of Iraq.
This would create merry hell, with Britain turning at such a stage. The war plans would have been well underway and without the British to take Basra, the Americans would be forced at the very least to postpone the invasion. I expect the Murdoch press to turn violently against Labour in such circumstances, relations with the USA would also be harmed by a significant effect. In addition to this, the Labour Party would be divided over the fall of Blair.
Under such circumstances, I cannot see Brown going to the country until things calm down. Whether this happens, I cannot say. The butterflies for the USA are also present here, with the Iraq War postponed, if it doesn't go ahead, does Bush win re-election?
Politics would be radically different no matter.