Concentrating executive power in the hands of the prime minister has the enormous drawback of requiring a greater concentration on an individual than modern political and historical analytic best practice might prefer. It's also rather dull, particularly when the inappropriate object is Gordon Brown.
This idiot savant, impervious among his spreadsheets and statistics, his Party deals and rule-governed micro managing, presents further and personalised difficulties in the resistance to his removal than do most prime ministers who often prefer a little longer in office. In Brown's case we have lost half the leverage to apply to his removal - there is nowhere for him to go.
International institutions that might have been pressed into service have turned him down already - the World Bank specifically, others by various exclusions that in Brown's case would be vigorously applied: the IMF - he's not American; the European Union - he's kept the UK out of the euro and been grossly ill-mannered and hectoring to more EU power brokers than he (or regrettably the United Kingdom) can afford; the financial world - draw a veil over their reaction to the introduction of the ultimately unclubbable into their company; the United Nations - disrespecting the President of the United States who, regardless of party is identified with the American people by the American people, is not a parole-able offence; and so the no noes go on.
It's so much harder to winkle them out without a pin of enticement.
Dick Cheney is right to hate Mandela
4 hours ago