To think Sunak should just own being rich?

[Nonspecificcheese]

Just that really - wouldn’t he be better off just saying “look I am very wealthy, I recognise that creates a barrier between me and ordinary people who are struggling, but I’m competent, I do care about people with less, and I have a great team of ministers and advisers with a range of diverse backgrounds and experiences”, rather than trying to pretend he’s a man of the people?

Of course, the statements after “but” would need to be true, and they probably aren’t. But surely there’s some value in being authentic rather than pretending you’re something you’re not?

Absolutely

Yeah, I wouldn't hold the USA's social landscape up as being something to aspire to.

He just isn't much good at being a politician. Imagine thinking it was a good idea to leave the D Day event to give that interview.

Yes, fair comment - but given everyone knows - or believes - he’s extremely wealthy, what value is there from pretending otherwise from a political strategy perspective? He might as well face up to it and own the narrative around it.

“look I am very wealthy, I recognise that creates a barrier between me and ordinary people who are struggling, but I’m competent, I do care about people with less, and I have a great team of ministers and advisers with a range of diverse backgrounds and experiences”

I think this is the approach the public had to him to start with- no issue with the wealth provided he was competent and seemed to engage with people. Now he's proved incompetent and unable to engage, some people also resent the wealth.

This is absolutely untrue. Lots of people resented him for his wealth right from the start. He was instantly perceived to be 'out of touch' and part of the elite. I think people sometimes underestimate how deep the hatred and jealousy of rich people can run. Where I'm from, nice cars would regularly get keyed just because they were a bit fancy.

All of this. I have no interest in his wealth. Either he's up to the job or he isn't.

He was brought up in more wealth than any single person I know and I know 100s of people. His parents had at least the equivalent of £70k spare every single year (every year!!) to send to children to Winchester. That's double the national average household income. Without talking about being also able to afford 2 other children who weren't sent to private school (as they didn't have penises).
No one I know has £70k spare even as a one off. Most don't have £7K a year and lots £70 a year.

He might be academically able,but has zero emotionally empathy , common sense or ability to relate to people outside of his own social sphere imo.

wealth isn’t the issue. It’s how alienated he is from society who aren’t his financial equal. He has no real desire to learn or really listen to the people he is supposed to represent or hopes to keep representing. Two of the most socially aware, quietly philanthropic , caring couples I’ve ever met, are also the wealthiest people I have ever met. Both can relate to and treat everyone as their equals, are genuinely interested in everyone they meet, are generous with their time and their money and use both to benefit others. Their grown up kids, while benefiting from their parents wealth, are similar to their parents in attitude and wish to share their privilege out of a wish that society was fairer and do what they can to do something about it.

I think it’s more about personality than wealth. Sunak seems obsessed with wealth for its own sake and can’t hide his self-serving motives for wanting to be and to remain in power.

@OrwellianTimes

Son of a GP in the 90’s. He would have been better off than at least 90% of the population. Saying he went without is really blind to the realities of people on minimum wages.

Perhaps, but he didn't say he "went without" but that he "went without Sky", which is not the same thing. Not great media skills but a perfectly reasonable response to the question.

In fact, I'd go further. I'd defend the right of someone on minimum wage to say the "go without", even though in global terms they are in the top 7% (yes this is PPP-adjusted, £20,000 p.a.). Top 7% for a single adult. Top 16% if one child, top 30% if that's £20k for two adults two children.

It clearly made sense for his frame of reference, which is the same way we all think.

(Again, not great media maybe, but not indicative of a moral flaw).