In the news

Logged in. Here it is:

There is only one conclusion to be drawn from the kerfuffle over David Cameron’s tax affairs. What was all the fuss about?

The prime minister has done nothing wrong. There is something sickening about the pseudo indignation whipped up by newspapers whose proprietors are rich beyond the fantasies of avarice, with wealth protected by skilful lawyers and accountants in several continents. What is a strong word for hypocrisy?

Mr Cameron does have one problem. I have been observing British politics for more than 40 years and the current Downing Street press operation is much the worst that I can recall. At the very least, the failure to grip this story has extended its lifespan and damage has been done.

The prime minister’s authority has been weakened, just when he needs it to fight for the national interest, while the less thoughtful — but alas numerous — members of the public have been confirmed in their impression that politicians are greedy so-and-sos, only out for themselves. The truth, which any honest political journalist would confirm, is that almost all MPs — of all parties — are hard-working, often increasingly so, as they are forced to respond to a constantly increasing volume of emails.

But the gap between public perception and reality is dangerous. We want able people in politics: people who could earn much more in private life than as an MP and who may try to bridge the gap by continuing to work elsewhere part-time. That has always happened.

The danger is that the latest fuss will deter good people: people like Mr Cameron. With his ability, first class degree from Oxford, force of personality and leadership skills (abetted by the odd contact), he would have walked into a job in the City of London — and would have prospered mightily. Now, he finds himself having to defend his late father. Ian Cameron was one of the most honourable — and delightful — men of his time. Attempts to defame him must cost his son pain and arouse his anger.

All this might also cause bright youngsters, knowing how frustrating a political career can be, to wonder whether it would all be worth it. If so, the country will suffer.

If this meant depriving the Tories of good new faces, some Labour MPs would be delighted. Traditionally, there has been a difference between the two parties, though it is diminishing. In the old days, many Tory MPs were bankers, brokers or lawyers who made a financial sacrifice to enter parliament.

That was less true of Labour, which tended to recruit from trade union officials or social workers. When John Smith, a barrister, was having trouble with some of his backbenchers during his time as leader in the early 1990s, he said that his party should remember that he was one of its very few MPs who could earn more money outside parliament than in it.

Since the Tories diversified their candidates’ list, the gap has narrowed. But a Tory party that ceased to be attractive to candidates drawn from the professional classes would be diminished, as the Corbynistas know.

On Saturday, some of them were demonstrating outside Downing Street, exuding hatred for Mr Cameron because he symbolises the destruction of their hopes. In the early 1980s, when Ian Cameron was setting up the Blairmore investment fund, Michael Foot was leading the Labour party while Tony Benn and Jeremy Corbyn were plotting to take it over. Thirty years on, Mr Corbyn still is.

Under Mrs Thatcher, it became possible for British subjects to invest abroad and help to rebuild the foreign assets which the UK lost during the war. Ian Cameron was part of that process. David Cameron benefited from it, as did the entire country’s balance sheet.

So whose side are his critics on? Arthur Scargill’s?