I thought someone else might have started this ball rolling, so I'll kick off.

 

Some fifteen  months ago David Cameron swept into power,casting aside, and often ridiculing in  one sweep his co-alition partners of five years.

 

Both he and George Osborne truly believed they could do no wrong and no-one can deny they were impressively confident at the despatch box. Surely Teflon men, with David saying he would not complete the full five years as PM and George waitng confidently in the wings to succeed him seamlessly.

 

But, they had sold themselves to the devil by promising a simple 'in/out referendum to the people, not because tehy believed in the people but were sh.t scared of the rise of UKIP and some Tory back-benchers prior to the election.

 

Well, we know what has happened and both have slipped in oblivion. David has got out and will now join the 'gravy train' of after dinner speaking, with a few directorships etc thrown in. His comrade in arms might well be the signal for him to quit parliament as well, giving the boundary changes as an excuse.

 

But the real onion peel in this, is this damning report about DC and Libya by parliamentary colleagues.

 

It's true, the more you peel the onion, the more it makes you cry with our polititians.  I wonder if DC - down the line - will come in for as much 'hatred' as that now constantly thrown at Tony Blair?. I don't actually subscribe to the constant TB tirade, but I suppose the Tory machine will be much more oiled to seek to avoind this happening to the 'Telflon man".

Camerons downfall was calling the referendum too early. I was puzzled by this at the time and posted it somewhere on here - if he did the referendum on the earliest possible date he would lose was what I said. This proved to be correct.

 

I can only come to one conclusion on this matter and that it that it was planned all along.

 

Did he not have to call it by a certain date?