WI Tory Tony Blair

Since someone started a thread about Barack Obama as a Republican, this is the companion.

Frankly, my guess is that he still gets to Parliament but remains a backbencher. The interest would be how Gordon Brown handles becoming PM in 1997, and what happens with Cherie Booth's career now that she remains unmarried or has a different husband.
 
Even assuming he has similar views to OTL, he was ambitious enough to at least get a frontbench position, he might even get a cabinet role in the Major ministry, who governed in a more centrist manner anyway.

If Brown is in all probability leader in this TL, then Portillo would keep his seat, the Tories would make more headway in 2001, and 2005/06 would be a close run thing either under a continued Portillo leadership or a later Hague. If they still lost, then Blair might be touted as the next leader, or he might back someone like Cameron who had the youth and new thing going, but the better results post 1997 might strengthen the right enough to prevent them losing control of the leadership. In any case, Blair probably ends up as a cabinet minister by 2010.

And was Cherie's career particularly affected by her husband's? Im unsure whether she would try for parliament more than she did in this TL, so that is probably far too personal a question to know for sure.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Frankly, my guess is that he still gets to Parliament but remains a backbencher. The interest would be how Gordon Brown handles becoming PM in 1997, and what happens with Cherie Booth's career now that she remains unmarried or has a different husband.
Well, his father was a Tory, so I guess it's possible.

Brown becoming PM isn't unlikely, but without Blair a few more options spring up- you have to understand that without Blair, there will be a variable host of butterflies within the Labour Party during the 1980's that may end up with Kinnock winning in '92 or Brown's political career fizzling out before he can make the big time and being replaced by one of the other young men of tomorrow he knifed on the way, or even the modernising faction taking a different path without his guidance (Clause IV may never be abolished, for example).

Without Tony, though, Cherie would likely end up in Parliament and at somepoint find herself on the frontbench, likely in the Home office or as the Attorney General.
Even assuming he has similar views to OTL, he was ambitious enough to at least get a frontbench position, he might even get a cabinet role in the Major ministry, who governed in a more centrist manner anyway.
No, it wasn't, it was explicitly a centre-right Government; a Blair who is still cribbing the SDP would not find a place in a Cabinet like Major's because he was too far to the left for them.

Not to mention the obvious that a Blair who is in the Conservative Party is not going to be a centralist, he'll be a Thatcherite and one of the young yes men she surrounded herself with as she became detached from political reality.
If Brown is in all probability leader in this TL, then Portillo would keep his seat, the Tories would make more headway in 2001, and 2005/06 would be a close run thing either under a continued Portillo leadership or a later Hague.
Ignoring the butterflies, of course, Brown becoming leader is a likelihood in this scenario, though there is a question to what effect Blair had on Brown's ambitions in 1992 and 1994.
If they still lost, then Blair might be touted as the next leader, or he might back someone like Cameron who had the youth and new thing going, but the better results post 1997 might strengthen the right enough to prevent them losing control of the leadership. In any case, Blair probably ends up as a cabinet minister by 2010.
He'd end up Foreign Secretary.
And was Cherie's career particularly affected by her husband's? Im unsure whether she would try for parliament more than she did in this TL, so that is probably far too personal a question to know for sure.
Blunt answer is they'd never have a relationship if Tony's a Tory.
 
No, it wasn't, it was explicitly a centre-right Government.

#Triggered. :eek:

On a serious note, I agree with the essence of what Shift has said here. I think he could very well have become a Tory and he would have probably tacked himself to Mrs. Thatcher for political expediency rather than be a sort of wet figure as some might think he'd a have been in the Tories. The real question is what, when, and where the PoD would be for this to occur.
 

Bulldoggus

Banned
Brown becoming PM isn't unlikely, but without Blair a few more options spring up- you have to understand that without Blair, there will be a variable host of butterflies within the Labour Party during the 1980's that may end up with Kinnock winning in '92 or Brown's political career fizzling out before he can make the big time and being replaced by one of the other young men of tomorrow he knifed on the way, or even the modernising faction taking a different path without his guidance (Clause IV may never be abolished, for example).
Who were these people who Blair undercut?
Not to mention the obvious that a Blair who is in the Conservative Party is not going to be a centralist, he'll be a Thatcherite and one of the young yes men she surrounded herself with as she became detached from political reality.
And who were some of these guys?
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
#Triggered. :eek:
He was certainly not a centralist, though, given the rash of social conservatism.
On a serious note, I agree with the essence of what Shift has said here. I think he could very well have become a Tory and he would have probably tacked himself to Mrs. Thatcher for political expediency rather than be a sort of wet figure as some might think he'd a have been in the Tories. The real question is what, when, and where the PoD would be for this to occur.
Without the influence of Peter Thomson, who Blair met at Oxford, he could have drifted not to the left but to the right; this would also mean Blair isn't as religiously effected as he was IoTL. The question is though how to get Blair to push toward the right, as he was still friends with Charlie Falconer at this point.

Alternatively he could just stay in Australia for longer and be more effected by the politics there before returning to the UK in the late 70's.

Of course, there is also the question of what seat he could contest as a Conservative- he could easily end up a Portillo if he gets the wrong seat.
 
He was certainly not a centralist, though, given the rash of social conservatism.

Huh?

Without the influence of Peter Thomson, who Blair met at Oxford, he could have drifted not to the left but to the right; this would also mean Blair isn't as religiously effected as he was IoTL. The question is though how to get Blair to push toward the right, as he was still friends with Charlie Falconer at this point.

Alternatively he could just stay in Australia for longer and be more effected by the politics there before returning to the UK in the late 70's.

Of course, there is also the question of what seat he could contest as a Conservative- he could easily end up a Portillo if he gets the wrong seat.

I agree here, he could effectively do what Portillo did at uni tbf. Perhaps when he is in Australia he sees the 'mess' over the Whitlam government, turning him against Labor?
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Who were these people who Brown undercut?
I'm referring to Brown, but the issue is that a lot of them I simply don't know off-hand due to the fact their careers died prematurely and they ended in obscurity, or they got positions where they could never have the opertunity to become leader.

Robin Cook is a famous example; whilst he became Foreign Secretary, he also had a feud with Brown that lasted until the final years of his life, and struggled to ever really find a path to leadership after stepping aside for John Smith.

Brown stepped on a fair few people to get to where he was by 1994, and both he and Blair were prepared to step over the other had it not been for their friendship and desire for Party unity.
And who were some of these guys?
The ones who begged for Thatcher to not go with tears in their eyes because they knew that if she went, their careers might as well be over.

Portillo is the most famous of these, naturally.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
'Social Conservative' may be too strong, but I disagree strongly with this notion that Major was a centralist.
I agree here, he could effectively do what Portillo did at uni tbf. Perhaps when he is in Australia he sees the 'mess' over the Whitlam government, turning him against Labor?
Certinaly, yes- the disorder of the dismissal could turn him against the Labour Party if he came to strongly associated the two. His father perhaps getting involved with the Liberal/National during this time could also steer him towards conservatism.
 
Brown becoming PM isn't unlikely, but without Blair a few more options spring up- you have to understand that without Blair, there will be a variable host of butterflies within the Labour Party during the 1980's that may end up with Kinnock winning in '92 or Brown's political career fizzling out before he can make the big time and being replaced by one of the other young men of tomorrow he knifed on the way, or even the modernising faction taking a different path without his guidance (Clause IV may never be abolished, for example).
Yes, but what possible butterflies? From what I am aware of Brown was initially the more prominent of the two, and after 1992 Blair began to steal his thunder a bit.
No, it wasn't, it was explicitly a centre-right Government; a Blair who is still cribbing the SDP would not find a place in a Cabinet like Major's because he was too far to the left for them.
Hence why I said more centrist, and it was, particularly as time went on. Ken Clarke was Chancellor and Michael Heseltine was Deputy PM, and it was the right of the party that challenged Major. I would say it is fairly clear that it was a government that had its power base in the wets, and Major was not adverse to appointing them to high office. I'm fairly sure the likes of Stephen Dorrell came far closer to joining the SDP than Blair ever did, and he made it to cabinet.
Not to mention the obvious that a Blair who is in the Conservative Party is not going to be a centralist, he'll be a Thatcherite and one of the young yes men she surrounded herself with as she became detached from political reality.
Maybe out of political necessity, just as he claimed to be far more radically left wing in the 1980s than he ultimately was in government. But in terms of actual views, the OP did not specify a PoD, so there is no reason to presume those have changed, and even if they had, his pragmatic streak, along with his europhilia, would likely draw him to the centre as time went on.

Blunt answer is they'd never have a relationship if Tony's a Tory.
Perhaps, but my point was that there is little evidence to say whether Cherie's love life effected her career trajectory. In a world where they never get together, I can't see why her political career would go any further than standing in a seat that was never going to be won in 1983, and then returning to lawyering.
 
'Social Conservative' may be too strong, but I disagree strongly with this notion that Major was a centralist.
Certinaly, yes- the disorder of the dismissal could turn him against the Labour Party if he came to strongly associated the two. His father perhaps getting involved with the Liberal/National during this time could also steer him towards conservatism.

Oh Major! Yes I agree he was probably centre-right. Thought you were referring to Blair.

The intriguing this is, what if the L/C had a different leader at the time, perhaps Joh or sticking with Fraser could drastically alter his political views.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Yes, but what possible butterflies? From what I am aware of Brown was initially the more prominent of the two, and after 1992 Blair began to steal his thunder a bit.
Modernist faction consolidates around a different figure; potentially Brown, but at the same time Brown was a bookish and introversive man who was hard to get along with and was frosty towards people. It wasn't so much that Blair stole his thunder, but that MP's were not personally keen on Brown. If Tony simply never ran in '94, yes he would have become leader. But if Tony was on the other side of the House, and had been on the other-side of the house for the best part of a decade, things are going to look very different.

If the modernising faction latches onto Brown, and he begins espousing similar views towards rewriting Clause IV, you're going to see the likes of Robin Cook outright run against Brown. If Brown doesn't get latched on by the modernisers, then they'll consolidate around someone else. Blair and Brown's careers were helped IoTL by the fact they became the faces of the modernisers, Blair especially so- but without Blair, and given Brown's own issues making friends, nothing is saying they won't just go to someone else.
Hence why I said more centrist, and it was, particularly as time went on. Ken Clarke was Chancellor and Michael Heseltine was Deputy PM, and it was the right of the party that challenged Major. I would say it is fairly clear that it was a government that had its power base in the wets, and Major was not adverse to appointing them to high office. I'm fairly sure the likes of Stephen Dorrell came far closer to joining the SDP than Blair ever did, and he made it to cabinet.

Maybe out of political necessity, just as he claimed to be far more radically left wing in the 1980s than he ultimately was in government. But in terms of actual views, the OP did not specify a PoD, so there is no reason to presume those have changed, and even if they had, his pragmatic streak, along with his europhilia, would likely draw him to the centre as time went on.
And the only PoD's that would give you a Tony Blair willing to join the Conservatives would leave you with a Tony Blair who is going to be heavily influenced by Thatcherism and Conservatism. If he's still the kind of man willing to implement the SDP Manifesto, he's not going to get far in the Tory Party, and will either wallow on the backbench or jump to the LibDems.
Perhaps, but my point was that there is little evidence to say whether Cherie's love life effected her career trajectory. In a world where they never get together, I can't see why her political career would go any further than standing in a seat that was never going to be won in 1983, and then returning to lawyering.
Because without Tony, she's going to end up leading a different life; that means she's going to be going to different places and isn't goign to settle where and how she didn't IoTL, which means she may end up being selected for a seat more favourable to her, giving her a better chance of a political career.

Or not, of course. She could easily still get a shitty seat and fail.
 
Top