David Cameron’s resignation came as a shock to many. Carried out shortly after the EU leave vote was digested by the electorate, the decision to resign as Prime Minister could be justifiably deemed as a choice to ‘give up’ and take refuge in his comfortable Oxfordshire home. After coming to terms with the resignation of his Prime Ministership, we have also recently heard of his standing down as an MP; this marked a huge milestone in his parliamentary career (or at least the end of it). During a video interview published by The Telegraph, the ex-PM’s decision of leaving the constituency of Witney as an MP was justified by his reluctance to be a backbencher who doesn’t want to be a “big distraction and a big diversion from what the government needs to do for our country”. The video, which can be viewed here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/12/david-cameron-i-thought-long-and-hard-about-my-resignation-as-wi/ , seemed almost pre-rehearsed and even scripted at times. The question is, therefore, was Cameron’s decision an insult to the injury he caused the Cabinet and the electorate in June? Or was the decision to conclude his career by leaving his constituency an understandable corollary of his resignation as leader of the Conservative party?
The issue for those that support Cameron in the decision to wrap up his parliamentary roles is that they have undeniably come at a point of turmoil and turbulence in Westminster, which has caused many of our ex-PM’s critiques to define the move as him further shying from the political limelight – one which has the incandescent glow of Brexit, grammar school expansions and the Libya Report – and leaving it to Theresa May to take up the parliamentary reins. Cameron has repeatedly assured us that the unfortunate timing of this decision was merely down to coincidence, however, one must be slightly sceptical as to this explanation, given the fact it coincided almost perfectly with government mandates on the aforementioned reforms. The idea that Cameron would be a distraction to the focus of Prime Minister’s Questions and parliamentary decisions is also quite a broad contention. Whilst he may be seen as a slight distraction to the polarised parliamentary proceedings in the Commons, there was no concrete reason why he cannot continue as normal to contribute to debate within the House as an MP.
There is certainly an argument to be had that Cameron’s decision to leave party politics altogether is an aftermath of his failure to secure a successful remain vote from the EU referendum. Since it was Cameron who vehemently led a Vote Remain campaign and led negotiations on the EU’s relationship with the UK, it followed that much of the blame lay on him afterwards. Unfortunately, Cameron didn’t push forward any solutions to rectify him calling an EU referendum that failed to achieve his objectives. An alternative choice Cameron could have taken would have been to stay on as a Conservative leader who could continue to fight for remaining in a reformed EU. Unfortunately, very much the opposite of this took place and it seems Cameron’s political trajectory has been downhill ever since.
On the other hand, many would say Cameron’s decision was respectable and justifiable in the current political climate. Conservative supporters would most likely deem it as a dignified step down from the Cabinet. He may, in the eyes of many, be seen as making the right choice after the Brexit outcome. These views are a reflection of the fact that Cameron can still fall back on to the comfortable political cushion of his many Conservative allies during periods like this. Unfortunately, they do not carry much impartiality. The opposite end of the opinion spectrum suggests his decision to quit ministerial roles has been extremely convenient, seeing as though it comes just days before the Libya Report, an inquiry condemning Cameron as partially responsible for the rise of Islamic State. Perhaps there are grounds for forgiving our ex-PM and giving him the benefit of the doubt in accepting the timings of his decision as mere coincidence. However, this very much seems like an easy way out for Cameron and fails to implement a sufficient level of accountability or scrutiny for the decisions he has taken pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. Indeed, it seems that accountability and scrutiny are the two processes Mr Cameron wanted to avoid and has successfully done so by bidding farewell to Westminster.
Conclusively, it is fairly evident that Cameron’s resignation from two parliamentary posts in succession has been very convenient for him in the context of timing and current mandates being debated in the Cabinet. The effects of a widely unexpected Brexit, the expansion of grammar schools (which Cameron’s cabinet sought to oppose) and the emergence of the Libya Report lying on the backdrop of this ministerial decision suggests that these choices were more of an insult to injury as convenient get-out clauses. Cameron could have chosen to remain a backbencher in order to contribute to debate and proceedings in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, he has waved goodbye to this opportunity.