The defeat last weekend of Australia’s second longest-serving prime minister, John Howard, was a reminder of just how unforgiving democracy can be. One person who does not need reminding is his British counterpart, Gordon Brown, whose crisis-ridden government is already being written off almost before it has started.

After more than a decade of conspicuously stable and able leadership of his country, Mr. Howard may have felt that the voters owed him something. Why else did he risk running for a fifth term, when he could have retired gracefully from the field, full of honor, at the age of 68? As it was, Mr. Howard lost not only the election but his own seat too — a humiliation no sitting prime minister had suffered for over three quarters of a century.

The misfortunes of a right-of-center Australian prime minister may seem to have little bearing on those of a left-of-center British prime minister who has held office for less than six months, compared to Mr. Howard’s 11 years. Yet the disenchantment of the British electorate with Mr. Brown has happened even more abruptly, and for some of the same reasons.

Throughout the years when Tony Blair was making Britain second only to America in global prestige, Mr. Brown was minding the shop for him back home. Based at the Treasury, Mr. Brown used the power of the purse to extend his influence over every arm of government. He convinced the nation that the economy was in safe hands, while quietly embarking on an unprecedented experiment in big government.

As Mr. Blair admitted in a recent TV interview, shortly before the last election in 2005 he seriously considered breaking up this unprecedented concentration of power by splitting the Treasury into two ministries — neither of which would be led by Mr. Brown. We do not know precisely what dissuaded him, but it is safe to assume that he feared that demoting his rival would have brought down the government.

Since Mr. Brown became prime minister, however, the fact that the British electorate feels as if he has already been running the country for 10 years has proved to be a liability. Whatever goes wrong is rightly seen as his responsibility, because he invariably takes credit for everything that goes right.

It is telling that the first casualty of the Brown era has been his reputation for economic competence. It may have been bad luck that the first run on a major British bank for more than a century took place two months into his premiership, but he is culpable for the decision to bail out the bank in question, Northern Rock, with £24 billion ($50 billion) of taxpayers’ money.

As it is unclear whether or not this money will ever be repaid, the survival of Mr. Brown’s successor as chancellor, Alistair Darling, is in doubt. He is unpopular anyway for having doubled the tax paid by millions of small businesses when their owners sell up and retire.

Worse was to come. Mr. Brown was made a laughing stock by his dithering over whether or not to seek a fresh mandate with an early election. His tendency to put party interests before national ones was highlighted by the way that the withdrawal of British troops in Iraq to a last outpost at Basra airport became part of an elaborate political manoeuvre to impress Labor party activists.

Last week Mr. Brown was singled out for personal attack in the House of Lords by five former chiefs of the defense staff. It wasn’t just the usual complaints about Treasury miserliness — for which he as Chancellor had been directly responsible — but a deeper anger. The “covenant” between the armed forces and those they defend has been broken. Under Mr. Brown, the great office of Defense Secretary is no longer even a full-time job, but must be combined with that of Scottish Secretary. It is as if the person running the Pentagon also had special responsibility for the Deep South.

The single event that has damaged Mr. Brown more than any other was a blunder so big that everybody was affected by it and so simple that everybody could understand what had happened. The Revenue and Customs — the equivalent of the Internal Revenue Service in America — “lost” two CDs containing sensitive personal details of half the population.

Everybody with a credit card had to ring their bank and change their password. The head of the Revenue resigned, and his successor had to write a letter of apology to every family in the land. But the ministers who are supposed to carry the can for officials — Messrs. Brown and Darling — are still in office.

The culmination of this unfinished comedy of errors came this week, when it emerged that the Labor Party had accepted more than $1 million from a businessman who illegally channelled his donations through his employees to disguise his identity. The party’s general secretary resigned immediately, but even bigger heads may roll.

The deputy leader of the party, Harriet Harman, accepted a donation from the same businessman, and the prime minister has cut her loose, desperate to limit the damage.

In a matter of months, therefore, Mr. Brown has lost his good name and his party is now floundering in the opinion polls. There is talk of rebellion in the ranks. If Mr. Brown has any sense, now a matter of doubt, he won’t leave it as long as Mr. Howard to make his last bow and preserve what is left of his dignity.