|David Cameronís political legacy might be immediately deduced from the declared aims of Theresa May, his successor. May has already delivered two speeches in which she has stated her intention to remove the inequalities and injustices that affect those who are poor, working-class, black or women. She claims that her government will serve the interests of the many, not the few, and will give the majority more control over their lives. The conclusion that might be drawn, therefore, is that Cameronís governments did not act to remove such inequalities but rather governed in the interests of the rich and privileged. History may well draw this conclusion, since Cameronís six years in office produced two governments that were both strongly committed to austerity measures. These cuts in social programmes and provision ignored societyís responsibility, exacerbated inequality, particularly for disadvantaged poor, working-class and minority communities, and were widely resented and opposed.
Cameron came to power promising ďreal changeĒ via a government that would look after the poorest and rebuild trust in our political system by reforming parliament, making sure that people are in control and that politicians are always the peopleís servants. It can be concluded that he was unsuccessful, since there has been no real change and the majority of the electorate have no more political control or say in decision-making than we did in 2010.
Paradoxically, Cameronís governments did provide the three referenda, on the voting system, Scottish independence and the EU. Undoubtedly, history will consider this noteworthy. However, the first two did nothing to resolve the problems they were designed to address, while the EU referendum, conducted in a racist and chauvinistic atmosphere, was a defeat for Cameron and threw the major political parties into disarray. Moreover, it appears to have exacerbated those unresolved problems relating to self-determination in Scotland, Wales and the island of Ireland.
In foreign policy, Cameronís legacy is particularly evident in Libya and Syria. He was one of the main architects of the Nato bombardment of Libya, which aimed at regime change and resulted in anarchy in Libya, as well as destabilisation throughout North Africa. Cameronís military intervention in Libya and Syria has not come under the same scrutiny as Blairís in Iraq, but history will undoubtedly judge harshly such interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states that resulted in countless deaths, a major refugee crisis and greater global instability.