Published on 13 Sep 2016

Cameron stands down as MP ‘to avoid Brexit debates’

Camilla Cavendish, head of policy for David Cameron in No. 10, says it’s the thought of sitting through Brexit debates in parliament that drove David Cameron out of parliament.

cameron 1

On Radio 4’s Today programme, she said her old boss would’ve given no thought to the exact timing and the grammar schools push by Theresa May will not have decided the decision to go yesterday.

As a newly appointed member of the House of Lords, one of the many beneficiaries of David Cameron’s resignation honours list, she did say the May government plans could end up unrecognisable by the time consultation and the parliamentary procedures are finished with.

If Mr Cameron had managed to survive as PM, it’s interesting to hear who he thought might succeed him. After George Osborne’s post-election tax credit measures crashed around his ears, he was as aware as anyone that his Chancellor’s star was fading.

I’m told that two others had caught his eye as successor material. Amber Rudd, now Home Secretary and the fastest rising minister in post-war Britain, was one he’d told close aides “has it,” the ambition, character and communication skills needed for the top job.

Interestingly, another name he mentioned to close supporters as having “it,” the assets that make you potential PM material, was a Brexiteer he didn’t  promote into government until just after the 2015 general election: Dominic Raab.

Mr Raab wasn’t enticed to stay in office by Theresa May, it’s thought he wasn’t offered a tempting enough post. He is still only 42. Amber Rudd is a youthful 53.

Follow @GaryGibbonBlog on Twitter

Tweets by @garygibbonblog

One reader comment

  1. anon says:

    Yesterday the former PM said he was standing down with immediate effect for the reasons given above, but today the Foreign Affairs Committee issued a report highly critical of him. My questions would be. was he given advance sight of the report given what it was going to say? and how does standing down with ‘immediate effect’ affect (or not) Parliaments scope to ask him any further questions about his role in this debacle? also is there anything we need to know about?

Comments are closed.