The Bane of Blair

The rather bizarre world of British politics came to a head this week as Prime Minister Tony Blair gave, what the press called, his last speech as PM. Yet, the change of leadership may not happen until 2007 long before an election is held. Which brings us to today's topic: why doesn't the British electorate have a say in this change of leadership? Alas, this is how British politics often works.
 
It's the classic internal struggle of ambition being played out in the Labour Party. [For more see Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare]
 
Gordon Brown the man who oversees the money, is now the favourite to succeed Blair and it looks like he's going to have his way. Clearly, he's rallied a few Labour Party insiders to pressure the current Prime Minister into quitting. This is how many corporations work too. It's a scenario that's often been played out: a worker or manager gets into a position that displeases the boss and a few others. The boss can't dismiss him, so he makes it difficult for the worker to do his job and over a period of time, that worker quits out of frustration.  This is the saga of Tony Blair regardless of his success in the past.
 
Gordon Brown lacks charm and wit but he makes up for it with a strong sense of ambition and in politics that's all you need, especially if the public isn't involved. The British electorate doesn't seem too upset about Blair's long term departure and perhaps Brown knows it. Blair's popularity at home has been fading for several years. His commitment to George W. Bush seems stronger than his commitment to Britain and Brown knows that, too. That's one approach.
 
Or maybe it's Machiavellian in nature: [from Wikipedia]
 
Machiavelli's best known work is The Prince, in which he describes the arts by which a Prince can retain control of his kingdom. He focuses primarily on what he calls the principe nuovo or "new prince," under the assumption that a hereditary prince [in this case Tony Blair] has an easier task since the people are accustomed to him. All a hereditary prince [Blair] need do is carefully maintain the institutions that the people are used to; a new prince [in this case Gordon Brown] has a much more difficult task since he must stabilize his newfound power and build a structure that will endure. This task requires the Prince [Blair] to be publicly above reproach but privately may require him to do things that are evil in order to achieve the greater good.
 
Clearly, Tony Blair is too nice for that.
 
That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.