Rishi Sunak went without Sky TV so his parents could send him to private school

[number10bus]

Honestly this has really annoyed me, apart from the fact it's such crap - he came from a family where his parents were a GP and a pharmacist, it's like he's literally thought of the most working class stereotype and applied that. He's so out of touch and I don't know why this one has annoyed me so much but it really has.

I'm not much older than our prime minister and we didn't have one either, or holidays and not much in the way of any luxury items and guess what my parents couldn't afford to send me to private school despite them working very hard too.

Oh well. Not having Sky TV would definitely have been enough to pay the fees, then!

I agree that this is small fry compared to the utter corruption and ineptitude we have been seeing but it does show that he really doesn’t get the lives of other or he’d know just how wounding that comment is. It also shows a lack of self reflection, empathy, intellect and that may be he can’t be trusted to say the right thing at the right time which when we are beefing on (or some would say in) WWIII you want someone at the head with those skills. Like you say, we need politicians that are better than us. He’s clearly not that. He’s cruises through life because of his privilege he hadn’t had to earn it.

Well done ! This is why it's such a stupid example to give, Sky TV was barely a thing when he started senior school, hardly anyone had it !

He'd be getting mildly less stick if he'd said something like "I'd have loved to go on holiday to Disney land every year but my parents prioritised education so we didn't have lots of big foreign holidays".

I don't want our politicians to be just like me - I want them to be way better than me

Me too - but I bloody hate the way that 'richer than' is used as a substitute for 'better than' in this country. It's a class hangover I think - where those richer would naturally be your lord and master and so we still seem to link momey with moral worth or ability.

Media and politics are two areas where we see it happen the most.

I also want my polititicans to be way better than me - I want them to be smarter, more compassionate, more astute. I want them to be knowledgeable about the country and the world. I want them to be braver and bolder than I am.

I'm just sick of us all thinking money is a good signifier for all that.

RollaCola84
This is why it's such a stupid example to give, Sky TV was barely a thing when he started senior school

He was only 9 in 1989.

Looking at the current prices for Winchester, day fees are around 73% of boarding fees.

So the Sunak boy's fees would have been around £8760 per boy per year.

I want my politicians to be cleverer, wiser, better informed and better educated than me. Richer than me is not a proxy for those things.

So the Sunak boy's fees would have been around £8760 per boy per term.

Per year.

Can we have this broadcast from the rooftops please?

He's got a holiday booked. He doesn't want to be PM. All these 'gaffs' are just so that he can resign after the election and know he isn't going to be asked to stay on until his successor is selected.

He's just worried in case the result isn't a total landslide. Each gaff makes the holiday more certain.

The Tory party regards paying tax as giving to charity. After all, it is optional.

Yes, that's what I said! I corrected my error before you posted!

Cross post - you edited.

But I don't mind if they are richer than me too. I would like them to get a socking great pay rise but not be allowed to have other jobs.

Strong agree. I think these faux attempts to demonstrate being 'in touch' with the electorate whether it's toolmakers,/Thorpe Park/tales of poverty/ telly subscriptions are all actually pretty patronising/paternalistic. And bank balances are zero indication of the moral integrity and capabilities required to be effective visionary leaders and politicians.

Total fees for sky in the 90s was probably around £400 for the first year which would have included setup and monthly subscription and then around £120 annual subscription.
Hardly enough to cover private school fees.

Hmm. It just might have been one part of his parents' economies, employed to send three kids to a good school. Obviously not to cover the whole costs.
I don't think GPs and pharmacists earned big bucks, just comfortable money.

And as a child, if you haven't got what everyone else has got, you feel some deprivation, so he might have been one of the few kids at his school without Sky TV.

I agree, it sounds bad at first glance, though.

Yes!!

He must have grown up in the 1980s/90s- I don't remember anyone having sky then!

According to Rightmove the house was sold for £570,000 in Feb 2020.

That might have been the case. But he is now a fully grown man who should be able to look back and see just how privileged he was, see that lack of Sky was NOT a sacrifice and know when to STFU! Not someone I want at the helm. Loose mouthed and mollycoddled. Not much actual substance.

Neither do I. I also went to a private boarding school and it just wasn't a thing.

The only people I know who've ever had Sky TV is my parents. Or rather my older brother who had it installed at my parents so he and my dad could watch football.

Did you have to have Sky with a satellite dish- I thought there was a lot of snobbery about having a Dish on the side of your house, I’m a similar age to him and two of my friends had a satellite dish and my Dad said no way as he was against anything that was potentially low brow and the Americanisation of his teenagers but we loved MTV at my friend’s house and that reality tv programme set in San Francisco where young people shared a house.

Clearly that depends on the age gap between the children and whether any bursaries are forthcoming (the school is 13-18).

I’ve just googled it the reality TV program MTV was, The Real World.