With politics, it’s the rerun of events from 70 years ago and the crisis over the abdiction of Edward VIII. Not that Tony Blair wants to marry an unsuitable woman. That is even less likely than Cherie running off with the bloke next door. It is because the system cannot cope with the spectacle of a Prime Minister who has announced that he is leaving soon but remains in situ. It is purgatory for both Whitehall and Westminster.

The truth is that, whether it is monarchy or democracy, abdication has never been done well in this country. The five kings or queens of these islands who have been officially declared as having stood down (John Balliol of Scotland, Richard II, Mary, Queen of Scots, James II and Edward VIII) were all, in effect, deposed: one was promptly killed (Richard II) and the others obliged to spend their days in exile.

The record of prime ministers is not much better. Stanley Baldwin managed to retire gracefully after easing Edward VIII off the throne, only for his reputation to collapse once the failure of appeasement became apparent. Winston Churchill, aged 81, had to be virtually bundled out of office by colleagues. Harold Wilson maintained a sense of surprise about his exit but ruined it with a resignation honours list that owed more to Crimewatch UK than to Debrett’s.

The essential principle of British government is “the King is dead, long live the King”. It is not “the King will be leaving for the American lecture circuit shortly and will inform you of his precise schedule when it is convenient”. Political leaders here are supposed to have their careers ended either by the voters, by their parliamentary colleagues or by their health. Their successor then assumes control instantly.

Hence the air of total unreality that pervades politics at present. The Prime Minister makes a “farewell” party conference speech and then returns to his desk immediately afterwards. He establishes policy groups that are meant to plan for the next ten years, but which cannot be taken seriously by those who sit on them because they know that Mr Blair will not be in office ten months hence. Mr Blair introduced the Queen’s Speech last week, squashing David Cameron in the process, but he will be history by the hour that the last of these Bills reaches the statute book. It is a peculiar version of the film The Truman Show in which one person (Mr Blair) seems to believe that he is leading a normal life but everyone else understands that it is nothing but fantasy.

And it matters. A weird sense of stasis is overwhelming. Ministers do not know whether to look to Downing Street or the Treasury for leadership, let alone if they will be in their departments after the inevitable reshuffle next year. Senior civil servants are none the wiser and hence have every reason to avoid new initiatives. The media is collectively unsure what it should be scrutinising. It is a scene analogous to a embarrassed but expectant set of relatives hanging around a hospital ward impatiently waiting for an extremely wealthy uncle to hurry up and finally expire.

This could continue for months. There is a vague consensus in the Labour Party that the Prime Minister should announce in March, before the Scottish, Welsh and English local election campaigns, that he intends to submit his resignation letter to the Queen immediately after those contests in May, to take effect when the Labour Party leadership contest finishes in July. This timetable has the virtue of meaning that no one can be blamed for any debacle that might occur in the elections but the vice that the auto-pilot administration lasts longer.

The blueprint has a further difficulty built into it. It looks increasingly likely that Gordon Brown will be unopposed for the party leadership. Neither the hard Left nor the ultra-Blairites seem able to recruit the 44 MPs required to sign a rival’s nomination papers. Logically, therefore, Mr Brown should become the prime minister the second that nominations close. But could he form his Cabinet if it was unclear who had won the election to be his deputy leader and possible deputy prime minister?

The Chancellor could be kicking his heels for weeks, losing time in which he should be establishing himself as a new force in the national mind, while a bored public is asked to wait and see whether whatshisface or whatshername assumes John Prescott’s mantle.

The current formula for the transfer of power may mean that nobody is in a position to be blamed on a bad election night in May, but it hardly allows ministers the opportunity to do anything that might appeal to or impress or inspire the voters of Scotland, Wales and England. It is madness. Labour is almost begging to be slaughtered.

The Prime Minister has to expedite matters. He should allow Cabinet members — including himself — to endorse publicly whoever they care for as his successor. He should permit aspirants for the deputy leadership to run openly for rather than conduct surrogate campaigns via press briefings. This means when that election is held it can be conducted swiftly. He should be ready to call it a day in January, handing over in March.

Mr Cruise made a movie with a former wife called Eyes Wide Shut. This sums up the Labour Party all too accurately at the moment.

Times Recommends

• Tear down this wall! And save the planet
• Double click if you want the bin emptied
• Have you got permission to read this?