Not a dry eye in the house......

[R1Geezer]

Can Brown survive following the Weegy bye election result?

[naomi24]

Hope not.

[jake-the-peg]

I would have thought you'd have been hoping he'd stay Geezer.

The last swing this large was in 1990 when Margaret Thatcher's Tories lost Eastborne with a swing of over 20%

She was kicked out and Major won the next election.

[Gromit]

Probably not, but Labour are not as ruthless as the Tories are in these matters. When the Conservatives realised that Thatcher was an electoral liability they quickly ditched her.

Brown is now in similar territory as Thatcher was. Will Labour MPs, fearful of losing their jobs at the next election, stage a coup and replace him, I do not know. They probably should, the only problem is, there is no natural successor at the moment.

[New Judge]

One would hope not, Geezer.

However, Mr Brown was appointed to the position of Prime Minister without a vote, succeeding Mr Blair simply because he had been promised he would at some time. Nobody in the Labour Party had the courage to challenge this blatant act of nepotism, all of course fearful for their own futures.

In the same way nobody is likely to challenge him now, even following at least three disastrous showings for the party in bye-elections and local elections. Once again the insidious influence of party politics will ensure he remains unchallenged.

In the not so distant past such results would see the government of the day going to the country on what is now clearly an issue of confidence not only in the Prime Minister himself, but in the government in its entirety.

However, Mr Brown ducked the opportunity to extend the government�s mandate a year ago when it was (relatively speaking) riding high in the polls. There is not a cat in hell�s chance of him going to the country now, with Labour�s popularity so low. Of course he does not have to. He is entitled to lead the government through its full term. Anyone with any decency, however, would let the country have its say a little earlier.

So he, and this pathetically inept government will almost certainly struggle on, denying that each and every crisis faced by the population is either nothing to do with them or in any case nothing they can do anything about.

Curiously I hope that matters only get worse between now and 2010 and the Labour Party is consigned to a very long period in opposition where it can do less damage. It would be a price worth paying.

As I think I've said before, living under a Labour government is rather like having your tonsils out. It's something you should only have to suffer once in your life - and not at all if you're lucky.

[jake-the-peg]

in the not so distant past the Government of the day would go to the country New Judge?

Please do provide an example

I certainly don't recall Maggy doing that after Eatbourne

Have they been changing your medication again?

[R1Geezer]

I hope he hangs on but I can imagine there are a lot of labour back benchers staring down the barrel of having to get a proper job and I think they will conclude that he has to go. It won't matter though because I can't see anyone saving them now. Come the glorious day!

[Quinlad]

Yes, New Judge.

We want Labour to be obliterated in 2010 to the extent that we then have no effective opposition.

Then the cabal of Old Etonians and Bullingdon boys can rule pretty much unopposed, just like in the old days.

Who wants to be governed by a cross-section of society anyway? These people come from wealthy stock and, as such, are our betters. It's about time we remembered that and climbed back in our box.

[BertiWooster]

Lets bring in the Tories , they will :-

- Solve the credit crunch
- Get rid of knife crime
- Solve global warming
- Solve the fuel crisis

etc etc etc .

I dont think - unlike some on here

[New Judge]

I realise my answer may have given the impression that I think the Prime Minister should call an election solely on the basis of bye-election results, Jake. This is not what I meant and I apologise. I believe he should go to the country on a question of confidence, and the recent local and bye-election results are a manifestation of lack of confidence.

In the �not so distant past� Harold Wilson went to the country in 1966 to consolidate his party�s slim majority in Parliament. The government was in difficulty with such a small advantage and so you could say this amounted to a vote of confidence.

Edward Heath famously went to the country in March 1974 on an undoubted issue of confidence over the miners� strike.

Seven months later Wilson again went to the country mid-term as he was leading a minority government following Heath�s defeat. Not so much a vote of confidence, but certainly a vote seeking the electorate�s endorsement.

The rot set in with that Nice Mr Major, who clearly should have submitted his government to the vote before 1997, and clung on to power doing himself no favours, his party damage which has taken ten years to repair and, most importantly, the country no good at all.

I accept that the circumstances in the examples I mention are not identical to those of today (when are two such matters identical?). But we saw yesterday the government lose a seat where they used to weigh the Labour vote rather than count it.

Glasgow East must be near the top of the list when considering how much of the government�s largesse is lavished upon its electorate. Yet they turned out to voice their distain if not for Mr Brown personally (a Scottish Prime Minister leading a government overweight with Scots), then certainly for his government. If this, and the earlier results, do not amount to an issue of confidence then I don�t know what does.

[Oneeyedvic]

The rot set in with that Nice Mr Major, who clearly should have submitted his government to the vote before 1997, and clung on to power doing himself no favours, his party damage which has taken ten years to repair and, most importantly, the country no good at all.

Major won a General Election in 1992 and then resigned his leadership of the Conservatives in 95, but regained it on the party votes. Can hardly call that 'clinging to power'

[Gromit]

I remember a similar run of by election failures when Margaret Thatcher was in power (and in mid term like Brown is now).

The Tories lost

Croydon North West - 1981
Crosby - 1981
Glasgow Hillhead - 1982

I do not remember St. Margaret concluding she had lost the confidence of the electorate and going to the country.

[Quinlad]

New Judge, your implication seemed to be that governments no longer do the decent thing and present the electorate with a chance to have their say.

But the examples you give are almost solely of political expediency - rather than honour.

And I loved your line about the government's largesse being lavished on Glasgow. Er... What else is the government supposed to do with its revenue than give it to the areas where it's needed? Glasgow East is one of the most deprived constituencies in Britain. Should the money be divided up equally among each consistency? Would that be right-wing and 'fair' enough for you?

[Gromit]

Maybe Brown needs to be spectacularly negligent and allow British territory to be invaded by a hostile nation. Gibraltar or Isle of Man, then kick out the enemy (assuming they are not tenacious muslim fanatics) and then call a snap General Election on the patriotic euphoria that follows. It worked for a previous very unpopular Prime Minister.

[DrFilth]

i think brown is the giggest turd since turds started but do you honestly think it will get better under the tories.
the only way the tories will get in, is poor people and the low paid have been $hit on and will not bother to vote for labour.

[Kromovaracun]

he government was in difficulty with such a small advantage and so you could say this amounted to a vote of confidence.

Erm, I don't think Wilson (in either case) went to the country on any grounds of principle. He didn't want a bigger majority on legitimacy grounds, he wanted it because it makes it strengthens the executive's hand and he thought he could get it - it just made political sense. I think you're stretching it a bit to say he was concerned about his legitimacy.

Edward Heath famously went to the country in March 1974 on an undoubted issue of confidence over the miners� strike.

Almost every parliament (with a few exceptions) since 1945 has gone to the country after about 4 years. Again, Heath didn't do it over legitimacy concerns.

call a snap General Election on the patriotic euphoria that follows

Yeah, 'cause Thatcher was the only politician in history to have to taken political advantage from a war. Of course she didn't go to the country in '82 - why would she? She'd have lost.

You can look down your nose at that all you like but it's just political sense. Why would you call an election you'd lose? Do we seriously think Wilson (or Brown, for that matter) would call an election if he thought he'd get voted out?

Take Callaghan - why was he never elected? Because he'd lose.

[jno]

I think an election is the last thing the Tories would want; they have no policies yet. They know what they want - sort of - but no idea how they plan to achieve it. They need the next two years as much as Brown does. Their hope will be that Brown will just sink ever deeper into disaster, and they're probably right. But so far they haven't offered the electorate much reason to vote for them instead. And when they do get down to policies, they may well start to fall apart over Europe again.