Lay off Rishi Sunak – being rich isn’t a crime

So what if Rishi Sunak isn’t short of a bob or two? In most other walks of life, high financial reward usually puts you at the top of the tree. It’s one way we measure value and success in society.

But in politics, wealth is a weakness, one that casts a shadow over all decision making. No matter the situation, he is increasingly seen through the prism of his riches, which will now be exploited by his rivals and the opposition.

Last week’s spring statement brought a brutal set of headlines. Nearly every group imaginable rounded on Rishi for not doing enough to support those facing a serious cost of living crisis. He’s been labelled as unfeeling because he, personally, won’t feel the pinch. And thanks to a badly thought-through photo opportunity that saw him filling up a car that wasn’t his, he risks trying to overcompensate.

If the chancellor is to succeed into higher office, he’s going to have to find a narrative that acknowledges his backstory isn’t as compelling as he might like. He can’t help his situation and it’s unfair to expect politicians to dress in hair shirts to make a point. Pretence of that kind is worse than owning the fact you live a comfortable life. But it nevertheless leaves him exposed when difficult choices are made.

The focus of the back story in politics is immense. Worse, to carve out an image when there are strong preconceptions of you is a huge challenge. The more adversity you’ve overcome the more interesting a figure you are. You can reference personal hardships when making unpopular policy choices and display empathy whether or not it actually exists.

All that said – while the lived experience is important to decision making, it’s not everything. No one is suggesting your race or gender should determine what job you are capable of doing well, so why does having money suggest a certain personality type with negative traits? Environmental factors are relevant to understanding a person’s perspective, but isn’t it just as important to have leaders able to understand the actual facts put in front of them? No one doubts the chancellor is hardworking or clever – shouldn’t those attributes be at the forefront of our leaders?

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment, sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

Plenty of academic studies refute the idea of noblesse oblige. Wealth can make a person detached and have a sense of independence from the worries of others. And not everyone with cash feels a sense of responsibility to their fellow lesser off man. But it’s also unlikely those people will go into public life and willingly face the gruelling scrutiny that MPs do. If this were always the case we wouldn’t have philanthropy or the undoubtedly strong sense of “giving back”.

And what’s wrong with having a staunchly middle class background anyway? It was a strength for Tony Blair, who calmed the nerves of wavering Conservative voters who could get behind a privately educated barrister.  It was better than the endless battle David Cameron fought, who was often apologetic about his privilege. “It’s not where you’ve come from, it’s where you’re going”, he would often say to appease the critics.

Money doesn’t make you evil, nor does poverty make you saintly. We have to move away from these reductive caricatures. They hide the complexity of decision making and make fools of people who are trying to understand how and why their lives are being affected by government policy. You don’t have to agree with every choice made by the chancellor but pigeonholing someone because of their wealth is just cheap.