British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak claimed to be the candidate of change at the Conservative Party’s annual conference a few weeks ago. Yet the man who aspired to tear up 30 years of “failed consensus” politics lacked conviction. A former school head prefect was always going to be an unlikely rebel.
Now Sunak has dropped the pretense by picking David Cameron, his Conservative predecessor who called and lost the UK’s referendum on Europe, to be foreign secretary. After the sound and fury of the Conservative Party’s eruptions last week, a new vision emerges: Everything must change at the top so that everything can remain the same.
Allies of Sunak — and Cameron — compare the latter’s comeback to Edward Heath’s choice of his predecessor, Alec Douglas Home as foreign secretary in 1970. They might also point out that Neville Chamberlain loyally served in World War II under Winston Churchill, his long-time party rival. Yet the ferocious Heath was never in awe of his mild-mannered colleague and Chamberlain died six months into serving his new boss.
Cameron was prime minister from 2010 to 2016, leader of his party from 2005 and fought and won two elections. Sunak has scarcely been in the job for 12 months. There is no precedent in modern times for such an imbalance in seniority at the summit of power. Desperate times, however, call for desperate measures. The next general election is only a year away and Sunak has chosen to go down fighting with a team he can at least trust to not undermine him. Cameron brings experience and unflappability. Too many of his colleagues lack that quintessential Westminster quality called “bottom” — in the sense of heft and hinterland rather than expansive behinds. In a similar fix, then Labour prime minister Gordon Brown recalled his “frenemy” Peter Mandelson to office 15 years ago, stabilizing his shaky administration.
When he first won the keys to No. 10 Downing Street, Sunak tried balancing the warring factions within the Conservative tribe around his Cabinet table. The party’s right wing was given leave to wage wars on wokeness and transgender rights, while he reassured the markets by returning to Cameron-era fiscal austerity and mending relations with the EU. Experience was thin on the ground after Brexit, and four divisive leadership contests had taken their toll. Critics mocked that his inexperienced government was a “Ministry without all the talents.”
The voters quickly sensed it, too: The Conservatives trail by a consistent 20-point margin in opinion polls. That deficit emboldened former home secretary, Suella Braverman, to flout collective Cabinet responsibility last week and incited other potential leadership candidates to audition for Sunak’s job. Put bluntly, Cameron has returned from exile to compensate for some of Sunak’s own shortcomings.
Sunak has now placed proven ministerial talent in the Big Three Cabinet posts. The drawback is that Cameron, Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt and the bluff new Home Secretary, James Cleverly, are all, like Sunak, male and privately educated. That is one risk he has decided he could live with.
The prime minister has taken a second gamble. Political logic suggests he should balance his top team with a right-wing replacement at the Home Office. The obvious candidate, Trade and Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch, has ambition aplenty, but no track record. Sunak’s calculation is that this is no time for a novice. The alternative candidate, Michael Gove, while respected by Sunak, is not a natural soulmate.
Sunak’s third and biggest risk is the recall of a former leader whose record in foreign affairs is mixed at best. Cameron bet the house on the result of the Brexit referendum and the manner of his defeat tarnished his reputation. His renegotiation of the UK’s terms of European membership was regarded as a failure, and his order that the civil service should make no plans to prepare for a leave vote was irresponsible.
Although Cameron has shown greater application to foreign affairs since his departure from No. 10 Downing Street — his name has been floated in connection with NATO and UN jobs — in office, he lacked a sure touch. Notably, he naively proclaimed “a golden era” of relations with China. He also abdicated responsibility for Ukraine to Germany and France after the first Russian invasion in 2014, although the UK had been a guarantor of the integrity of Ukraine’s borders. Out-of-office grubby lobbying activities on behalf of Greensill Capital, a supply-chain lender that exploded in March 2021, owing billions to creditors, mired him in scandal.
Yet Cameron’s connections in Washington and his understanding of Israel could be a bonus at this critical time in the Middle East. Always sympathetic to the Jewish people and a hardliner on Islamic terrorism, he could play the role of candid friend to Benjamin Netanyahu or his successor, having drawn attention to the unhappy lot of Palestinians in Gaza.
I am sure that Cameron would also be loyal to his new boss. After all, he appointed William Hague, another former Conservative Party leader, as his own foreign secretary; the two men consulted widely on domestic political strategy.
The real difficulty lies elsewhere: Cameron has enemies in the parliamentary party. Brexiteers are naturally suspicious of him, and China hawks look askance at his record in promoting investment in Beijing’s Belt and Road initiative in Sri Lanka. Yet many of these contradictions could be dealt with if the new foreign secretary shows emotional intelligence in his new role.
Fairly or unfairly, Cameron has a reputation for upper-class arrogance among backbench Conservative MPs and in circles who have encountered him since leaving office. If he patronizes his middle-class brethren from his new perch in the House of Lords or from his gilded Foreign Office quarters, he might become a liability to his new boss. The lesson is that a return to the foreground of politics needs as much thought as getting there in the first place. The old adage holds: The personal is political — and vice versa.
As political skies darken all around him, however, Sunak has made his choice — a friend in need is a foreign secretary indeed.
Martin Ivens is the editor of the Times Literary Supplement. Previously, he was editor of the Sunday Times of London and its chief political commentator. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS