Would Labour have won 400+ seats in 2005 if Iraq went well

[OSR stands with Israel]

Would Labour have won 400+ seats again if say WMD's were found and Iraq was going well

[brucejoel99]

If Iraq had been an undisputable success for Blair, then another landslide would've been likely, given that he still managed to win a more-than-workable majority in real life's 2005 anyway, even after it'd transpired that there were no Iraqi WMDs. Maybe not 400+ seats, but I'd have to presume that they would've been able to manage a majority of at least 80 at ~363.

[OSR stands with Israel]

If Iraq had been an undisputable success for Blair, then another landslide would've been likely, given that he still managed to win a more-than-workable majority in real life's 2005 anyway, even after it'd transpired that there were no Iraqi WMDs. Maybe not 400+ seats, but I'd have to presume that they would've been able to manage a majority of at least 80 at ~363.

Would Blair be able to hold on to leadership of the Labour Party until 2010 or is he still removed sometime in that term

[Pericles]

No, there were other factors weighing down Labour's appeal and voter fatigue would have inevitably set in. My guess is around 380-390 seats, the Tory vote might have gone down on 2001 slightly which would have been humiliating. From there, Labour could have been in a better position in the 2010 hung parliament (plus Iraq probably weighed Brown down slightly). That presumes a snap election isn't called when Brown takes over (13 years as PM is still a long time for Blair, I don't know the exact history but I guess he'd want to go at a time of his choosing), 2010 was terrible election timing for Labour.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No, as the Blair government's domestic policy agenda was already strikingly unpopular with those who did not benefit from it directly by 2005 and as the electoral backlash to Iraq (which was felt more in terms of votes than seats) was not linked to how the occupation was going, but to the fact of the invasion itself.

[UWS]

If Iraq had been an undisputable success for Blair, then another landslide would've been likely, given that he still managed to win a more-than-workable majority in real life's 2005 anyway, even after it'd transpired that there were no Iraqi WMDs. Maybe not 400+ seats, but I'd have to presume that they would've been able to manage a majority of at least 80 at ~363.

Just like George W. Bush won re-election in 2004 and the GOP won 5 senate seats that year.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

No, there were other factors weighing down Labour's appeal and voter fatigue would have inevitably set in. My guess is around 380-390 seats, the Tory vote might have gone down on 2001 slightly which would have been humiliating. From there, Labour could have been in a better position in the 2010 hung parliament (plus Iraq probably weighed Brown down slightly). That presumes a snap election isn't called when Brown takes over (13 years as PM is still a long time for Blair, I don't know the exact history but I guess he'd want to go at a time of his choosing), 2010 was terrible election timing for Labour.

11-12 years is usually when long-serving and (politically) successful leaders of a parliamentary government go (Harper, Thatcher, Merkel if not for Trump) so Blair probably leaves sometime around 2009-ish. That's also when the financial crisis hits so the pressure would probably increase.

[UWS]

Likely as they already won 355 seats in real life and if Iraq War went better, Tony Blair would likely have won around 400 seats in 2005

And if we look at the opinion polls in April 2005, Blair was leading the UK Conservative Party by around 10 percentage points

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2005_United_Kingdom_general_election