Whatever became of noblesse oblige? In feudal times it was supposed both to justify the upper classes, and to soften their impact on society more generally. The idea was that if you were very rich and privileged, you had a duty to serve (oblige) those less fortunate than yourselves. Then the latter wouldn’t be minded to riot or rebel. It was an ethic encouraged in the old ‘public’ schools, and was a factor behind the creation of the welfare state, and the Haileybury-educated Clement Attlee’s conversion to socialism. It was also a reason why even a dyed-in-the wool socialist like me could get on pretty well with many of the aristos I met at university, whilst recognising that their friendly attitudes to my more plebeian sort could be patronising, and even condescending. They were often amusingly self-deprecating. ‘I’m not allowed to vote. That puts me in the company of criminals, lunatics and lords. I’m not sure which category I’m in: ha ha!’ It was disarming.

Conservative cabinets generally had a sprinkling of these types in them, exemplified in Thatcher’s time by her faithful country-squire retainer William Whitelaw (‘every prime minister needs a Willy’, as she is reported to have said once, quite innocently); until they were thinned out, firstly under her, in the course of her weeding the ‘wets’ out of her party; and then under the more summary purge of ‘Remainers’ undertaken by Johnson in 2019. That left only the pur free marketists, many of them educated in ‘public’ schools which by now had lost most of their old social-paternalist ethic, and had become mere staging posts for rich boys (and a few girls), on their way to ‘raising’ themselves materially in their personal lives. Sunak is one of those; rich beyond almost anyone’s dreams, educated at Winchester (even older than Eton), who last year demonstrated the ethic he must have imbibed there by his desire to close down university courses which did not enhance their students’ earning power. That was his only criterion.

So it is hardly surprising that so many modern-day Conservatives seem to regard the profession of politics not primarily as a means of ‘service’ (oblige) to their country, but as a ‘career’ opportunity merely; a means of ‘bettering’ – by which they usually mean ‘enriching’ – themselves. Which must help explain the arrant corruption that has been eating away at the party’s vitals over the past several years; including of course the ‘betting scandal’ which is the most recent manifestation of this. If that’s the reason they went into Conservative politics, what can be wrong with using their ‘insider’ knowledge to have a flutter on the side?