25th June 2026
This is a short post occasioned by this piece in the Guardian ranking the worst Prime Ministers we have had since 2016.
The worst at being Prime Minister was, of course, Elizabeth Truss. But she is second. And that is actually, counter-intuitively, the correct placing.
As it is possible to have been the worst Prime Minister since 2016 without being the worst at being Prime Minister.
For David Cameron made the worst mistake as Prime Minister – of risking the future of the United Kingdom on one turn of pitch-and-toss, and losing. In other words, of having a needless Brexit referendum which the government did not enough to win and which the government made no preparations for if it lost.
And as such, Cameron’s one big mistake is worse than Truss’s calamitous few weeks.
That the worst politician of the six – that is, the person whose approach to politics was the most cynical – should only be the third worst on the list is indicative of just how bad the top two were.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
Arguably Cameron made the worst mistake twice of risking the future of the United Kingdom on one turn of pitch-and-toss. The first time was the Scottish independence referendum where he set no minimum on the majority required. He didn’t learn from the experience and chanced again to luck for the Brexit referendum.
If I was trying to introduce thresholds into referendums in this country, a Scotland vote would be the last place to start. The 1979 requirement for a minimum of 40% of the total electorate to vote Yes was deeply controversial and every subsequent referendum in the UK has been 50%+1 any turnout. Setting special conditions for the Scotland vote would have poisoned the well, giving the impression the vote was being rigged to maintain the Union no matter what and made a majority for separation more likely. And a moral majority would have led to endless demands to implement the result anyway.
Similarly holding a referendum on the EU and suddenly making it harder for the other side to win would not have solved anything.
There’s an argument for supermajorities and special requirements but it should be made calmly as part of an overall approach to referendums. Not slapped on as an amendment to the enabling Bill by supporters of the status quo.
We’ll never be sure what would have happened if he had not had the referendum, but I doubt the issue would have gone away quietly, and someone new may have made the same decision before the end of the year.
Perhaps Cameron’s biggest failure was allowing the situation to develop to the point where a decision was needed. (I’m not sure if that counts as being the worst PM or the worst at being PM.)
But he also did not prepare for what would happen in the event of leave – indeed he banned the civil service from making any plans, so I am afraid he is culpable despite your defence!
Democracy in action.
You have to take the rough with the smooth.
You could also try education …………………
But Cameron’s problem wasn’t “democracy”, it was the awkward anti-EU squad in his own party snapping at his heels since 2010 and emboldened by his naivety and lack of understanding of the EU.
Cameron’s problem was that they didn’t care about the potential ramifications of leaving the EU and they believed Cameron was never going to understand enough to fend them off.
His abdication of his responsibility in the UK’s parliamentary democracy, of passing the buck to the public in a poorly thought through referendum, not even attempting to defend the status quo until the last minute, makes him imv the most culpable of them all; and then of course, he ran away
Being blamed for everything, including the weather (or, failing that, for not having laid contingency-plans for it that please everyone) is part of the job. If you lack the stomach for that, don’t apply. Alas, every MP thinks winning a seat is proof of entitlement (and competence) to be PM some day.
Every voter who isn’t a member of the PM’s party eventually decides that this one is the worst we’ve ever had, although that may be reversed after a military victory, which makes going to war, at whatever cost in others’ lives, a tempting prospect for an embattled PM.
The eight men who served in the office after the War had all seen war-service — in Wilson’s case, being drafted into the civil service for his expertise, despite volunteering for the military. They had no illusions about the reality of war. Eden’s Suez aberration was motivated by other factors than extricating himself from a tight domestic corner, and he didn’t tread lightly on to the path where a spectacular dog-turd lay in wait.
Perhaps our politicians should, for an experimental period, be selected along Roman lines, with a cursus honorum that includes training as an Armed Services officer, but drawn (by lot?) from members of all classes.
Military service in wartime does not mean you get better politicians: there was once a German chancellor who saw front-line action as a corporal and even won the Iron Cross. I don’t think he was any better for it.
If we’re looking to the classics for ideas how about adopting ostracism? Could we trust the voters to make the right choice, though?
“Alas, every MP thinks winning a seat is proof of entitlement (and competence) to be PM some day.”
I would be more inclined to state “Alas, every MP thinks winning a seat is proof of entitlement (and competence) to be a MP some day.” What follows (or can follow) is an even greater travesty.
Forget being the worst Prime Minister since 2016, in my view David Cameron is the UK’s worst PM ever. Why?
Regardless of the EU referendum result it was Cameron’s responsibility to steer the country through the worst political crisis since… When? Suez? That was his job. He was the Prime Minister for goodness sake! And he had four years in which to do it, thanks to the Fixed-term Parliament Act. Four years to let everyone take a deep breath, four years to bring the country back together, four years to deliver an EU Exit that satisfied (to a greater or lesser extent) both sides. But he didn’t last four years, nor four months, weeks or even days. He resigned four hours after the result was announced, leaving the government of the UK to be fought over by various elements of the Leave Campaign and the country at their mercy. The world watched as the Conservative Party tore itself apart. It resulted in Theresa May being thrust into Number 10, just by virtue of being the last person standing.
What was Cameron’s reward ? A highly lucrative book deal and – eventually – a seat in the House of Lords.
Frankly I can’t think of any Prime Minister in British history who let the country down as badly as did David Cameron. And we are still living with the consequences.
Cameron simply wasn’t trusted by Leavers to implement Brexit after having negotiated and campaigned to Remain. If he hadn’t announced either his resignation or the immediate triggering of Article 50 on the Friday morning (which was being demanded from a number of quarters including the Leader of the Opposition) there would have been an outcry and a drive for a no confidence vote.
In mitigation, it should be noted that Cameron was on holiday at the time.
I’m not convinced that Cameron deserves the accolade of the worst prime minister, particularly given that 2016 is an entirely arbitrary cut-off date. If you look at his record in holding together a stable coalition then things are very different. Also, as Keir Starmer has found, entering No 10 from opposition without having previously served in government is hard. Cameron, unlike Starmer (but like Tony Blair, who followed the same route previously) had done his homework and was ready for it. His first term in office forms a remarkable contrast to the instability which followed.
Also, the Brexit referendum disaster wasn’t all Cameron’s fault. Maybe he shouldn’t have called the referendum. Maybe he should have been better prepared for the outcome he didn’t want. Maybe he should have stuck it out and stayed in office to implement the outcome rather than walking away. All of those are valid criticisms. But the Remain campaign was hopelessly inept. It’s hard to blame Cameron for that. Judging his entire premiership on one awful moment is not, I think, reasonable.
A referendum that fundamentally changed both public policy and the course of politics means that 2016 is not “an entirely arbitrary cut-off date” unless one does not know the meanings of the words “entirely” and “arbitrary”.
One should be careful of over-writing, as it will undermine what may otherwise be good points.
John Crace has done good work in his Guardian piece, and thank you for pointing me to it: it may serve as a reminder to those disloyal Labour MPs and cabinet members that a country is served better by technocrats than ‘egos’.