WI: Tony Blair dies part-way through his tenure as Prime Minister?

I'm not an expert in British politics, and don't usually post political things. I did once, but my last go was pretty embarrassing, and an ASB on American politics, so I'm rebooting completely.

I should also add, this isn't about Tony Blair and current politics, but when he was in office 1997-2007, so it will stick to that exact period. In line with the rule on current politics.

I took inspiration from WI: George W. Bush dies in office, a recent WI thread.

This is a standalone thread - not for any specific timeline - although if you want to use it in your timeline, you're welcome to.

The POD has not yet been decided, so if anyone wishes to help me on that, I'd appreciate it. I don't want to make it too early, but equally not too late, so not around 2006-2007.

"How would British politics change if Tony Blair died part-way through his term in office?" is the basic question.

I am trying to make this a slightly more "hard" alternate history without ASB and trying to think of a reasonable explanation for how things would go in this ATL.

I know that certain things will have to happen - a state funeral, like Winston Churchill (1965).

This is not about whether you like Tony Blair or not - there's political discussion threads in Chat for that - but about an ATL where Tony Blair did not last the full 10 years of his run.

I would welcome any help to try and make this a hard alternate history and make it seem realistic.

Sorry for the length of this - trying to explain it all.
 
Minor point but a Prime Minister (technically the First Lord of the Treasury) has neither tenure nor a term of office. I am not at all sure that a State Funeral is normal. They are merely an MP who is 'primus inter pares'.

They are the leader of the party that can secure a enough seats, by numbers or by coalition, to form a government. The government can only be removed by losing a General Election. The Prime Minister is just the leader of that party. They can be removed at the Party's pleasure and a new leader inserted as we shall see shortly. If the serving Prime Minister dies in office the caretaker role in the short term is provided by existing precedence and a new leader is elected by the means chosen by the Party in question. The new leader becomes the Prime Minister. In a coalition, if the new leader of the major party is unacceptable to the other partner/s then they withdraw, the Party no longer commands enough support to achieve a majority and a General Election is called with the current Prime Minister caretaking the role until the General Election produces a party or coalition that can command a majority in the House of Commons and appoints a new Prime Minister from among their ranks.

One presumes Gordon Brown would succeed.
 
Last edited:
It would make a huge difference to the con man's reputation whether he died before or after he committed Britain to assisting the Iraq craziness of GW Bush
 
It really depends on when, how, and why. For example, Blair dying before the Iraq War comes around would have huge consequences that would significantly change things over OTL, whereas he dies post 2005, there would be less changes. Likewise, if he were assassinated by Irish Republicans in 1997, that could well mean no Good Friday Agreement, and a significantly different situation in NI.

The only two observations I can offer which would probably apply to all realistic scenarios would be that Brown would be his most likely successor, and he would probably remembered a bit more fondly if he died before the end of his premiership-which would probably mean the right wing are more successful at keeping control of Labour post 2010 (or whenever it is they lose power ITTL).
 
Minor point but a Prime Minister (technically the First Lord of the Treasury) has neither tenure nor a term of office. I am not at all sure that a State Funeral is normal. They are merely an MP who is 'primus inter pares'.

They are the leader of the party that can secure a enough seats, by numbers or by coalition, to form a government. The government can only be removed by losing a General Election. The Prime Minister is just the leader of that party. They can be removed at the Party's pleasure and a new leader inserted as we shall see shortly. If the serving Prime Minister dies in office the caretaker role in the short term is provided by existing precedence and a new leader is elected by the means chosen by the Party in question. The new leader becomes the Prime Minister. In a coalition, if the new leader of the major party is unacceptable to the other partner/s then they withdraw, the Party no longer commands enough support to achieve a majority and a General Election is called with the current Prime Minister caretaking the role until the General Election produces a party or coalition that command a majority in the House of Commons and appoints a new Prime Minister from among their ranks.

One presumes Gordon Brown would succeed.

Thank you. I used tenure or term of office as Americanisms, since this site often has Americans participating.

I was also looking at this through the lens of who would take over and the caretaker role had been fulfilled.

It really depends on when, how, and why. For example, Blair dying before the Iraq War comes around would have huge consequences that would significantly change things over OTL, whereas he dies post 2005, there would be less changes. Likewise, if he were assassinated by Irish Republicans in 1997, that could well mean no Good Friday Agreement, and a significantly different situation in NI.

The only two observations I can offer which would probably apply to all realistic scenarios would be that Brown would be his most likely successor, and he would probably remembered a bit more fondly if he died before the end of his premiership-which would probably mean the right wing are more successful at keeping control of Labour post 2010 (or whenever it is they lose power ITTL).

I was thinking, maybe the POD is somewhere around mid-2001 (maybe March or April 2001, or May 2001 at the latest), so post-Good Friday Agreement but pre-9/11, but of natural causes. How this would affect the consequences, as you said, would definitely be different to OTL.

Slightly on-topic, but which books on Blair are worth a read as research, when I next go to my local library and research history?
 
I was also looking at this through the lens of who would take over and the caretaker role had been fulfilled.

In the short term the new PM (note: NOT acting, caretaker, or anything similar) would be John Prescott as Acting Leader of the Labour Party, until a leadership election was held, probably won by Gordon Brown.
 
I was thinking, maybe the POD is somewhere around mid-2001 (maybe March or April 2001, or May 2001 at the latest), so post-Good Friday Agreement but pre-9/11, but of natural causes. How this would affect the consequences, as you said, would definitely be different to OTL.
That date would fall just before the 2001 GE was called. With a new election so close, Labour probably wouldn't want a leadership contest, so Brown would probably succeed him unopposed. He would most likely leave it a few months before calling one in this situation, as he wouldn't want to be perceived as using Blair's death for their own political gain, but when they did, I would expect a landslide of even larger proportions than 2001 or 1997.

2005 would be interesting. Brown would win again, but the question is by how much. He wouldn't take the UK into Iraq, but he also wasn't charismatic and likeable in the same way that Blair was in the earlier years. Equally interesting is who would be Conservative leader. Iain Duncan Smith might do better against Brown than he did against Blair pre-Iraq, so he could stay on as leader until the election.

Or he might not even become leader in the first place. He only narrowly made it onto the final ballot ahead of Portillo IOTL, and a later election in 2001 likely means a Tory leadership election where nominations and voting takes places post 9-11. As a former Defence Secretary, that plays in Portillo's favour, and could well lead to him getting into the run off, where he would probably win, but the revelations about his past homosexual experiences might actually mean that Clarke could just about win. Either of them would be more popular than IDS or Howard, and probably more popular than Brown also so it could be that, even without Iraq, we still see a Labour victory of similar margins ITTL.
 
In the short term the new PM (note: NOT acting, caretaker, or anything similar) would be John Prescott as Acting Leader of the Labour Party, until a leadership election was held, probably won by Gordon Brown.
This is actually a misconception. Although the Labour Party constitution states that the Deputy becomes leader in case of a vacancy whilst in opposition, there is a different procedure for when Labour is in government, which involves an interim leader being chosen by a special meeting of the NEC. So if anything happened to Blair, Prescott would not automatically become PM or Labour leader. It would most likely be Brown temporarily, then Brown permanently.
 
Firstly: Gordon Brown takes over after winning the leadership election potentially unopposed dependent on timing ( there would, if i remember my Labour membership/rule books correctly be an interregnum with the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party ( NEC appointing a leader)

Secondly: No election until such time as Gordon Brown calls one or 5 years from the date of the last election Blair won expires.

Thirdly: a great deal depends when the death happens. Post or Pre Iraqi makes a great deal of difference as to when that election is called. Too early and we potentiality lose the Good Friday Agreement. We also put at risk lots of the good things the Blair government delivered that really helped people in the UK. I relaise that it is heretical to suggest Blair did anything good but he absolutely did.

Fourthly: Any election prior to Iraq is a Labour win. The Tories were ( and are) a complete $hit show.
 
I know that certain things will have to happen - a state funeral, like Winston Churchill.
I'm not so sure. Churchill had leading the country though most of World War II, whilst Blair had the Good Friday Agreement—built in part on the previous ministry's work—and some very decent legislation even then I'm not sure it balances. Much like Thatcher I think they'd probably go with a ceremonial funeral but not a state one.
 
I'm not so sure. Churchill had leading the country though most of World War II, whilst Blair had the Good Friday Agreement—built in part on the previous ministry's work—and some very decent legislation even then I'm not sure it balances. Much like Thatcher I think they'd probably go with a ceremonial funeral but not a state one.
This might be true if the case for a state funeral was judged purely on his achievements up and to that point. But given that his death would probably produce a huge wave of public sympathy for him (especially if he dies before Iraq, when he was still extremely popular) there is going to be a huge amount of pressure for him to be given a full state funeral, which would likely be impossible for the new PM to resist. Creating a public row over whether he is disrespecting the legacy of their recently deceased predecessor strikes me as the worst possible way to start a premiership.

And remember, it would likely be Brown taking over, and one of his first priorities would be to avoid a leadership challenge from the Blairites when he goes for the job full time, so honouring Blair as much as possible would be very clearly in his political interest.
 
In the short term the new PM (note: NOT acting, caretaker, or anything similar) would be John Prescott as Acting Leader of the Labour Party, until a leadership election was held, probably won by Gordon Brown.

In May 1994 the then Labour Leader John Smith died from a heart attack. The then deputy leader Margaret Beckett became acting leader until the conference season when Tony Blair was elected leader.
 

Glyndwr01

Banned
As far as I can say as an ex-Labour supporter former soldier from the Welsh valleys there would be jubilation in the streets!
 
In May 1994 the then Labour Leader John Smith died from a heart attack. The then deputy leader Margaret Beckett became acting leader until the conference season when Tony Blair was elected leader.
As mentioned above, Labour's procedures for filling a sudden leadership vacancy are different for when they are in government.
 
Much like Thatcher I think they'd probably go with a ceremonial funeral but not a state one.
Isn't there a big difference between dying years later and in office? The last PM to do so was 1865 so its totally up in the air what to do?
 
As far as I can say as an ex-Labour supporter former soldier from the Welsh valleys there would be jubilation in the streets!

This simply isnt accurate for the majority of the country even after Iraqi. It absolutely isnt accurate before the Iraqi war.
 
Last edited:
Top