There is a growing feeling among the commentariat that Gordon Brown is being given a rough deal by the media. The line is, “Poor old Gordon, it’s not his fault – he has to hang on and remain as PM so why are they all insisting he resign?”

That is over-simplistic and, in relation to Brown the known quantity, frankly naive.

There is no doubt that precedent demands the losing Prime Minister must be available to resign to the Queen alone – but that doesn’t explain why Brown is still there.

Consider: not once has Brown conceded defeat in the Election. That is nothing short of dishonourable, Constitution or no Constitution. David Cameron may not have won it: but Brown lost it big-time. Equally, Nick Clegg may not have turned his votes into seats, but his achievement of crossing the finishing line just a few percentage points behind the Government is an incredible achievement, and he should be proud of it.

In that context, this is what Brown should have done.

The day after the Election, to ring Clegg up and say “Are you sticking to your pledge to let Cameron have first crack?” And when Clegg said “Yes”, he should have made an appointment to see the Queen immediately. Before going, he should’ve got Balls, the Milibands, Harman, Mandelson and Adonis in a room to inform them of his decision, and declare his intention to call a Leadership election – for which he would not be a candidate.

At Buckingham Palace, he should’ve resigned to Her Majesty, and recommended she ask Mr Cameron to see if he could form a viable Government.

The idea that Brown is there from some sense of duty is laughable. He’s partly there because he thinks he might yet hang on, and also because – according to two sources – Mandelson insisted the Party should not lose the majesty of office. This was indeed used to great and entirely bogus effect by the defeated Prime Minister, but there is not a word in Bagehot’s constitutional masterpiece suggesting that the sitting PM must stay in place.

When Sailor Ted clung on for dear life in 1974, he was observing the Constitutional precedent that not until the Monarch appointed a new PM with a view to forming a Government should he or she then try and do so. There is no precedent at all for what Cameron (the Opposition Leader) and Clegg (the Third Party Leader) are trying to put together at the moment: they’ve been forced to break with precedent because Brown and his last redoubt won’t admit defeat. Even in 1940 – when the ill and discredited Neville Chamberlain clearly had to go – he resigned to George VI and recommended he ask Winston Churchill to form a National Government. Churchill didn’t go to Number Ten until the King had (very reluctantly, as it happened) asked him to form a War Cabinet.

But then, that was seventy years ago: when we had a culture, some rules, a sense of honour – and neither Peter Mandelson nor the despicable gonk Charlie Whelan had even been thought of. Nevertheless, the British Constitution is quite clear on this point: the Prime Minister (appointed by the Monarch on the recommendation of the outgoing Prime Minister) tries to form a new Government. We have a Prime Minister at the moment, but he shows no signs of being outgoing. That’s the unconstitutional part of all this.