Alan Watkins: Mr Brown will keep muddling on

Ever since things began to go wrong for Mr Gordon Brown, in autumn last year, the progress of the Government has been presented as an obstacle race. He has fallen at every hurdle.

Labour failed even more comprehensively than had been expected in the local elections. The Conservatives won the contest for Mayor of London to most people's surprise, including that of the successful candidate. The Government lost a hitherto safe seat at a by-election with a straight swing to the Opposition.

Related articles

• Labour in disarray as attacks on Gordon Brown continue
• John Rentoul: Gordon Brown's Japanese lesson
• Search the news archive for more stories

At least one further obstacle remains in Mr Brown's path: the 42-day detention period which is to be debated in a few weeks' time. The proposed legislation already embodies a constitutional muddle. It combines the judicial, the executive and the legislative functions of the state. Judges, ministers and MPs all have a finger in the pudding.

Ms Jacqui Smith, who is supposed to be Home Secretary – she has already seen a corner of her kitchen requisitioned by Mr Jack Straw – has given the mixture an additional stir. Her object in doing this has been to give the concoction a touch of sweetness in order to appeal to the palates of Mr Brown's dissident backbenchers. Some commentators have been saying on television that this would be Mr Brown's "last chance" – that if he did not win the vote on the 42 days, he would have to go or to see arrangements made for his succession. In reality, these observers are playing Mr Brown's game, whether they know it or not.

Mr Brown has, after all, had three clear defeats already. He is still there, now getting into aeroplanes, now getting out of them, showing interest in classrooms, and encouraging young nurses in their work. Why should he not carry on in more or less the same way for the next two years? Why not, indeed! The probability is that Mr Brown will muddle on in an uninspired fashion, after which he will lose the election, even if less catastrophically than he looks like doing at the moment. However, the possibility of defeat in the House raises the prospect of a general election. The subject cannot be avoided.

Oddly enough, it has not been mentioned – not by Government or Opposition, not by fearful Labour backbenchers or their presumably more confident colleagues on the other side. The line in the Cabinet is that they are going to see this through together. Towards the end of his 1966-70 administration, Harold Wilson was constantly threatening his backbenchers with an election. The object was to pass the legislation which he and Barbara Castle had cooked up between them. There were other causes of dissent as well.

The threat was quickly withdrawn, partly because it had been made too often, and partly because the Prime Minister – any prime minister – was threatening himself as well as numerous others. Sir John Major resorted to the same ploy when he was having trouble with his party over the Maastricht Treaty. He may not have specifically mentioned having to pay a call on the Queen. But that was what he would have had to do. One of his colleagues said: "We wouldn't have let him get halfway down The Mall."

Sir John did something even more extraordinary. In 1995, he put himself up for party leader even though he was, as he continued to be, Prime Minister. The only people to protest at this constitutional outrage were, as far as I know, Enoch Powell and myself.

For Sir John, as he later became, was Prime Minister solely because he was leader of what was then the largest party in the Commons. But nothing of any consequence happened as a result of these excitements. Previously, in summer 1993, the Government had been defeated over the provisions on the Social Chapter in the Maastricht Bill. Next day, the awkward clause was restored, and the Government's position consolidated in a vote of confidence.

Mr Brown's position should be to accept the defeat, if it happens, and to carry on with the 28-day limit. That was what the House decided earlier, in 2006. Mr Brown chose to go asking for trouble, when he was more self-confident than he is today, for understandable reasons.

If he now, additionally, chooses to turn this into a matter of confidence, he is being less than what used to be his old prudent self. In 1979, it is true, Mr Michael Foot, as leader of the House, had a scheme for a second vote of confidence. If successful, it would have prolonged the Government's life to the late autumn. James Callaghan had no relish for any further fight.

Mr Brown is not like this. At least, I assume he is not like this – though, come to think of it, Mr Brown has almost as many years' service to "the movement" as Callaghan had previously. It would be folly for Mr Brown to tie his future to the caprice of a vote in the House of Commons.

In addition, there are all kinds of perils and dangers of the Westminster night, particularly in the summer. The place is not as febrile as it used to be in the old days, when the proportion of men to women was higher, and the legislators were there later. But warmer weather brings shorter tempers. There are plots or, at any rate, rumours of plots.

The most recent successful plot occurred in September 2006, when the House was not sitting. The conspirators communicated electronically with one another to force the early or, if you like, the forced retirement of Mr Tony Blair. The cause was the invasion of Lebanon by Israel: much as the fall of David Lloyd George was brought about by his siding with Greece against Turkey after the First World War. Mr Brown has nothing comparable with which he can be charged. It is worse than that. He is disappointing all round, though there were signs of recovery last week, maybe because the House was not sitting. Roll on the recess! It is like a warm pool, a soft bed or a happy combination of both. There does not seem to be any appetite for a contest.

That, however, is precisely what there would have to be, irrespective of whether Mr Brown was toppled or left on his own accord. The machinery for removal would have to be cranked up by at least 70 Labour MPs; a resignation would mean fewer, though numerous nominations would still be necessary. Mr David Miliband, say, could not simply succeed Mr Brown as Mr Brown was allowed to succeed Mr Blair.

In all the comings and goings of the past couple of weeks – more talk than action, but then, politics is chiefly talk – the silent man has been Mr Straw. He is always there in the group photograph, like Andre Gromyko in the old Soviet Union. His name as an emissary to Mr Brown has been linked to that of Mr Geoff Hoon, the Chief Whip. They have been described as greybeards though neither has a beard, or is noticeably keen on grey suits. The Tories gave up these accoutrements long ago. Mr Straw will always be around. But then, so also will Mr Brown.

More from Alan Watkins