It's an intriguing one. The UK media is possibly less deferential in it's treatment of our politicians than the US media appears to be with US politicians. Personally I like it that way - it serves as a constant reminder that politicians (irrespective of whatever office they may hold) are not our superiors, but rather our servants, who are -just like all public servants- paid to do a particular job for a set period of time.

The whole area of titles is a mystery to me. Is it correct for example that earned positions of rank in the military, are retained after retirement? I think this is so, usually or often with the addition of (ret.) to indicate that 'Major Blustering-Froth (Ret.)' is no longer in active service. I wonder is it from the military example that the US media are taking their cue when referring to prior presidents as 'President X'? I know it's often made a big deal of that the US president is also military 'commander in chief'.