Confidence votes are funny things.

Opposition parties use them, even when they have no hope of carrying the motion, to highlight failures in government and bad policies. Making Cabinet Ministers and backbenchers squirm as they try to defend policies they may well disagree with gives an opposition party the chance to show how poorly a government is performing.

They may not win the vote, but they can damage a governing party by simply showing how weak it is. Governments will also define certain bills as "confidence" votes simply to get them through Parliament when backbenchers are showing signs of wavering. For divided parties they can also help to restore discipline. That's because it takes a brave MP to vote against his party and actually bring the government down.

The motion tabled by Opposition Leader Kim Swan last week seems to have been aimed at actually winning the vote by specifically asking the House to say it has no confidence in the Government led by Premier Ewart Brown. The hope seems to have been that the wording would have enabled dissident Government backbenchers to say their votes were against Dr. Brown as opposed to the Government. And the backbenchers could also have used the threat of voting against Dr. Brown to force him out prior to a vote – thus making the confidence motion itself moot.

If news reports are accurate, the gambit has not worked, since a confidence vote would still have had the effect of bringing down the Government. And the rebel MPs will already have been told that they would be expelled from the party and replaced in their branches by new PLP candidates, so they are very much putting their political careers on the line. That's a lot to ask of any MP, especially one who may be in a marginal constituency.

The UBP may have been too optimistic about the unhappiness of the PLP rebels to believe they would really have joined forces, whereas they might have done so on a motion of censure against Dr. Brown personally, or a motion condemning his actions over the Uighurs.

That in itself would not have brought down Dr. Brown, but would have weakened him considerably. Now it would appear that a vote on party lines will take place, although it will still be interesting to see who defends the Premier's performance and how vigorously.

It is possible that the rebel MPs will now revert to their original strategy, which was aimed at making it difficult for the Premier to pass legislation, including the cruise ship gambling law.

Another $50,000 vehicle permit law, this one for sewage trucks, is also coming up after one for tow trucks barely passed. And the rebels also won a significant concession from the Premier with the reduction in the length of Airport leases that do not need to be approved by Parliament.

Attention will then turn to the lead-up to the PLP conference in the autumn, when a challenge is possible. What is certain is that despite a vigorous public relations campaign over the last week, Dr. Brown is now weaker than ever.

When the Deputy Premier says she feels politically neutered and when other Cabinet Ministers are openly expressing their annoyance at being ignored over the Uighurs, it must be obvious to Dr. Brown that he is on shaky ground. He has used up enormous amounts of political capital, and, at the moment has little to show for it. All of that can change, but Dr. Brown's US friends will have to deliver something pretty big.