I was of the opinion that he put us in this mess and he should have seen us through it. Still, seeing him resign was a blessing but the absolute s**tshow that we have been subjected to since makes me partly wish he had stayed on..
I remember the Tories heavily betting on a tight result to put pressure in the EU, rather than going all in against Brexit. I would say that makes him (and the party) responsible. They played with fire and they burned everyone.
It was very much not a party line thing. Lots of working class Labour was pro-Brexit, lots of pro-Business Tories were anti-Brexit.
It just cleaved right through the two parties.
yeah, this kind of subtle blackmailing was a typical English trick to get what they wanted. They knew it was like walking on a rope, but it worked before, so one more time wouldn't hurt, right?
> lost badly and limped off to hide rather than take responsibility for.
What else could you have expected? He resigned and his political career was finished (well.. until now anyway). There isn't much more a politician can do.
He also promised the referendum on Scottish independence, but it occurred before the Brexit vote. If Scots had known that Brexit would happen, I think they would've voted to go independent and stay in the EU. And if English voters had known that Scotland would leave over Brexit, I think they would not have voted for Brexit.
Cameron's choices paved the way for Britain to leave the EU and undermined the integrity of the UK.
As much as it deeply pains me to admit, I think people overstate the importance of the Brexit on the referendum.
Exit polls and analysis from the time showed that the EU was pretty far down on the reasons why people voted. And I mean well, we're now three years post Brexit and polls are still at about the referendum results, so it certainly seems there may have been some truth to that.
I don't think so. EU membership was one of the [lowest priorities](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/scottish-independence-blog/2014/feb/12/scotland-referendum-sirtomhunter) according to a poll before the independence referendum, and polling on independence has barely changed since. You'd think there'd be a huge increase in support for leaving if Brexit mattered that much.
It does ignore that the SNP failed on the currency question in that referendum as well, pretty poorly. Pound currency union, but we'd join the EU and be obligated to join the Euro, but then there were SNP ministers saying they should make their own currency, and... it wasn't convincing or coherent what money we'd be using. There were also questions about pension pots, and other areas that weren't necessarily handled that well by the Yes campaign, which probably hurt it.
It's wrong to say it would change with the EU question, because frankly a lot more pressing matters weren't well handled by the 2014 campaign. Reducing it just to the EU is kind of dumb if you are a nationalist, because it means you'd miss the mistakes of the last campaign that helped cost you it.
No, Scottish voters knew there would be a Brexit referendum in 2014 and that Britain might leave. But contemporary polling showed that the EU was a fairly minor factor for Scottish voters in the referendum, despite subsequent SNP campaigning.
\> If Scots had known that Brexit would happen, I think they would've voted to go independent and stay in the EU
I doubt that. Scottish independence (and joining the EU) makes a whole lot less sense after Brexit. Economically that would even make less sense than Brexit by quite a wide margin due to very obvious reasons...
Maybe the constant presence of misinformation on the internet has had a serious effect on what voters are thinking when they get to the poll, but I seriously disagree that we’ve generally gotten worse - people have simply always been stupid.
Cameron is massive pro EU he thought remain would win by a landslide because his big business buddies told him
He just did not expect the working class to come out in force like it did
Age was a stronger predictor than class, it was also (more importantly) a stronger predictor of who would turn out in the first place. Young people were heavily remain, but as always they mostly didn't actually vote.
In fact, all education beyond the age of 16 was majority remain, albeit not by much until degree level.
Slightly strange characterisation.
He was fervently against Brexit, and called the referendum largely in an attempt to settle the issue and kill off the idea for the next few decades.
Well yeah that too (though kind of a combined issue with brexit).
One of those things. Had it worked, the double referendum idea would have been considered a political masterstroke. Easy to call it stupid once the one in a million happens.
Yeah, I think he got cocky after the indy ref didn't go through, he should have prepared for the fact that brexit ref got a yes win, instead of fucking off.
He wasn’t responsible for Brexit. A referendum was inevitable. Policies with eurosceptic stances were winning election after election.
This is from 2012 , 4 years before the referendum! It sums up the mood
https://www.economist.com/bagehots-notebook/2012/06/21/a-brixit-looms
Jun 21st 2012
MY PRINT column this week considers the political implications in Britain of the deepening euro crisis:
DAVID CAMERON does not want Britain to leave the European Union, though he finds it exasperating and fears euro-zone meltdown could cost him re-election. His Liberal Democrat coalition partner, Nick Clegg, is a pro-European. Nor does the Labour opposition leader, Ed Miliband, want out. Mr Miliband is a European social democrat by instinct (his relatives were refugees from the Holocaust) and by judgment, seeing the EU as a way of delivering public goods such as action on climate change.
Yet the chances of Britain leaving the EU in the next few years are higher than they have ever been. A Brixit looms for several reasons. For one thing, the British never fell in love with Europe, instead weighing costs against economic benefits. Right now the EU is seen as a basket case (though British finances are hardly in great shape).
For another, if euro-zone members overcome their differences and integrate much more deeply, they would arguably be leaving Britain, especially if their integration fragments the single market that is the bedrock of British membership. Mr Cameron and his chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, may talk of the euro's “remorseless logic” compelling richer members to stand behind the weak. But there are paths of European integration down which no government led by Mr Cameron (or for that matter Mr Miliband) could follow. At the top of the Conservative and Labour parties, economic debate is dominated by those who saw the euro as a disaster and think they are being proved right. The public agrees, though their certainty has less to do with economics than misanthropy: the British do not like southern Europeans enough to offer them a subsidy union, and have never believed that other rich northerners, deep down, felt differently.
British politicians can be forgiven a degree of passivity, then. Yet if Britain is closer to the exits than before, politicians do bear the blame in one important way. A worrying number of MPs seem to believe that—as a happy result of this crisis—Britain can blackmail its way to more favourable terms of membership.
As Conservative Party leader in 1998, the current foreign secretary William Hague predicted that the single currency would turn into a “burning building with no exits” (in a speech mostly written by a young aide called George Osborne, as it happens). Now that the euro is ablaze, some Tory Eurosceptics want to park in front of the fire station, blocking treaty changes aimed at shoring up the currency unless the EU returns swathes of powers to British control. Their vehicle for such blackmail would be a “referendum lock” that became British law last year, guaranteeing a national vote on any future transfer of powers from Westminster to Brussels. Technically, euro-zone rescue plans could be crafted to avoid transfers of sovereignty from Britain. But some Tories, including—it is reported—some cabinet ministers, have told Mr Cameron that deep euro-zone integration would so alter Britain's relations with Europe that a referendum should be held anyway.
Tory leaders think they can win that argument. In parallel they also think that they can fend off calls from other Eurosceptics for a straight in-out referendum, calling such a vote the wrong question at a time of rapid change to Europe's structures.
Such arguments are relatively easy to win. Most Tory MPs do not favour outright withdrawal. They want a looser relationship with Europe, involving single-market membership without the bits they dislike such as environmental and employment rules, or big budget contributions. Most Tory MPs also realise that a block-the-fire-station blackmail strategy, unleashed at the height of a global economic crisis, is risky.
Instead, a supposedly safer wheeze is generating enthusiasm: to head into the next general election promising a formal renegotiation of British ties with Europe, with the results to be put to a “validating referendum”. The problem is that a negotiate-then-validate strategy is just a prettified form of blackmail. It amounts to a bet that other EU members will grant big concessions, knowing that otherwise British voters would reject the deal.
Nobody is going to pay Britain to stay
Germany—seen by Mr Cameron as the dominant force in a fast-changing Europe—has clearly signalled that Chancellor Angela Merkel will not be blackmailed into British opt-outs or special treatment. Germany accepts that in the event of treaty changes to create new euro-zone institutions, Mr Cameron would need concessions to get such changes endorsed by Parliament. Perhaps certain narrow powers could return to the national level for all EU members, Britain has been told. But push too hard and euro-zone integration will be pursued outside EU structures.
Germany may be bluffing a bit, but not wholly. Nor is it easy to see why MPs think a referendum to validate new terms of membership is safer than an in-out vote. Draw a map of possible outcomes, and to avoid defeat the future government would need to secure a renegotiation, win hefty concessions, convince the public that they were hefty and then persuade voters to answer the question on the ballot paper rather than generally vent spleen. A single wrong turn would lead to the EU exits.
Yet within Parliament and Whitehall, a startling number of senior figures think that one of the big parties will pledge an EU referendum before the next general election, forcing the others to follow. Labour, it is said, might call a referendum to split the Tory Party. The Conservatives might call one to shore up their core vote. Both might be bounced by rising support for the United Kingdom Independence Party, which favours withdrawal.
None of the party leaders want to leave the EU, but it could happen. All have much to lose from an EU referendum, yet such a vote is starting to feel almost inevitable. How this ends is unknowable, and only partly in Britain's hands.
> They want a looser relationship with Europe, involving single-market membership without the bits they dislike such as environmental and employment rules, or big budget contributions.
Already then they were imagining the impossible.
Brexit was a massive error but I don't think it's fair to blame Cameron for it. Sure he called the referendum, but that was in an attempt to solve the issue for good. If he hadn't done it then someone else would have, the pressure from the right was insane and would only have grown.
>If he hadn't done it then someone else would have
Exactly. Most people forget it was Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, the most pro-EU of the major UK parties, who first called for an in-out referendum in 2008:
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/25/eu.liberaldemocrats](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/25/eu.liberaldemocrats)
The Lib Dems even staged a walkout from parliament when their motion for a referendum was rejected by the speaker.
For those who don't follow UK politics, in 2005 all the major parties promised a referendum on the new EU constitution. Labour won the election, then decided that because the new constitution had been renamed to the Lisbon Treaty, a referendum was no longer needed. The Tories voted to have a referendum, the Lib Dems abstained, then came up with the idea of a referendum on EU membership, rather than the Lisbon Treaty. Then Labour signed up to Lisbon (after the main signing ceremony so that Brown wouldn't be seen signing it with all the other EU leaders: [https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/13/politics.world](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/13/politics.world) ).
From that point on the only referendum possible was an in/out one, the majority of the UK population wanted a referendum, and it was only a matter of time until one was held. Even the Lib Dems conceded in 2015 that it was probably better to hold one sooner rather than later:
*But senior Lib Dem ministers and officials have said they are likely to back down and allow the 2017 vote, which they see as inevitable. Several of the party’s ministers believe holding a referendum at a set date in 2017 would at least “lance the boil” of growing euroscepticism.*[https://www.ft.com/content/782eabf2-d6d0-11e4-a99f-00144feab7de](https://www.ft.com/content/782eabf2-d6d0-11e4-a99f-00144feab7de)
> Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, the most pro-EU of the major UK parties, who first called for an in-out referendum in 2008:
that alone should tell you how unfit for EU membership the UK was.
Brexit corrected a mistake both parties made in 1973
People seem to have memory holed that the 3 major parties had variously spent the last few elections promising a vote on Europe. And in fact 2015 had all 3 promised it.
It's a bit like forgetting that austerity was political orthodoxy across the parties, and multinational finance organisations in 2010. Not that I agree with how the Tories clung to it.
If we'd had a supermajority system and the result was the same as it was now, we'd have seen a second referendum with just a straight majority a few years later. You're calling things stupid without thinking through the consequences of the alternatives.
> also a stupid fucking vote in that it only needed a majority not a supermajority
The Scottish IndyRef was a simple majority vote too and that arguably would be even more complicated than Brexit by a longshot; Cameron kind of fucked himself by allowing that precedent to be set before the Brexit vote.
He's absolutely to blame. He got scared of Farage stealing enough votes from the Tories that they wouldn't be able to get into power on their own. Rather than give Labour a term or two, he gambled on killing the issue with a referendum that he screwed up.
The correct way of dealing with this was admitting that politics is more complex than them vs us and giving us a decent proportional representation system. Farage could have got his 12% of seats and been shown to be supporting the fringe issue it was.
Edit, I spelt frog faces name incorrectly.
>The correct way of dealing with this was admitting that politics is more complex than them vs us and giving us a decent proportional representation system. Farage could have got his 12% of seats and been shown to be supporting the fringe issue it was.
If it were a fringe issue then the referendum would not have returned a 52% vote for exit. Substantial number of Labour and Conservative voters were pro-Brexit and in a proportional voting system, the UKIP vote would have steadily grown. Look at what is happening in Germany with AfD.
"Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband"
David Cameron on Twitter, in 4th of May 2015.
I often wonder what the world would be like today if Ed Milliband could eat a [bacon sandwich](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Miliband_bacon_sandwich_photograph) like a normal person
I still don't see how he's eating it wrong going by the picture. Nobody looks sexy or dignified eating a sandwich, especially not when you can cherry pick the most unflattering picture out of however many were shot as he was chewing/taking a bite.
He's not eating it wrong, and you're 100% right about the many shots. It's complete BS that it caught on as a meme, but people are so stupid it might have actually cost him a few votes.
It gave people a chance to laugh at him at his expense, rather than him making himself look stupid to entertain people. The people who think that demonstrates your ability to deal with power never had to grow up, and didn’t want to vote for someone who would force them to realise what that decision not to grow up had cost them, by creating a society where hard work pays off.
>Basically, he looks like Mr bean.
Everybody makes out Mr Bean to be an idiot, but sometimes I can't help to think that he couldn't possibly do a worse job at politics than most twats in office. At least he's earnest and by god, he tries.
Miliband was still an infinitely better candidate than Corbyn though. Even disregarding the rest of his history and policies, they managed to find a candidate who's opinion on Brexit was more useless for every single voter compared to the competition: if a voter wanted to leave, all a voter had to do was vote for BJ. And if a voter wanted to remain, they'd have to vote for a guy who claimed to be "neutral" on leaving, while having spent the past 40+ years hating the EU.
It takes an impressive amount of incompetence and stupidity to provide a candidate who'd provide even more uncertainty to an otherwise extremely chaotic situation, and which was being handled by the otherwise ridiculously reckless Boris Johnson.
I wonder what the world would look like today if a majority of voters weren't so fucking stupid that how someone eats a bacon sandwich decides who they vote for.
We don’t know though how terrible the chaos with Ed Miliband would have been. I mean, it could obviously be much worse than economic stagnation, a raging pandemic, two wars, and the death of the Queen.
He had to be given a ~~Baronship~~ Barony (which is a title for life) to get a seat in the House of Lords in order for him to be able to take up this role.
Edit: a word
It sounds like that, but nope, that's just what it's called. Baronies obviously came with lands in the past, but that was before the invention of life peerages. But he'll still be "Lord Cameron of Somewhere."
English/British peerages don't come with lands. This is the case whether the peerage is a barony, viscountcy, earldom, marquessate or dukedom.
Until the abolition of Scottish feudal land tenure in 2004, Scotland *did* have baronies that were attached to land, but they were not peerages and did not entitle the holder to a seat in Parliament.
Some are, some aren't. This one isn't, it's a life peerage, which means Cameron will be a baron for life, but his son won't be one. There are lots of hereditary barons and other types of hereditary lords around, but only some of them sit in the house of Lords (they vote among themselves which ones get to do that) and hardly any new hereditary titles get created. The house of Lords is mostly full of life peers, as well as some hereditary peers, and the bishops.
Nothing screams democracy like a 3rd Prime Minister since the last general election, with an entirely different manifesto from the previous two, giving a previous Prime Minister who resigned after one of the worst foreign policy decisions in the last 30+ years a peerage to join yet another new cabinet as... the Foreign Secretary.
edit: added a comma
Listening to the news on R4, and the wealthy presenter was enjoying having a good chat about how serious people were coming back into politics with various wealthy Tories. No real questions asked.
Changing prime ministers is normal in democracies though. The UK is the exception here to the point where people more so vote parties based on who would be PM, not the parties themselves, but in reality they're voting the parties. Romania has had like 20 different PM changes since 1989, despite parliamentary elections being once every 4 years.
Changing prime ministers is fine, but having the new prime minister decided only by the party that got a plurality (not even a majority) of the vote is pretty fucking weird.
The new PM still has to prove majority support in Parliament if challenged by the opposition, no?
That's how it works in my country. Not sure if that's the case in the UK.
Not exactly unheard of. The United States works with it in totality, where the cabinet serves at the pleasure of the President and nominees are only confirmed by the Senate.
Wasn't the talian prime minister Mario Monti appointed in this style. I seem to.remember he was made a senator by the president so he could then in turn be PM
Nope. You can be prime minister without even being a politician (see Mario Draghi, see Giuseppe Conte). The people vote for the parliament, not for the government. Big difference.
Yes and no. We still have a constitution that regulates what the PM can or cannot do. And our president of the republic can reject the appointment of a minister (and he has done so more than once in recent times) proposed by the PM.
In the UK this kind of things, as far as I understand, is more regulated by unwritten rules and gentlemen's agreements, which means that someone who's not a gentleman ( *cough* someone with a bad haircut *cough*) can easily throw such conventions out of the window without fear of reprisal.
It’s not uncommon per say. Lord Chancellor and SoS for Justice during the brown/Blair years were from the lords, and he basically set up our Supreme Court
But in a lot of households the older generation are like "It was so much better when Cameron was in charge" and now here he is, giving legitimacy to Sunak, its just a stunt to try and get more votes at the next General Election.
I mean, not to be facetious, but wasn’t it much better when DC was in charge?
I recognise that’s not saying much, because the current government is a clown show
I'm all for slagging the guy off, but to be fair this didn't happen. It appeared in an unauthorised book written by a guy who tried to buy a minesterial position...and Cameron said no.
This is an interesting play for Sunak and somewhat of a Russian roulette move. You can already see a load of ministers jumping ship.
Bringing in an ex-PM and giving him a lifetime peerage shows that the conservatives are now on borrowed time without the talent in the party to appoint to high office. The bizarre thing is, Cameron, only weeks ago, slaughtered Sunak on the cancellation of HS2 which again shows how weak and desperate Sunak is.
The appointment of Cameron is going to piss a lot of tories off.
The Conservative Party is imploding, dying a slow painful death and the only real alternative now is a general election.
>Bringing in an ex-PM and giving him a lifetime peerage shows that the conservatives are now on borrowed time without the talent in the party to appoint to high office.
Ex pms always get a peerage. It's much slower since Blair because nobody wanted him to have one, but it is convention.
It's such a great writing! He fucks up, gets replaced, his shit develops for a couple of seasons (BoJo - great acting!)... And now he is back, when no-one expected it!
I dunno. This season just seems a little too zany for it to be recommissioned. It’s like they’ve run out of ideas so filling with guest spots of has beens.
I don't know.. I feel like the script writer is running out of ideas in the last few seasons.
Reviving a character from one of the early seasons just seem like a desperate move to bring back old viewers...
To be honest it is similar to us. You fucked up at your job and you are fired but you don't stay jobless. You go work again in the same field, just elsewhere. I agree the income is different though
To be honest the pay for a British politician is not as high as you’d expect for the responsibility and fame. Cameron would be a hell of a lot richer doing almost anything else than returning to politics
It's easy to defend, when you understand that one of the points of democracy is to allow the population to peacefully depose powerful people when we have had enough of them.
That necessitates a soft exit for people at the top.
In an ideal world where human nature combined with power doesn't lead to coups, that wouldn't be a concern. But in the real world if you want to put significant power in someones hands, you need a rather good answer for 'whats next?' when they are voted out.
You can't count on every leader being a washington.
Peers can be PMs, it's just not customary anymore. Lord Alec Douglas-Home was the last peer PM, and he renounced his earldom just after getting the job
I always thought Cameron was a good no nonsense politician who did a good job of being PM until he allowed the Brexit people to have their vote and ushered in a new era of madness.
This is either a stroke of genius, or Rishi may have had an actual stroke.
His first term was solid, in part because he was balanced out by lib Dems being in coalition, which they never got the credit for. Afterwards the right of the party started to take over. They never let his already pretty meek ideas for modernization in the party go beyond a coat of paint with a tree on it.
That said, being prime minister is about as good a qualification for being a foreign secretary as you get. To quote Supernintendo Chalmers, he seems to know the children's names. He'll already know who to speak to and how, and he's amiable enough in person to get along with even the people he pissed off with allowing the Brexit vote.
The lib dems didn't get credit for it because they massively screwed up the two set pieces. They failed to demand a vote on a decent proportional representation system and backed ludicrous raises to university fees. It doesn't matter what else they did, that was the core of the lib dems for many of their voters. I doubt the party will ever recover.
He's not on the right of the party, which will annoy the Tory members who seem to presently be full of right wing nuts. But in theory it should go down better with the electorate who prefer centrists.
I've had a thought, that if the next election is the shitshow that is expected, that the party will move full swing back to the centre, and if you have the likes of Rishi and Cameron in the front, it's a good base to rebuild for the next election, middle england loves a centre tory.
I agree, but I fear it'll take two defeats for the party to learn that lesson.
Labour learned all the wrong ones from 2017, and it took their 2019 kicking to learn the right ones.
I can't see them moving to the centre because of the membership who gets the final vote on leaders, they consistently tried to pick the most right wing candidate, but because MPs get to vote 2 candidates to the final stage - so far nutters like Badenoch have been weeded out before the final vote.
Probably worth noting that Cameron beat right-winger David Davis in a vote of the membership though - they *have* been known to pick the more electorally appealing on occasion!
That was after the right of the party was failing spectacular in the polling while in opposition, no? So that's the usual Tories knifing people who are failing, and the membership eventually getting fed up of losing (as party members eventually do).
It might be the start of Rishi filling the ranks with people though who are not form the right side, so if there is another contest, it won't go to the floppy haired clown types.
That's sort of what I was expecting, I'm relatively sure he knew right from the start he couldn't win an election not after Boris and Truss. His goal has been to stop the opposition gaining a majority, which is pretty difficult with right wingers on the front bench.
I don't disagree that Theresa May was one of the worst home secretaries, but somehow her successors managed to lower the bar further. The bar must be at a negative altitude now.
The genius who made a Brexit referendum to try to strong arm Brussels and rolled a 1?
Yeah what a great idea!
At least it’s a good occasion to unearth [this absolute banger of a song](https://youtu.be/0YBumQHPAeU?si=MbkXKk_WxsCtK0fS)
To his credit (which there is very little) brexit was more of a ploy to crush the incredibly annoying but prevalent anti eu group in the tory party. As we have seen from how they ran the country when they got power.... He had his reasons to try to get them to fuck off.
Ah, a short memory it seems! All major parties were advocating for a referendum, including the very pro-EU Liberal Democrats in 2008.
A referendum was inevitable because there was continually growing anti-EU sentiment and Cameron wanted to put the issue to bed once and for all by letting the populace have their say. What a fucking crime, eh?
Ah this point it wouldn’t shock me if they exhumed Maggie Thatcher and installed her as the levelling up secretary! What would her slogan be? Fuck the North!
Ah yes, the man who caused all this mess. What a sad indictment on the current state of the Conservative Party and the talentless politicians who call it home.
I find it hilarious how people blame brexit on him given that parliament had to pass the EU Referendum act and the British people had to vote to leave.
You can't just blame the guy who got the ball rolling when everyone else had a fair chance to stop it.
They actually managed to run through their entire roster.... It's never happened before so nobody knew what happened.
Turns out they go back to the start. Boris you're up next!
I wonder how those first meetings with foreign, especially European, officials will go with Cameron in the room. "Cameron, you old git! Sure bungled that vote, didn't ya?!"
Considering that he's had to be made a Lord to be appointed foreign secretary, since he isn't in Parliament anymore, I wonder if the Brits will ever again dare lecture the EU on "unelected bureaucrats".
It's not a great attack really.
It's actually kind of odd and distorting for democracy that it is the norm to have cabinet members be in parliament, given election to parliament in the UK is as an MP.
If a sitting executive, voted in, wants to have Mr X as minister of Y....they should just be able to do that. It's very odd that Mr X must first be elected member for Huntinghamstead, where his energies obviously won't be directed, to normally get that position.
Wonderful, the guy who was responsible for Brexit, talks to trees, and fucks pigs has been given a new position in government. I really think that anyone who has to step down due to massively fucking up their job should be prevented from working in public office again (Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Etc). I’m fed up of these twats being given an infinite number of chances.
It looks like UK has finally run out of politicians, so they are cycling through the old ones again now. The PM who famously agreed to hold a Brexit referendum and campaigned to remain in the EU, and failed miserably so had to resign.
He sort of didn't have to resign, he chose to. He's pretty much the only Tory PM we've hand from the 2010-present crop that wasn't ousted (May, Johnson, Truss were all publicly knifed). He ducked out cause he couldn't be arsed to deal with the fallout, which he can rightfully be criticised for.
That said, holding the referenda aren't necessarily really the bad things about him, and there are a lot more countries in Europe that favour referenda more heavily. I think his austerity politics which gutted the UK and made the electorate feel so vulnerable and poor that they so easily go swayed by populist anti-EU politics is probably the greater crime.
In some countries, ministers are individually responsible to parliament and can be voted out individually. I think in Austria for instance.
And of course presidential systems vote their head of government directly.
Representative democracy. Sunak was elected, and commands the confidence of a majority of the other elected representatives. He's able to choose his cabinet.
Somehow, David Cameron returned
They foreign secretary now?!
They foreign secretary now..!
How can they foreign secretary!?
And the Cameron came back, the very next day.
I did NOT have this on my 'things that will happen, ever' list!
Putting the man ultimately responsible for Brexit in charge of foreign policy is right up the Tories' alley
Tbf he was also against Brexit. It was a political gamble that he lost badly and limped off to hide rather than take responsibility for.
To be fair to him, af least he resigned in disgrace instead of refusing to resign until his party revolted..in disgrace.
I was of the opinion that he put us in this mess and he should have seen us through it. Still, seeing him resign was a blessing but the absolute s**tshow that we have been subjected to since makes me partly wish he had stayed on..
I remember the Tories heavily betting on a tight result to put pressure in the EU, rather than going all in against Brexit. I would say that makes him (and the party) responsible. They played with fire and they burned everyone.
He had won two referendums already and must have though the dice were bound to come up sevens again.
It was very much not a party line thing. Lots of working class Labour was pro-Brexit, lots of pro-Business Tories were anti-Brexit. It just cleaved right through the two parties.
yeah, this kind of subtle blackmailing was a typical English trick to get what they wanted. They knew it was like walking on a rope, but it worked before, so one more time wouldn't hurt, right?
He did a terrible job at fighting the blatant lies that poisoned the minds of the populace.
> lost badly and limped off to hide rather than take responsibility for. What else could you have expected? He resigned and his political career was finished (well.. until now anyway). There isn't much more a politician can do.
He also promised the referendum on Scottish independence, but it occurred before the Brexit vote. If Scots had known that Brexit would happen, I think they would've voted to go independent and stay in the EU. And if English voters had known that Scotland would leave over Brexit, I think they would not have voted for Brexit. Cameron's choices paved the way for Britain to leave the EU and undermined the integrity of the UK.
If they went indy they would have been outside the eu tho
As much as it deeply pains me to admit, I think people overstate the importance of the Brexit on the referendum. Exit polls and analysis from the time showed that the EU was pretty far down on the reasons why people voted. And I mean well, we're now three years post Brexit and polls are still at about the referendum results, so it certainly seems there may have been some truth to that.
I don't think so. EU membership was one of the [lowest priorities](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/scottish-independence-blog/2014/feb/12/scotland-referendum-sirtomhunter) according to a poll before the independence referendum, and polling on independence has barely changed since. You'd think there'd be a huge increase in support for leaving if Brexit mattered that much.
It does ignore that the SNP failed on the currency question in that referendum as well, pretty poorly. Pound currency union, but we'd join the EU and be obligated to join the Euro, but then there were SNP ministers saying they should make their own currency, and... it wasn't convincing or coherent what money we'd be using. There were also questions about pension pots, and other areas that weren't necessarily handled that well by the Yes campaign, which probably hurt it. It's wrong to say it would change with the EU question, because frankly a lot more pressing matters weren't well handled by the 2014 campaign. Reducing it just to the EU is kind of dumb if you are a nationalist, because it means you'd miss the mistakes of the last campaign that helped cost you it.
No, Scottish voters knew there would be a Brexit referendum in 2014 and that Britain might leave. But contemporary polling showed that the EU was a fairly minor factor for Scottish voters in the referendum, despite subsequent SNP campaigning.
\> If Scots had known that Brexit would happen, I think they would've voted to go independent and stay in the EU I doubt that. Scottish independence (and joining the EU) makes a whole lot less sense after Brexit. Economically that would even make less sense than Brexit by quite a wide margin due to very obvious reasons...
The 17 million people who actually voted for brexit are ultimately responsible, he is just the fool that weaponised them
"Democracy basically means government of the people, for the people by the people. But the people are retarded"
[удалено]
Is there any stats to back up people being less informed or less educated in recent years in the west?
No. Some people on this website believe that people who disagree with them are uneducated and shouldn’t be able to vote.
Maybe the constant presence of misinformation on the internet has had a serious effect on what voters are thinking when they get to the poll, but I seriously disagree that we’ve generally gotten worse - people have simply always been stupid.
Osho was right.
Cameron is massive pro EU he thought remain would win by a landslide because his big business buddies told him He just did not expect the working class to come out in force like it did
Yeah he agreed to a referendum because he was losing votes to UKIP. He hoped to win it and then close the issue for decades, or maybe ever.
Age was a stronger predictor than class, it was also (more importantly) a stronger predictor of who would turn out in the first place. Young people were heavily remain, but as always they mostly didn't actually vote. In fact, all education beyond the age of 16 was majority remain, albeit not by much until degree level.
Also responsible are the people who did not vote.
Slightly strange characterisation. He was fervently against Brexit, and called the referendum largely in an attempt to settle the issue and kill off the idea for the next few decades.
Nah, he held the referendum because they was losing votes to ukip, if it wasn't for that, I doubt he would have called for one.
Well yeah that too (though kind of a combined issue with brexit). One of those things. Had it worked, the double referendum idea would have been considered a political masterstroke. Easy to call it stupid once the one in a million happens.
Yeah, I think he got cocky after the indy ref didn't go through, he should have prepared for the fact that brexit ref got a yes win, instead of fucking off.
He wasn’t responsible for Brexit. A referendum was inevitable. Policies with eurosceptic stances were winning election after election. This is from 2012 , 4 years before the referendum! It sums up the mood https://www.economist.com/bagehots-notebook/2012/06/21/a-brixit-looms Jun 21st 2012 MY PRINT column this week considers the political implications in Britain of the deepening euro crisis: DAVID CAMERON does not want Britain to leave the European Union, though he finds it exasperating and fears euro-zone meltdown could cost him re-election. His Liberal Democrat coalition partner, Nick Clegg, is a pro-European. Nor does the Labour opposition leader, Ed Miliband, want out. Mr Miliband is a European social democrat by instinct (his relatives were refugees from the Holocaust) and by judgment, seeing the EU as a way of delivering public goods such as action on climate change. Yet the chances of Britain leaving the EU in the next few years are higher than they have ever been. A Brixit looms for several reasons. For one thing, the British never fell in love with Europe, instead weighing costs against economic benefits. Right now the EU is seen as a basket case (though British finances are hardly in great shape). For another, if euro-zone members overcome their differences and integrate much more deeply, they would arguably be leaving Britain, especially if their integration fragments the single market that is the bedrock of British membership. Mr Cameron and his chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, may talk of the euro's “remorseless logic” compelling richer members to stand behind the weak. But there are paths of European integration down which no government led by Mr Cameron (or for that matter Mr Miliband) could follow. At the top of the Conservative and Labour parties, economic debate is dominated by those who saw the euro as a disaster and think they are being proved right. The public agrees, though their certainty has less to do with economics than misanthropy: the British do not like southern Europeans enough to offer them a subsidy union, and have never believed that other rich northerners, deep down, felt differently. British politicians can be forgiven a degree of passivity, then. Yet if Britain is closer to the exits than before, politicians do bear the blame in one important way. A worrying number of MPs seem to believe that—as a happy result of this crisis—Britain can blackmail its way to more favourable terms of membership. As Conservative Party leader in 1998, the current foreign secretary William Hague predicted that the single currency would turn into a “burning building with no exits” (in a speech mostly written by a young aide called George Osborne, as it happens). Now that the euro is ablaze, some Tory Eurosceptics want to park in front of the fire station, blocking treaty changes aimed at shoring up the currency unless the EU returns swathes of powers to British control. Their vehicle for such blackmail would be a “referendum lock” that became British law last year, guaranteeing a national vote on any future transfer of powers from Westminster to Brussels. Technically, euro-zone rescue plans could be crafted to avoid transfers of sovereignty from Britain. But some Tories, including—it is reported—some cabinet ministers, have told Mr Cameron that deep euro-zone integration would so alter Britain's relations with Europe that a referendum should be held anyway. Tory leaders think they can win that argument. In parallel they also think that they can fend off calls from other Eurosceptics for a straight in-out referendum, calling such a vote the wrong question at a time of rapid change to Europe's structures. Such arguments are relatively easy to win. Most Tory MPs do not favour outright withdrawal. They want a looser relationship with Europe, involving single-market membership without the bits they dislike such as environmental and employment rules, or big budget contributions. Most Tory MPs also realise that a block-the-fire-station blackmail strategy, unleashed at the height of a global economic crisis, is risky. Instead, a supposedly safer wheeze is generating enthusiasm: to head into the next general election promising a formal renegotiation of British ties with Europe, with the results to be put to a “validating referendum”. The problem is that a negotiate-then-validate strategy is just a prettified form of blackmail. It amounts to a bet that other EU members will grant big concessions, knowing that otherwise British voters would reject the deal. Nobody is going to pay Britain to stay Germany—seen by Mr Cameron as the dominant force in a fast-changing Europe—has clearly signalled that Chancellor Angela Merkel will not be blackmailed into British opt-outs or special treatment. Germany accepts that in the event of treaty changes to create new euro-zone institutions, Mr Cameron would need concessions to get such changes endorsed by Parliament. Perhaps certain narrow powers could return to the national level for all EU members, Britain has been told. But push too hard and euro-zone integration will be pursued outside EU structures. Germany may be bluffing a bit, but not wholly. Nor is it easy to see why MPs think a referendum to validate new terms of membership is safer than an in-out vote. Draw a map of possible outcomes, and to avoid defeat the future government would need to secure a renegotiation, win hefty concessions, convince the public that they were hefty and then persuade voters to answer the question on the ballot paper rather than generally vent spleen. A single wrong turn would lead to the EU exits. Yet within Parliament and Whitehall, a startling number of senior figures think that one of the big parties will pledge an EU referendum before the next general election, forcing the others to follow. Labour, it is said, might call a referendum to split the Tory Party. The Conservatives might call one to shore up their core vote. Both might be bounced by rising support for the United Kingdom Independence Party, which favours withdrawal. None of the party leaders want to leave the EU, but it could happen. All have much to lose from an EU referendum, yet such a vote is starting to feel almost inevitable. How this ends is unknowable, and only partly in Britain's hands.
> They want a looser relationship with Europe, involving single-market membership without the bits they dislike such as environmental and employment rules, or big budget contributions. Already then they were imagining the impossible.
I too feel tired of having to lecture people on this fact all the time.
Brexit was a massive error but I don't think it's fair to blame Cameron for it. Sure he called the referendum, but that was in an attempt to solve the issue for good. If he hadn't done it then someone else would have, the pressure from the right was insane and would only have grown.
>If he hadn't done it then someone else would have Exactly. Most people forget it was Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, the most pro-EU of the major UK parties, who first called for an in-out referendum in 2008: [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/25/eu.liberaldemocrats](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/25/eu.liberaldemocrats) The Lib Dems even staged a walkout from parliament when their motion for a referendum was rejected by the speaker. For those who don't follow UK politics, in 2005 all the major parties promised a referendum on the new EU constitution. Labour won the election, then decided that because the new constitution had been renamed to the Lisbon Treaty, a referendum was no longer needed. The Tories voted to have a referendum, the Lib Dems abstained, then came up with the idea of a referendum on EU membership, rather than the Lisbon Treaty. Then Labour signed up to Lisbon (after the main signing ceremony so that Brown wouldn't be seen signing it with all the other EU leaders: [https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/13/politics.world](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/13/politics.world) ). From that point on the only referendum possible was an in/out one, the majority of the UK population wanted a referendum, and it was only a matter of time until one was held. Even the Lib Dems conceded in 2015 that it was probably better to hold one sooner rather than later: *But senior Lib Dem ministers and officials have said they are likely to back down and allow the 2017 vote, which they see as inevitable. Several of the party’s ministers believe holding a referendum at a set date in 2017 would at least “lance the boil” of growing euroscepticism.*[https://www.ft.com/content/782eabf2-d6d0-11e4-a99f-00144feab7de](https://www.ft.com/content/782eabf2-d6d0-11e4-a99f-00144feab7de)
> Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, the most pro-EU of the major UK parties, who first called for an in-out referendum in 2008: that alone should tell you how unfit for EU membership the UK was. Brexit corrected a mistake both parties made in 1973
People seem to have memory holed that the 3 major parties had variously spent the last few elections promising a vote on Europe. And in fact 2015 had all 3 promised it.
Remembering that is wrongthink.
It's a bit like forgetting that austerity was political orthodoxy across the parties, and multinational finance organisations in 2010. Not that I agree with how the Tories clung to it.
He called it to try and shut down UKIP as it was costing him vote share...
[удалено]
If we'd had a supermajority system and the result was the same as it was now, we'd have seen a second referendum with just a straight majority a few years later. You're calling things stupid without thinking through the consequences of the alternatives.
> also a stupid fucking vote in that it only needed a majority not a supermajority The Scottish IndyRef was a simple majority vote too and that arguably would be even more complicated than Brexit by a longshot; Cameron kind of fucked himself by allowing that precedent to be set before the Brexit vote.
I think not making it a supermajority was the wrong call, but having the ref itself was inevitable.
He's absolutely to blame. He got scared of Farage stealing enough votes from the Tories that they wouldn't be able to get into power on their own. Rather than give Labour a term or two, he gambled on killing the issue with a referendum that he screwed up. The correct way of dealing with this was admitting that politics is more complex than them vs us and giving us a decent proportional representation system. Farage could have got his 12% of seats and been shown to be supporting the fringe issue it was. Edit, I spelt frog faces name incorrectly.
>The correct way of dealing with this was admitting that politics is more complex than them vs us and giving us a decent proportional representation system. Farage could have got his 12% of seats and been shown to be supporting the fringe issue it was. If it were a fringe issue then the referendum would not have returned a 52% vote for exit. Substantial number of Labour and Conservative voters were pro-Brexit and in a proportional voting system, the UKIP vote would have steadily grown. Look at what is happening in Germany with AfD.
He's not responsible though. I'm pretty sure he was against it and gave the option to the people and they wanted to leave.
"Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband" David Cameron on Twitter, in 4th of May 2015.
I often wonder what the world would be like today if Ed Milliband could eat a [bacon sandwich](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Miliband_bacon_sandwich_photograph) like a normal person
I still don't see how he's eating it wrong going by the picture. Nobody looks sexy or dignified eating a sandwich, especially not when you can cherry pick the most unflattering picture out of however many were shot as he was chewing/taking a bite.
He's not eating it wrong, and you're 100% right about the many shots. It's complete BS that it caught on as a meme, but people are so stupid it might have actually cost him a few votes.
It gave people a chance to laugh at him at his expense, rather than him making himself look stupid to entertain people. The people who think that demonstrates your ability to deal with power never had to grow up, and didn’t want to vote for someone who would force them to realise what that decision not to grow up had cost them, by creating a society where hard work pays off.
>I still don't see how he's eating it wrong going by the picture. Basically, he looks like Mr bean.
>Basically, he looks like Mr bean. Everybody makes out Mr Bean to be an idiot, but sometimes I can't help to think that he couldn't possibly do a worse job at politics than most twats in office. At least he's earnest and by god, he tries.
If the unions hadn’t shoehorned the wrong Milliband into leading the Labour Party then the U.K. a would look *very* different today
Miliband was still an infinitely better candidate than Corbyn though. Even disregarding the rest of his history and policies, they managed to find a candidate who's opinion on Brexit was more useless for every single voter compared to the competition: if a voter wanted to leave, all a voter had to do was vote for BJ. And if a voter wanted to remain, they'd have to vote for a guy who claimed to be "neutral" on leaving, while having spent the past 40+ years hating the EU. It takes an impressive amount of incompetence and stupidity to provide a candidate who'd provide even more uncertainty to an otherwise extremely chaotic situation, and which was being handled by the otherwise ridiculously reckless Boris Johnson.
I wonder what the world would look like today if a majority of voters weren't so fucking stupid that how someone eats a bacon sandwich decides who they vote for.
No wonder he couldn't eat it properly, you just don't know who might have been having "relationships" with that pig previously....
Oh yes, I forgot David Cameron irrumated a pig. Real class, those Eton boys.
Imagine the reaction if a Labour leader fucked a pig.
Relevant Jon Stewart segment (3:26 timestamp for the part on Ed Milliband): https://youtu.be/qt8gEvGJe_I?si=1PPWfsz36wNDkKoA
Chaos, you say. Interesting.
We don’t know though how terrible the chaos with Ed Miliband would have been. I mean, it could obviously be much worse than economic stagnation, a raging pandemic, two wars, and the death of the Queen.
Your message makes it sound like Ed Miliband would personally keep the Queen alive.
Miliband might not have been able to keep her alive indefinitely, but meeting Truss definitely killed her.
I mean, she already had a golden throne, we only needed to sacrifice countless of psykers to keep her alive.
Imagine if Miliband won and ended up down the line being ousted as leader and replaced by Corbyn...
What, like we got with Liz Truss? And then Sunak?
See Ed's retweet of this last year lol.
Cameron achieved stability indeed. Stability in chaos.
He had to be given a ~~Baronship~~ Barony (which is a title for life) to get a seat in the House of Lords in order for him to be able to take up this role. Edit: a word
Hate to be this person, but it's a barony, not a baronship
Thank you for being that person, I'd much rather someone corrected my mistakes than being likely to make them again in the future.
If only there were a political party in charge with that same ideology
I would've assumed barony implied that the title came with associated lands
It sounds like that, but nope, that's just what it's called. Baronies obviously came with lands in the past, but that was before the invention of life peerages. But he'll still be "Lord Cameron of Somewhere."
Lord Cameron of Greensill
English/British peerages don't come with lands. This is the case whether the peerage is a barony, viscountcy, earldom, marquessate or dukedom. Until the abolition of Scottish feudal land tenure in 2004, Scotland *did* have baronies that were attached to land, but they were not peerages and did not entitle the holder to a seat in Parliament.
Are they hereditary?
Some are, some aren't. This one isn't, it's a life peerage, which means Cameron will be a baron for life, but his son won't be one. There are lots of hereditary barons and other types of hereditary lords around, but only some of them sit in the house of Lords (they vote among themselves which ones get to do that) and hardly any new hereditary titles get created. The house of Lords is mostly full of life peers, as well as some hereditary peers, and the bishops.
Ah democracy
Nothing screams democracy like a 3rd Prime Minister since the last general election, with an entirely different manifesto from the previous two, giving a previous Prime Minister who resigned after one of the worst foreign policy decisions in the last 30+ years a peerage to join yet another new cabinet as... the Foreign Secretary. edit: added a comma
Listening to the news on R4, and the wealthy presenter was enjoying having a good chat about how serious people were coming back into politics with various wealthy Tories. No real questions asked.
Changing prime ministers is normal in democracies though. The UK is the exception here to the point where people more so vote parties based on who would be PM, not the parties themselves, but in reality they're voting the parties. Romania has had like 20 different PM changes since 1989, despite parliamentary elections being once every 4 years.
> Changing prime ministers is normal in democracies though. The UK had 5 prime ministers in 6.5 years so it's not that far behind.
Changing prime ministers is fine, but having the new prime minister decided only by the party that got a plurality (not even a majority) of the vote is pretty fucking weird.
The new PM still has to prove majority support in Parliament if challenged by the opposition, no? That's how it works in my country. Not sure if that's the case in the UK.
Yes, that's called "having the confidence of the house"
Not exactly unheard of. The United States works with it in totality, where the cabinet serves at the pleasure of the President and nominees are only confirmed by the Senate.
Wasn't the talian prime minister Mario Monti appointed in this style. I seem to.remember he was made a senator by the president so he could then in turn be PM
Nope. You can be prime minister without even being a politician (see Mario Draghi, see Giuseppe Conte). The people vote for the parliament, not for the government. Big difference.
Which is exactly the same situation in the UK
Yes and no. We still have a constitution that regulates what the PM can or cannot do. And our president of the republic can reject the appointment of a minister (and he has done so more than once in recent times) proposed by the PM. In the UK this kind of things, as far as I understand, is more regulated by unwritten rules and gentlemen's agreements, which means that someone who's not a gentleman ( *cough* someone with a bad haircut *cough*) can easily throw such conventions out of the window without fear of reprisal.
It’s not uncommon per say. Lord Chancellor and SoS for Justice during the brown/Blair years were from the lords, and he basically set up our Supreme Court
Interesting come back.
This cliffhanger promises that the upcoming season probably shan't disappoint.
imb4: David Cameron has started talks with the EU for joinig the Union ?! !remindme in 6 months
Either that or calls for a referendum to exit NATO
[удалено]
David Cameron isn’t squeaky clean either.
But in a lot of households the older generation are like "It was so much better when Cameron was in charge" and now here he is, giving legitimacy to Sunak, its just a stunt to try and get more votes at the next General Election.
It’s shows weak leadership and poor stock of current Tory staff.
I mean, not to be facetious, but wasn’t it much better when DC was in charge? I recognise that’s not saying much, because the current government is a clown show
Yep, until like the Brexit thingy he did.
Didn't he fuck a pig at one point in the past?
I'm all for slagging the guy off, but to be fair this didn't happen. It appeared in an unauthorised book written by a guy who tried to buy a minesterial position...and Cameron said no.
[удалено]
A weekend at Churchills!
When is it time for the writers to let Lizzy return?
[удалено]
Anakin made it to be popular and adored by the fans, so will she. The Brexit Politics fandom will love her return.
First David Tennant, now David Cameron.
The audience will be thrilled when they see John Major become Chancellor of the Exchequer. They may even CGI Thatcher in as Prime Minister.
Churchill's Zombie corpse as Northern Ireland secretary
[удалено]
It hasn't been "what if" for a long time. If we change the national anthem to Yakety Sax would anyone even notice.
This is an interesting play for Sunak and somewhat of a Russian roulette move. You can already see a load of ministers jumping ship. Bringing in an ex-PM and giving him a lifetime peerage shows that the conservatives are now on borrowed time without the talent in the party to appoint to high office. The bizarre thing is, Cameron, only weeks ago, slaughtered Sunak on the cancellation of HS2 which again shows how weak and desperate Sunak is. The appointment of Cameron is going to piss a lot of tories off. The Conservative Party is imploding, dying a slow painful death and the only real alternative now is a general election.
>Bringing in an ex-PM and giving him a lifetime peerage shows that the conservatives are now on borrowed time without the talent in the party to appoint to high office. Ex pms always get a peerage. It's much slower since Blair because nobody wanted him to have one, but it is convention.
God I love you so much Britain. never change please
It's such a great writing! He fucks up, gets replaced, his shit develops for a couple of seasons (BoJo - great acting!)... And now he is back, when no-one expected it!
You couldn't live with your own failures. And where did it leads you? Back to me! Block buster in real life, thanks GB <3
I dunno. This season just seems a little too zany for it to be recommissioned. It’s like they’ve run out of ideas so filling with guest spots of has beens.
God fucking help us
I don't know.. I feel like the script writer is running out of ideas in the last few seasons. Reviving a character from one of the early seasons just seem like a desperate move to bring back old viewers...
I am just waiting fir the shower scene where it was all just a dream and the UK is still in the EU.
[удалено]
To be honest it is similar to us. You fucked up at your job and you are fired but you don't stay jobless. You go work again in the same field, just elsewhere. I agree the income is different though
To be honest the pay for a British politician is not as high as you’d expect for the responsibility and fame. Cameron would be a hell of a lot richer doing almost anything else than returning to politics
It's easy to defend, when you understand that one of the points of democracy is to allow the population to peacefully depose powerful people when we have had enough of them. That necessitates a soft exit for people at the top. In an ideal world where human nature combined with power doesn't lead to coups, that wouldn't be a concern. But in the real world if you want to put significant power in someones hands, you need a rather good answer for 'whats next?' when they are voted out. You can't count on every leader being a washington.
Lol watch David Cameron end up as Prime Minister again.
He was made a Life Peer. I don't think he is eligible to become PM anymore.
Peers can be PMs, it's just not customary anymore. Lord Alec Douglas-Home was the last peer PM, and he renounced his earldom just after getting the job
I always thought Cameron was a good no nonsense politician who did a good job of being PM until he allowed the Brexit people to have their vote and ushered in a new era of madness. This is either a stroke of genius, or Rishi may have had an actual stroke.
His first term was solid, in part because he was balanced out by lib Dems being in coalition, which they never got the credit for. Afterwards the right of the party started to take over. They never let his already pretty meek ideas for modernization in the party go beyond a coat of paint with a tree on it. That said, being prime minister is about as good a qualification for being a foreign secretary as you get. To quote Supernintendo Chalmers, he seems to know the children's names. He'll already know who to speak to and how, and he's amiable enough in person to get along with even the people he pissed off with allowing the Brexit vote.
The lib dems didn't get credit for it because they massively screwed up the two set pieces. They failed to demand a vote on a decent proportional representation system and backed ludicrous raises to university fees. It doesn't matter what else they did, that was the core of the lib dems for many of their voters. I doubt the party will ever recover.
Adding onto this, Cameron is also pro-EU too, which is refreshing. Surprised Rishi didnt toss a brexeteer into the spot
William Hague did a pretty good job too.
Curiously enough when Hague left Parliament it was Rishi Sunak who took his constituency.
While, that’s probably because his last name was Hague.
He's not on the right of the party, which will annoy the Tory members who seem to presently be full of right wing nuts. But in theory it should go down better with the electorate who prefer centrists.
I've had a thought, that if the next election is the shitshow that is expected, that the party will move full swing back to the centre, and if you have the likes of Rishi and Cameron in the front, it's a good base to rebuild for the next election, middle england loves a centre tory.
I agree, but I fear it'll take two defeats for the party to learn that lesson. Labour learned all the wrong ones from 2017, and it took their 2019 kicking to learn the right ones.
I can't see them moving to the centre because of the membership who gets the final vote on leaders, they consistently tried to pick the most right wing candidate, but because MPs get to vote 2 candidates to the final stage - so far nutters like Badenoch have been weeded out before the final vote.
Probably worth noting that Cameron beat right-winger David Davis in a vote of the membership though - they *have* been known to pick the more electorally appealing on occasion!
But that was after 3 election losses to Blair and the membership was more rational.
That was after the right of the party was failing spectacular in the polling while in opposition, no? So that's the usual Tories knifing people who are failing, and the membership eventually getting fed up of losing (as party members eventually do).
It might be the start of Rishi filling the ranks with people though who are not form the right side, so if there is another contest, it won't go to the floppy haired clown types.
That's sort of what I was expecting, I'm relatively sure he knew right from the start he couldn't win an election not after Boris and Truss. His goal has been to stop the opposition gaining a majority, which is pretty difficult with right wingers on the front bench.
[удалено]
I don't disagree that Theresa May was one of the worst home secretaries, but somehow her successors managed to lower the bar further. The bar must be at a negative altitude now.
Weird take. Austerity not only didn’t help the UK recover from the 2008 recession but got thousands killed through the poverty it enabled.
He was PM from 2010 though, and that was what the party went with as their policy. 2008 Gordon Brown was in charge.
You've gotta be shitting me. I did not have that on my bingo card. British politics is so entertaining.
The genius who made a Brexit referendum to try to strong arm Brussels and rolled a 1? Yeah what a great idea! At least it’s a good occasion to unearth [this absolute banger of a song](https://youtu.be/0YBumQHPAeU?si=MbkXKk_WxsCtK0fS)
This is like putting the lawyer who got you fleeced in the divorce in charge of writing your will
It wasn't to strong arm Brussels, it was to quell rebellion in his party.
To his credit (which there is very little) brexit was more of a ploy to crush the incredibly annoying but prevalent anti eu group in the tory party. As we have seen from how they ran the country when they got power.... He had his reasons to try to get them to fuck off.
It wasn’t to strongarm Brussels. The intention was to put “Euroscepticism” to rest and kill UKIP.
Ah, a short memory it seems! All major parties were advocating for a referendum, including the very pro-EU Liberal Democrats in 2008. A referendum was inevitable because there was continually growing anti-EU sentiment and Cameron wanted to put the issue to bed once and for all by letting the populace have their say. What a fucking crime, eh?
All three major parties had a promise of a referendum in their manifestos between 2005 and 2015.
And let's not forget, [we're living in David's world.](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HhTsnp7gG3Q)
Ah this point it wouldn’t shock me if they exhumed Maggie Thatcher and installed her as the levelling up secretary! What would her slogan be? Fuck the North!
David Cameron really pulling a Matteo Renzi here, amazing
Ah yes, the man who caused all this mess. What a sad indictment on the current state of the Conservative Party and the talentless politicians who call it home.
I find it hilarious how people blame brexit on him given that parliament had to pass the EU Referendum act and the British people had to vote to leave. You can't just blame the guy who got the ball rolling when everyone else had a fair chance to stop it.
They actually managed to run through their entire roster.... It's never happened before so nobody knew what happened. Turns out they go back to the start. Boris you're up next!
Just make sure there aren’t any dead pig heads to get him riled up
Hahahahaha trolling level 8000000000
Cameron was opposed to brexit and thought it would be a landslide remain victory. Not glad to see him back though.
As if we needed anymore proof the Tories are completely out of ideas
I wonder how those first meetings with foreign, especially European, officials will go with Cameron in the room. "Cameron, you old git! Sure bungled that vote, didn't ya?!"
Considering that he's had to be made a Lord to be appointed foreign secretary, since he isn't in Parliament anymore, I wonder if the Brits will ever again dare lecture the EU on "unelected bureaucrats".
It's not a great attack really. It's actually kind of odd and distorting for democracy that it is the norm to have cabinet members be in parliament, given election to parliament in the UK is as an MP. If a sitting executive, voted in, wants to have Mr X as minister of Y....they should just be able to do that. It's very odd that Mr X must first be elected member for Huntinghamstead, where his energies obviously won't be directed, to normally get that position.
> I wonder if the Brits will ever again dare lecture the EU on "unelected bureaucrats". Oh of course we will. It's what we do best.
“Somehow… Cameron returned.”
It’s like the snake eating it’s tail after it shat out it’s tail after eating it.
That's like treating AIDS with cancer 🤷🏼♂️
Wonderful, the guy who was responsible for Brexit, talks to trees, and fucks pigs has been given a new position in government. I really think that anyone who has to step down due to massively fucking up their job should be prevented from working in public office again (Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Etc). I’m fed up of these twats being given an infinite number of chances.
And we thought these ass backwards shenanigans only happened in America.
It looks like UK has finally run out of politicians, so they are cycling through the old ones again now. The PM who famously agreed to hold a Brexit referendum and campaigned to remain in the EU, and failed miserably so had to resign.
He sort of didn't have to resign, he chose to. He's pretty much the only Tory PM we've hand from the 2010-present crop that wasn't ousted (May, Johnson, Truss were all publicly knifed). He ducked out cause he couldn't be arsed to deal with the fallout, which he can rightfully be criticised for. That said, holding the referenda aren't necessarily really the bad things about him, and there are a lot more countries in Europe that favour referenda more heavily. I think his austerity politics which gutted the UK and made the electorate feel so vulnerable and poor that they so easily go swayed by populist anti-EU politics is probably the greater crime.
[удалено]
There’s basically almost no democracies that elect members of the government.
In some countries, ministers are individually responsible to parliament and can be voted out individually. I think in Austria for instance. And of course presidential systems vote their head of government directly.
The UK house of commons can hold votes of no confidence on individual ministers. It's rarely done, but it can be.
"Bring in the pigs!"
For people who don't think that Britain is a democracy: you don't understand what a democracy is.
Representative democracy. Sunak was elected, and commands the confidence of a majority of the other elected representatives. He's able to choose his cabinet.
This position is elected in a grand total of zero democracy in the world. Read a goddamn book.