The PM has always been vulnerable to perceptions of privilege. As the EU vote nears, this problem looms larger

slogan that reflected a strong belief in “spreading privilege” (as he put it in his 2012 conference speech).

Before you sneer, consider what his governments (Coalition and fully-Tory) have actually done, or are striving to do, for the less affluent: George Osborne’s most recent Budget should lift 1. 3 million people out of income t ax altogether; the National Living Wage is now in force; a quiet revolution in education is under way; more than two million jobs have been created since 2010; the NHS, schools and international development budgets have been ringfenced in spite of the fiscal squeeze; Ed Vaizey’s recent Culture White Paper focuses with admirable clarit y on questions of access and the removal of the barriers (imagined and real) to artistic experience.

In spite of the errors it has made — the near-disaster over disability benefits, for instance — the caricature of this Government as wholly indifferent to the underprivileged and disenfranchised is simply inaccurate. But the caricature is al s o highly adhesive. Six years of austerity have inevitably encouraged the accusation that Cameron and co are embracing what J K Galbraith called “private affluence and public squalor”. As the state tightens its belt — so the charge sheet reads — Dave and his pals peer down upon the resulting deprivation from a bubble of personal wealth.

Again, alleged illegality is not the heart of the matter. What does cause damage is the lingering impression that senior Tories swim in the limpid cove of sheltered plutocracy — of trusts, tax havens, dividends, and bearer shares — far from the open seas in which those that they govern simply try not to drown. Jeremy Corbyn’s performance against Cameron in the Commons on Monday was mediocre at best. But the Labour leader did nail the perception that, since the crash, we have been “ripped off by the super-rich”.

Do not underestimate this perception, or its strength. Along with the alarming rise of new nationalisms it is one of the most potent developments in contemporary politics. There is much intellectual heavy-lifting ahead for the main political parties as they address the question of inequality, its impact and what (in prac tice rather than rhetoric) can be done about it.

Above al l else, ask yourself why Cameron’s enemies have chosen this moment to take an axe to the mains cable that links him to the great mass of voters. In spite of the hysterical calls for his resignation, he remains by far the dominant political figure of his age. Yet the essence of the charge is that, as a creature of wealth and privilege, he ca n n o t po s s i b l y e mpat hi s e wi t h , underst and or represent the best interests of those he governs. Two months and 10 days before the most i mpor ta n t re f e re nd u m in Briti sh history, it is not hard to see what is going on.