Doing Without Sky TV As A Child?

Calipso

I'll stick my head over the parapet and observe that the partial comment that the media have blown up out of context is not Rishi Sunak's definition of hardship. He simply offered it as an example. He cannot help his upbringing any more than I can help mine.
And I'll leave that right there....

So you’re saying it’s not his fault that he doesn’t know what the minimum wage is? What the average rent/ mortgage is?
Why we have such a high benefit bill because his government is subsidising employers wage bill because people aren’t paid enough.
Sorry, it doesn’t wash.

Deedaa

Pittcity Never mind Twix and Haribo. look at his dire attempt to eat a pasty in Cornwall. Nobody holds both ends and takes a bite out of the middle! Had he even seen one before?

How do you eat yours?

Traditionally you were not supposed to eat the thick pastry crust, it was used as a handle by miners who had no way of washing before eating; they often had arsenic on their hands too.

Glorianny

I had to look. The fees for Winchester where Sunak went at 13 are over £49000 a year. Sky's most expensive deal is £38 a month just now so around £450 a year. Not having Sky must have helped so much.

He's 44.

I won't be voting for him and do think he has made some faux pas but it seems the truth is becoming embellished in some posts.

Joseann

Glorianny

kittylester

Joseann

I think you'll find that private school fees have risen by over 500% since Rishi Sunak's time.

This.

Our children went to similar schools as Day Pupils - we could never afford 5 x half that.

Fees are hugely different now.

Like him or not it is unfair to make matters look worse than they really are.

They were about £20,000 when he went. He was a boarder and he tried at one point claiming he got a scholarship. He didn't.
www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunak-go-school-how-33015273

Nope, the fees were £12k in 1995 when Sunak attended. The Mirror is wrong.
Though the big explosion in fees came shortly after his time when his siblings were in private education.

Sunak started Winchester in 1993, so 1995 would be mid way through his career.
The fees are not available publicly, so where did yours come from?
The Guardian agrees with the Mirror
inews.co.uk/news/sky-tv-cost-private-school-fees-1990s-sunak-3106904

Aveline

I'm so cross about the way this snippet has been blown up out of all proportion by the media and people who just fall for anti Rishi click bait.
I'm not a fan and am not going to vote for his party. However, his parents sound like absolute role models for others these days. They came here. Worked as a doctor and a pharmacist and prioritised their children's education over the latest consumer must haves. We could do with more like them.

His parents values seem perfect to me.

He has difficulty expressing himself without the press twisting his words.

We didn't have even a TV when we sent the first two off to fee based day school. I remember as a young married, ITV Anglia, first on at mum's house.

We cut our cloth accordingly, valued religious education, still shop with care, eschew stuff, pay school fees. His parents valued education.

I can certainly beat Rishi.
I was born in 1937 and grew up without electricity.
Nowadays that certainly seems like hardship.

Glorianny there's quite a few graphs and explanations on financial websites showing how ALL independent school fees increased dramatically around the turn of the century. I was in the "business" myself to witness the enormous rise, as well as having 3 children in the private system for around 20 years in total.
I'm not going to give away any private information, but around that time we knew many parents struggling to afford the fees - in some cases grandparents stepped in, and in other cases we offered a term or two of free fees so parents could get back on track. The word "explosion" is not wrong!
The ISBA has alot of historic info, but that isn't necessarily in the public domain. Here's dome figures from 1995 - 2005, I'm not sure how the will appear when I post them, do apologies if they're a bit jumbled.

School Fees 1995 Fees 2005

Charterhouse£11,910£23,955
Eton£11,934£23,688
Harrow£12,360£23,625
Winchester£12,270£23,500
Malvern£11,400£22,737
Rugby£11,865£22,500
Uppingham£10,710£22,500
Haileybury£11,775£21,990
Westminster£11,850£21,948

Sevenoaks£10,701£20,199

It is my humble opinion, (and I know I bang on about it!), that independent schools will NOT lose 50% of their pupils with the 20% increase like some of the media are saying.
Firstly, it won't be a 20% rise, and secondly parents usually find a way, SKY subscrpitions being one or nor!

sorry about the d button on my phone taking over the s!
do = so
dome = some

Joseann - you're right. Once committed to a private education it's hard to take children out. I know this from friends who struggled to help keep their grandchildren in their public school after a very unpleasant divorce where dad "suddenly" had no money. Mum had the boys of course.
The school "helped" with fees for maybe a year.
My friends sold their house.

Some of us never even had a tv when we were little. The reason private schools are popular is because something is not right in the state schools. Put that right and the only private schools needed would be those snotty traditional schools which give the UK such a bad reputation for snobbery.

He was obviously struggling to come up with an answer to the question.
I was brought up without a tv at all, because we lived abroad and there simply wasn't any. I still prefer to read a book rather than watch tv.

In 1995 I bought a four bedroomed house in Kent for four times the Charterhouse annual fees, so pro rata, I'm not sure that the data supports the idea that such schools were more achievable then.

nanna8 - I think you are wrong about why we have public schools.

Education for the masses is new. 1900s - It was never a "levelling" exercise but started (at least in the UK) as far as I understand it as a Christian exercise to save souls. They taught reading writing and arithmetic but the wealthy and important were targets for the church and had "education" long before that. Especially for boys...
I haven't fact-checked this but l think across the world religion is the driver for early schools - not social mobility.

Why would you want your underlings to have your knowledge, skills or understanding of how things work?
The only reason we have a right to home educate in the UK is to allow parents (presumably wealthy ones) to choose how they educate their offspring. The governess, the private tutor, travel.

So, I think public (private) schools are popular because you can buy into a social elite with all the benefits that brings - contacts, the acquired habits of the powerful, rubbing shoulders with the most important...
With smaller classes thete is more time per pupil (which is particularly important if your child is very bright - or not so very bright). Children only have one shot at their early years - parents will always want yo give them a leg-up if they can.

I don’t know how well this neme will come out, but it made me smile:😉

NotSpaghetti

nanna8 - I think you are wrong about why we have public schools.

Education for the masses is new. 1900s - It was never a "levelling" exercise but started (at least in the UK) as far as I understand it as a Christian exercise to save souls. They taught reading writing and arithmetic but the wealthy and important were targets for the church and had "education" long before that. Especially for boys...
I haven't fact-checked this but l think across the world religion is the driver for early schools - not social mobility.

Why would you want your underlings to have your knowledge, skills or understanding of how things work?
The only reason we have a right to home educate in the UK is to allow parents (presumably wealthy ones) to choose how they educate their offspring. The governess, the private tutor, travel.

So, I think public (private) schools are popular because you can buy into a social elite with all the benefits that brings - contacts, the acquired habits of the powerful, rubbing shoulders with the most important...
With smaller classes thete is more time per pupil (which is particularly important if your child is very bright - or not so very bright). Children only have one shot at their early years - parents will always want yo give them a leg-up if they can.

Grammar schools were started by Edward VI by Royal warrant.

Only boys attended. In all probability William Shakespeare attended a King Edward VI grammar school in Stratford.

I'm sure you're right but not as we know them now - aspart of the old 3 tier system.

Presumably a cathedral school originally?
Like the King's school?

NotSpaghetti

I'm sure you're right but not as we know them now - aspart of the old 3 tier system.

Presumably a cathedral school originally?
Like the King's school?

Yes, there were schools before the King Edward VI Grammar schools, I think St Augustine founded some of them as you say probably religious schools.

Not all private schools are for the upper class elite.
The one I taught in for over 20 years was a former grammar school, very similar( though with updated facilities of course) to the one I went to as a pupil. It became fee paying when the county went over to comprehensive schools.
. My grandchildren went to a similar one, as their county still has free selective entry grammar schools. The differences are minimal, except one is fee paying.

Oh dear! What a trio the candidates are. Where are the women in all this who have some common sense?

Now I have to shard this from my son on America - and yes, I know he didn't say it!

*share

I must be deprived. I still haven’t got SkyTV

maddyone

I must be deprived. I still haven’t got SkyTV

I didn’t have it when it was first invented (when Sunak was 10 years old lol). Alan Sugar was involved, I think.

I didn’t feel deprived not having it - we still thought video recorders were wonderful then!

Not having sky wasn’t seen as deprivation.🙄

I gave mentioned previously that we live in a converted Board School built in the 1860s.

Board Schools were for the poorer people in an area - a mainly agricultural village in our case. Our house was used as a school until 40 years ago.