Is it five years, maximum?

The government party in this country is safe from removal so long as it can retain internal discipline and loyalty, and thus defeat any votes of no confidence. Prime ministers have found that overall majorities in single figures are extremely difficult, and bring a paralysis or give too much power to relatively small dissenting groups.

One thing we can be sure of, and the ultimate sanction, is that we the voteres can remove unpopular governments and replace them after a maximum of five years, can't we? Isn't this why some Labour MPs are wrestling with the problem that G. Brown is apparently doomed? Should they try to find another leader quickly, and thus give themselves eight months to hope for an improvement in the economy and some dazzling new policies which would save a few Labour seats, even if not enough, or should they continue without much conviction to apparent oblivion with G.Brown?

Apparently, according to constitutional experts there is a question of whether and in what conditions the five year rule could be abrogated. If G. Brown wishes to act constitutionally, a legal case for prolonging could be made. Hitherto all parties have observed the tradition/rule as if it was a fixed law, but....

He wouldn't, would he?