Regular readers might have discerned that I am no fan of David Cameron. However, I find myself irritated by the #resigncameron protests.

The revelations about his finances tell us little. We've always known that he comes from a rich background; as Mark Steel says, he didn't put himself through Eton on a paper round. And anyone who thought about it even briefly would know that such a privileged upbringing distorts one's perceptions of the world in a politically dangerous way.

In this context, what I find surprising is how small the sums involved are. Compared to Vladimir Putin's plundering of Russia, the £30,000 he had invested in Blairmore is loose change - which makes Ken Livingstone's call on Russia Today for him to resign quite spectacularly hypocritical. In fact, it's not even a lot by upper-class British standards: any middle-aged man who got a degree in PPE in the mid-80s should by now have accumulated reasonable wealth had he wanted to.

Yes, Cameron does seem to have dodged inheritance tax - though there are more holes in that tax than in a wifebeater's vest. And I'm assuming the information he has revealed excludes Isas - else hundreds of thousands in cash is a very queer asset allocation. But on current information, he has done nothing illegal or even surprising. I suspect he has behaved no worse than anybody else of similar wealth, and perhaps even better.

In this context, there are three things that trouble me about the demands that he resign.

First, there's the hunt for the Watergate-style "gotcha" - of proof of absolute wrongdoing. This misses the point. In politics (and life) there are few undoubted heroes and villains. Instead, right and wrong are more often matters of ambiguity and dispute*. One big task of political discourse is persuade others to come round to our perception of what's good and right. A wild goose chase for proven villains distracts us from this.

Secondly, there's the tiresome obsession with spin. Yes, Cameron was - with hindsight - mistaken in being slow to reveal his financial affairs. But politics is, for the most part, not about how much and how quickly PMs reveal information about themselves. It's about how they manage the machinery of government. And there's more than enough evidence on this bigger question that Cameron's administration has failed.

But there's something that worries me more. I fear that some of the animus against Cameron - not among the usual suspects who protested yesterday but among voters generally - is founded upon a hatred of difference. We are being invited to dislike him simply because by being rich he is not one if us - just as the media wanted us to hate Ed Miliband because he was a geek and to like Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage because they are "blokes" who like a laugh. For me, this comes nastily close to a hatred of diversity and to a narcissistic demand that politicians be like us.

There are countless reasons why I want to see the back of this stupid and brutal government. For Cameron to resign over his financial affairs would, however, be akin to Al Capone going to prison for - well - tax evasion.

* One thing I didn't like about Ed Miliband was his use of the phrase "it's the right thing to do" - as if this was anything other than egregious question-begging.