Like his wife's 1% stake in Infosys is going to come under increasing scrutiny because they're still dealing with Russia (she'll get millions in dividends from this every year) - it's not necessarily 'fair' and you could argue that a partner's wealth fund doesn't apply to you as a politician.

My suggestion would be that someone who has family wealth worth close to half a billion is not a good fit for a chancellor or any politician for that matter, but what do I know.

exactly this.

Billions in the bank. Same height as Putin. Let's hope he never becomes Prime Minister!

Don't agree with this at all tbh, he's wearing some £300 trainers, who really gives AF, its nothing out of the ordinary or astounding. Does anyone ask bojo how much his suit cost or is it an issue how much theresa's shoes cost?

It's literally a shit story by a shit outlet that has a personal agenda.

Ok me too so there's people on here passing judgement about a guy worth £200m wearing £300 shoes, when they definitely have more expensive clothes/shoes and less than 0.2% of his wealth. Yeah makes perfect sense, he should dress in primark clothes to make us all feel better and stop anyone having a dig.

You saying he does something other than stunting on peasants? Don't ask stupid questions rez.

DM normally more obsessed with Angela Rayner’s footwear…

I get what you are saying, but I genuinely think people are fishing for stories if this is an issue, we all know hes rich, we all know he lives in 1m+ home and we all know he had a successful career in banking and finance prior to becoming chancellor.

Also rocking up in a ferrari is not the same thing, one is an instantly recognisable global brand and a widely accepted indicator of success, the other is a obscure shoe from some relatively unknown designer. You would have to explain to 95% of people what a common project is, how much it costs and what it means. The ferrari needs no introduction.
The vast majority of people could spend £300 on a shoe if they really wanted, most people couldn't afford a ferrari, even if they really wanted one.

Agreed about the differences. But that's what the press is there for, to tell the public that they're a £300 pair of trainers. Sunak (or his team) is surely smart enough to know that they would be recognisable. Goes back to my original point - he's either naive or flippant.

And yes, of course they're fishing for stories. Sunak is an idiot for making it easy for them. He clearly has eyes for the top job, and should understand the need to be relateable/man of the people. He won't be in contention for long if he keeps giving the press so many easy things to target him on (this, Kia-gate…).

Personally, I don't care, he's a millionaire, I don't expect him to be going to Topman for his clobber.

But I think you've nailed it here - it's the semantics of the whole thing, in a time where costs are going through the roof, I can completely understand why people who are struggling to make ends meet would be seething at such an article.

As you suggest, he could've gone low-key and got a generic pair of trainers (the fit does look sick though). Because if we look at it without our fuk hats on, RRP @ £350 for trainers to the general public is obscene… But as said before if he goes Primark, he gets the Sterling treatment: https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/5718460/raheem-sterling-manchester-city-paige-milian-primark/

But if they wanted to do a thorough analysis his shirt probably costs £100+…

The thing with this country's media is whatever you do, once you're in the negative spotlight they will dig up whatever they want - for example the articles over the past couple of weeks on Abramovich have been extensive, yet the guy has been operating in this country for near a decade?!

P.s. The media only cottoned on because he is firstly wearing trainers and secondly the 'out there' colour, if he went with the whites, he may have got away with it from the daily mail intern.