David Cameron may be a posh boy, but he's the best the Conservatives can do - The Guardian

Inverted snobbery is alive and well – and in the Conservative party of all places. According to Tory backbencher, Nadine Dorries, "not only are Cameron and Osborne two posh boys who don't know the price of milk, but they are two arrogant posh boys who show no remorse, no contrition, and no passion to want to understand the lives of others – and that is their real crime".

Dorries may be rather more outspoken than some of her colleagues – especially those still hoping for preferment – but she is not alone, as similar (though less highly-coloured) remarks by David Davis, make clear. As the economy bumps along the bottom, the proverbial middle continues to feel squeezed, and public sector cuts begun to bite, there are many Conservatives who worry that their leadership's privileged backgrounds are bound to make it harder to persuade voters that, to coin a phrase, "we're all in this together".

To most Tories, however, the fact that the cabinet is purportedly full of millionaires is an inconvenient truth rather than an indictable offence, and one that won't ultimately matter that much. Once the economy begins to recover, they reason, voters aren't really going to worry overly about whether the PM and his colleagues are a bunch of toffs. Moreover, the evidence from opinion polling and focus groups is that they don't actually see that much difference between them and the leadership of other parties – not unreasonably, perhaps, since they are all fortysomething Oxbridge products who, the narrative runs, have never done a day's real work in their lives.

But not every Conservative who disagrees with Dorries – or at least with the way she expresses herself – is quite so sanguine. True, they argue, previous Tory governments won election after election with leaders who – socially and educationally – were every bit as distant from the average voter as Cameron and co. But the deference that meant this gap didn't matter has all but disappeared. Meanwhile, as parties seem to matter less than they did and leaders seem to matter more, having someone at the top who can embody the main message (in this case "I feel your pain") is more crucial than ever.

What also worries them – and even some modernisers – is that British politics is no longer as one-dimensional as it used to be: state v market still matters, but so increasingly does the libertarian-authoritarian dimension. The fact that Cameron's liberal instincts aren't confined to the economy but also stretch to moral and social issues puts him at odds with many of the voters that the Conservatives need to connect with in order to secure a working majority next time around.

So while Dorries may have a chip on her shoulder and David Davis may still be sore about losing the leadership, they could also have a point. But that doesn't mean they are right.

For one thing, their views on crime, tax, immigration and Europe might be populist, but that doesn't meant they are popular – or capable of trumping "bread and butter" issues like the economy, health and education.

For another, if the prime minister's problem is his persona as much as his policies, what exactly is he supposed to do about that? He may be a patronising patrician but better that than embarrassingly inauthentic. Besides, like it or not, Cameron is the best the Conservatives can do right now. There is, as their patron saint was fond of remarking in her heyday, no alternative.

• Follow Comment is free on Twitter @commentisfree