The PM is gone - long live the PM

Just an hour after David Cameron’s last speech at Downing Street, Ms May delivered her first from the same podium. She reminded people that the full title of her party is the Conservative and Unionist Party. She wants not only to maintain the United Kingdom, she said, but to provide the groundwork for a wider society that is also more unified and inclusive.

“When it comes to opportunity,” announced the new PM, “we won’t entrench the opportunities of the privileged few.” Her goal, she said, would be to help people to achieve as much as their talents allow.

For his part, David Cameron listed economic stabilisation and jobs growth as two of the major achievements of his government. He also cited an increased commitment in overseas aid and spoke of improvements in the NHS.

The latter point will be debated by healthcare professionals and patients alike and the health service will continue to throw up difficulties in the years ahead.

The NHS – or at least an idealised image of it – is much beloved of the British public.

Yet it will become ever harder to fund, unless taxes are significantly raised or people are forced to pay for certain services.

On his way back from the Palace, Mr Cameron might well have reflected on the speed with which his resignation had come about. He clearly did not expect to lose the Brexit vote.

As with the Scottish independence referendum, Mr Cameron appeared quite laid back in his expectations of the EU referendum. It wasn’t until late in the campaign that, in public at least, he rolled up his sleeves and began, somewhat anxiously, to urgently beseech people to vote Remain.

This last-minute approach to things may simply be a reflection of the fact that Mr Cameron was, when installed six years ago, the youngest Prime Minister Britain had seen in almost 200 years.

One wonders what he might have achieved – and avoided – if he’d entered Number 10 with ten years more life experience under his belt. Perhaps he might have drawn back from an EU vote altogether.

He might also have been slower to toe a liberal line on an issue as important as the definition of marriage, a foundation of society. He promised a robust public debate on the issue, but delivered only a very controlled discussion within the confines of Westminster.

Many members of his party – plus more people in the wider community than the media might acknowledge – remain annoyed by this rush to change something which is fundamental to our social fabric.