Daily catch-up: Did Cameron mean to consign himself to 'legacy limbo' as his term expires?

I have written in The Independent today about David Cameron's EU deal. I think the betting markets, where the chance of a "Remain in the EU" vote in the referendum implied by the best odds has pushed up to 73 per cent (from 68 per cent last week), are about right.

The press reaction to the deal, which has been fiercer than I expected, makes a Remain vote less likely. But other reactions point the other way, including the thunder of the departing hooves of the big beasts, as Boris Johnson and Theresa May choose not to lead the Leave campaign.

One further trivial gain for the Remain side was confirmed last week, when the design of the ballot paper was published. An organiser of the devolution campaign in the 1997 Wales referendum, won by a margin of 0.6 percentage points, said: “I’m a top boxer.” He was a believer in the advantage of having the top box on the ballot paper, which Remain has secured.

open image in gallery

• If the referendum is on 23 June, and if David Cameron gets the answer he wants, he will then enter legacy limbo, as Conservative MPs start to glance over his shoulder to the next prime minister. He will be in the position of Tony Blair in 2005, with everyone knowing he won't lead the party into the next election and demanding a timetable for the "stable and orderly transition" to his successor.

Which brings me back to the question I touched on two days ago, namely whether Cameron intended to pre-announce his departure in that interview in his Cotswold kitchen with James Landale (above) at the start of the election campaign.

I had always assumed it was deliberate (and wrote so at the time), but having taken soundings I revise my view. It came as a surprise to his team: Lynton Crosby, the campaign manager, was annoyed because it was a distraction from the simple messages that he wanted. Cameron had obviously thought about it (although I am told that the "three shredded wheat" phrase was spontaneous), but had not decided how to answer the question that was bound to be asked during the campaign. When Landale asked it, he took refuge in saying what he thought. Whether Samantha's presence (she was watching the interview from behind the camera) influenced him, I don't know.

But I am told that he didn't regret it. It would have come up later, and the standard evasion, "I'm not taking this election for granted", would have invited further questions and speculation. And there were the advantages I mentioned at the time: the modesty and the subtle drawing of attention to the strong team.

And he isn't going to change his mind, although, as Janan Ganesh implied, it shows the strength of his position that he could.