Had the Prime Minister allowed one of his most senior Cabinet ministers to not just get away with – but actively thrive on – undermining his position, bolstering her own popularity among the grassroots at his expense, it might have become impossible to enforce a united Cabinet line on anything. It is also correct that the PM had little choice but to let Braverman go. The line being spun is that Cameron’s comeback not only symbolises the healing of Conservative family rifts, but lends the party a measure of heft and experience that it has been lacking. The conventional reading is that Sunak is merely doing what is necessary. Now the Prime Minister threatens to unleash the fury of the Tory Right by sacking Suella Braverman and bringing David Cameron in from the cold. We saw it when he risked a massive revolt by the green blob by rolling back some of the country’s net zero commitments. We saw it when he defied his Cameroonian clique to back Brexit during the referendum. “Captain Sensible” has, for all his fastidiousness, consistently shown a predilection for huge if calculated gambles. “Strong and stable” Theresa May staked her career on a hopelessly flawed Brexit deal. Caesar Augustus was meticulously careful about everything he did, yet recklessly bet on challenging Mark Antony at Actium. One of the great paradoxes of politics is that the most astonishing gambles are so often taken by the most cautious leaders.

The appeal and drawbacks of gambling