Brown is still trying after just one year

Forget Harold Wilson's famous quote: "A week is a long time in politics" - for Gordon Brown, 53 weeks must seem like an eternity.

For over a decade, Brown was resentful but prepared to bask in the warmth of the sunshine emitted by Prime Minister Tony Blair. To Blair went the plaudits of premiership: quotable quotes, foreign travel and the meeting the great and the good on behalf of Her Majesty's government and, most importantly, acclaim for a job well done. In residence next door to No. 10 sat a man who spent a decade mumbling to himself, "I should have got that job."

But it was only after several "will he, won't he" flirtations with the media, and the British electorate, and the clear indication that he was a prime minister past his sell-by date, that Blair stood aside to allow Brown his long-awaited opportunity at being Number 1. But being Number 2 for 10 years does not prepare you for being Number 1 - a whole different set of principles and parameters applies.

For a start, Brown had to relinquish his post as Chancellor of the Exchequer (finance minister) and instead of running one department with almost limitless control (which Blair had allowed him), he had to concentrate on all the other issues - and departments - that prime ministers are obliged to deal with. (Although, as aficionados of Yes, Prime Minister will know, obliged, but not compelled, as that is why there are other ministers and a huge civil service.)

When Brown entered 10, Downing Street as the man in charge, doubtless he had stars in his eyes at having succeeded in achieving what he had set out to do all those years ago. Better than that, though, he had a favourable press behind him and the expectations of great things from the electorate - not least a reversal of fortunes as the Labour government's popularity had sunk to (what was then) an all-time low.

But 53 weeks later, and that all-time low is even lower and many people are calling for change. Either Brown quits and passes the baton on to some other likely hopeful, or, as Tory leader David Cameron would have it, he calls for a general election to test public opinion. But Brown knows either of those choices is tantamount to committing hara-kiri; not a pretty sight in front of Mr Speaker.

With the personality of an undertaker commiserating with relatives over the bereavement, Brown has shown himself to be in marked contrast to his predecessor. There is no joie de vivre bounding across the House floor, no great personality leaping out of our TV's into our homes. He may be the most brilliant person in Britain, or the best chancellor the country has ever had, but he projects himself as a dour Scot incapable of lightness of touch. He is marked as yet another prime minister who has outlived his welcome.

Much praised

Worse than that, all the economies and measures he took while chancellor, which were much praised at the time - except by the Tory party - are now coming back to haunt him. The economy is not faring as well as he had predicted, albeit not due entirely to his fault but to global economic crises; pensioners are up in arms as they discover they are not as well off as they had been promised; taxpayers are complaining against changes in the rates, and government institutions are clamouring for more money.

Among those seeking more money are the members of parliament. Apparently they deem their salaries and expenses insufficient in the face of increasing costs. I won't address here the recent discoveries of fiddled expenses by MPs that have been uncovered; instead I would mention the folly of allowing people to decide their own salaries and expenses.

The members of parliament, for once, were almost unanimous in agreeing that their salary should be increased what a surprise! Some wanted it to be 4.5 per cent, as a committee had recommended; the government suggested 2.2 per cent as being more reasonable and in line with the targets set by them. In the end, the compromise was 2.25 per cent was agreed and everybody (?) was happy.

But - there is more to come. Mr Speaker had suggested a way in which to reduce MPs expenses due to the contentious nature in which some claims were made. It would have effectively cut the bill by a quarter. But MPs, feeling less generous to the taxpayer and more generous to themselves, voted against the motion. And they will continue with conning the British taxpayer out of up to £15m a year with the public having no say on the issue.

With the people being called upon to make even more financial sacrifices, this master-stroke by the parliamentarians is sure to aggravate the electorate even more. Brown must be thinking his run of misfortune is an endless nightmare.