Alan Watkins: The prudent PM will not rush an election

It was a scene from Laurel and Hardy. I once worked for an editor who regularly advised me never to include figures in the first paragraph of a column. "It puts the reader off at once," he would remark sapiently. It was, I think, the only piece of advice he offered me. Ever since, I have tried to follow it. It just goes to show the effect which a few words of wisdom can produce on the young.

The two by-elections have been described as "key". By-elections are invariably called "key". Why these two contests should be so designated eludes me. Labour could continue to hold Sedgefield and Southall at the general election, as it probably will do, and still lose the general election to the Conservatives.

Even so, it was foolish for Mr David Cameron to imagine that he could move from third place in Southall to take the seat. His party has done badly to the extent that, in Southall, it has stayed in the same third position, while in Sedgefield it lost second place. The Liberal Democrats have been the most successful outfit on display. In both seats, their share of the vote went up, with modest swings from Labour.

Could we now please stop blackguarding Sir Menzies Campbell? The principal bullies are the parliamentary sketchwriters, most of whom have never read a political book in their lives (the late Frank Johnson was an exception). They started off by having a go at Mr Speaker Martin, with a certain amount of justification, I must confess. This diversion soon palled, however, and they then turned their attention to Sir Ming.

In fact, BBC 2's parliamentary programme, as measured by audience response, has recently shown Sir Ming doing rather better than the other two leaders. Of course, I would not wish to place too much faith in this push-button device. Nor, come to that, would I repose any great trust in Prime Minister's Questions, however accurately the response might be measured.

Mr Gordon Brown has less reason to feel happy. True, the governing party always tends to lose support at by-elections. But while there was a special factor at Sedgefield (because Mr Blair was taking his leave), the citizens of Southall might have been expected to send Mr Brown on his way with a more resounding vote of confidence.

This was not the impression which was given on Friday morning by the commentators. A vote of confidence was precisely what Mr Brown had been given; or so we were confidently informed. There was still talk of that old lags' standby, the snap election. It might not come in October, because the People's Party did not have any money. But by spring next year, Mr Brown might be ready.

Let us have a look at the recent precedents of prime ministers who have, for whatever reason, succeeded to No. 10 between elections. There have been six of them, including Mr Brown.

The first was Anthony Eden in 1955. Winston Churchill had retired, after much pushing and shoving on the part of the Cabinet. Eden called an election in two months, and increased his majority. He could have gone on for another year before he had to go to the country. But he – or, rather, Conservative Central Office – gambled successfully.

However, poor Eden lasted for only a year and nine months before Harold Macmillan supplanted him in January 1957 in a party coup. Macmillan showed no disposition to take any risks with the electoral time table. He stuck to the four-year gap. Suez notwithstanding, he increased the Tory majority to 100.

Alec Home had not time to play with. After another bout of Tory skulduggery in 1963, the government was already at the end of its now conventional four-year span. The choice was accordingly between spring 1964 and autumn of the same year. Home chose the latter (or, rather, others did), and was rewarded by coming surprisingly close to Harold Wilson's generally expected victory.

The first prime minister to be elected by his party was James Callaghan in 1976. The evidence is that, in his heart, Jim always wanted to serve his full term, which would have taken him into 1979. This was what happened. The then government was not defeated by the winter of 1978-79 – though that certainly did not help matters – but by Scottish devolution and the loss of a vote of confidence.

John Major was the second prime minister to be chosen by party election. He had two years remaining in the Conservative government which had originally been elected under Margaret Thatcher in 1987. I have seen it suggested recently that Sir John, as he was to become, would have improved on his majority of 21 if he had gone early, in 1991. All that can be asserted with confidence is that he did remarkably well to win when he did.

Mr Brown is the second Labour prime minister to arrive between general elections. He was not elected by anybody – though certain formalities were observed to declare him elected unopposed. Of the five inter-election prime ministers cited, only one, Eden, was prepared to take a risk. In reality, the risk was small.

Of the rest, Home had no choice except to hang on. At the time, Sir John was urged by some to exploit the government's position as a result of the first Gulf War. To his credit, any temptation to hold a khaki election was resisted. Mr Brown has no such comparable temptation today, except to get out of Iraq completely.

Was it a missed opportunity on the part of Callaghan in autumn 1978? My view at the time was that the prime minister had allowed the speculation to get out of hand. The date of the election was regarded as a certainty. When the newspapers were disappointed in their expectations, they duly took their revenge. Callaghan's elephantine attempts at humour at that year's TUC conference only made matters worse.

By contrast, Mr Brown has a large majority at his disposal. Admittedly it is not as big as it was after the elections of 1977 and 2001. But by the standards of most Labour administrations (except in 1945 and 1966) it is positively luxurious. And it is certainly arguable that a more compact majority is preferable to the huge mounds of seats piled up in Mr Blair's first years.

Mr Brown's raft of constitutional reforms does not include the proposal that a general election should take place after any change of prime minister. He himself would almost certainly reject any such idea. But another side of his nature might want to have his own mandate, "mandate" being a favoured word in the Labour circles which Mr Brown used to frequent.

When Edward Heath called the February 1974 election, the Tories had a comfortable majority and the Parliament had over a year to run. William Whitelaw said: "We'll be in an entirely new ball game." The Tories then proceeded to lose it. It is difficult to imagine Mr Brown making the same mistake. He has taken well over a decade to reach his present position. He will not lightly risk throwing it away.

More from Alan Watkins