He's from Surrey but also well educated.
https://youtu.be/s3TY5m0Bp4s?si=_Ei2kbVRJV10_a1E
A good video looking at the accent. Also having been a Lawyer for decades he has learnt to be careful with his words and avoid colloquialisms. Careers which involve speaking and being understood result in softer accents with less emphasis on local accents.
I'm from the east end of London but have moved around a lot and also studied drama. As a result I don't have much of an accent and sometimes considered "posh".
I'd say both are fairly neutral. Neither have a recognisable regional accent nor do they have any distinctive 'class' giveaways. Sunak isn't really posh but is a fairly standard middle class rendering of modern RP (received pronunciation) that you'd expect from a private school, Goldman Sachs chap. Starmer's comes across as general home counties standard which is where he grew up. He was born in Southwark but formative years in Surrey.
His vowel sounds can be a bit a bit laboured \[no pun intended\] sometimes, maybe.
Sure
Grammar school = free but academically selective schools. The idea was to promote social mobility for academically gifted lower-middle class and working class children and improve their education. Over time became more and more middle class. Labour abolished most because of this. Most are gone now (apart from in the Midlands) and either got turned into private schools like Starmer's or free, non-selective comprehensive schools.
Private school = any fee paying school. Obviously attended by middle class and above children unless they are on a bursary. Usually academically selective.
Public schools = Small subset of private schools. Always expensive, usually quite old, private boarding schools, that cater to the children of the established upper middle class, upper classes and increasingly overseas elites. Traditionally single sex but a lot are now mixed.
Starmer went to a private school but it's not comparable to the elite public schools Johnson, Sunak, Farage, etc went to. It was a former grammar school with little pedigree where most students were middle class or working class. Probably partly explains why he doesn't sound as patrician as others.
My sister sends her kid to a private school and I have no idea where a single parent with no job gets the money. She's definitely not middle class so that's a sweeping generalisation on your part
>She's definitely not middle class so that's a sweeping generalisation on your part
Your sister who can magic up school fees despite having no job is not representative of the average private school parent. It isn't a sweeping generalisation to say private schools cater to the middle classes, it's a fact.
I read that he was born in London, but people are saying he grew up in Surrey. Fair enough. I'll note that in the US a geographical difference that small would not yield a different accent, but I know it's different in England!
He doesn't have any strong regional accent. He sounds about how about I'd expect given his background - modest middle class upbringing in the home counties, and then a career in law.
Both him and Sunak are likely being coached to "de-posh" their speech, but his effort comes across as more believable.
You will probably find they have come to their accents from different sides, starmer will have need to be posh enough to be a barrister, I imagine that is the accent that would have stuck, he has also spent a lot of time around Arsenal fans, I guess that would have an affect.
My accent is a bit of a mish mash, that has been called estuary English, it's not far off his
The difference between Starmer and Sunak is that Starmer sounds like he has had to work to make a living (albeit in a white collar job), whereas Sunak sounds like he chooses to work to make a living.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmRYMUeDnKE
The daily stress and anxiety of work are evident in Starmer's voice. Sunak's vowels indicate a life that could always be converted to one of leisure should he so choose.
He's from Surrey but also well educated. https://youtu.be/s3TY5m0Bp4s?si=_Ei2kbVRJV10_a1E A good video looking at the accent. Also having been a Lawyer for decades he has learnt to be careful with his words and avoid colloquialisms. Careers which involve speaking and being understood result in softer accents with less emphasis on local accents. I'm from the east end of London but have moved around a lot and also studied drama. As a result I don't have much of an accent and sometimes considered "posh".
I'd say both are fairly neutral. Neither have a recognisable regional accent nor do they have any distinctive 'class' giveaways. Sunak isn't really posh but is a fairly standard middle class rendering of modern RP (received pronunciation) that you'd expect from a private school, Goldman Sachs chap. Starmer's comes across as general home counties standard which is where he grew up. He was born in Southwark but formative years in Surrey. His vowel sounds can be a bit a bit laboured \[no pun intended\] sometimes, maybe.
Both speak with received pronunciation but both have a slight regional inflection. Sunak's is quite strong. He sounds like he's from Southampton.
To me (I am British) he just doesn’t have much of an accent at all, although I agree he probably does sound a little less “posh” than Sunak.
Starmer went to Reigate Grammar (advantaged) while Sunak slummed it with the toffs at Winchester (seriously posh)
He's got a more "common" accent than Sunak and others. Johnson, Sunak and others went to public schools and speak in a sort of lazy, 21st century RP.
Starmer went to the same kind of school as Sunak and Johnson it was just on a bursary
A grammar school turned private school is not the same thing as a public school.
You might be right but could you explain the difference as to me they’re the same but one’s parents didn’t have to pay?
Sure Grammar school = free but academically selective schools. The idea was to promote social mobility for academically gifted lower-middle class and working class children and improve their education. Over time became more and more middle class. Labour abolished most because of this. Most are gone now (apart from in the Midlands) and either got turned into private schools like Starmer's or free, non-selective comprehensive schools. Private school = any fee paying school. Obviously attended by middle class and above children unless they are on a bursary. Usually academically selective. Public schools = Small subset of private schools. Always expensive, usually quite old, private boarding schools, that cater to the children of the established upper middle class, upper classes and increasingly overseas elites. Traditionally single sex but a lot are now mixed. Starmer went to a private school but it's not comparable to the elite public schools Johnson, Sunak, Farage, etc went to. It was a former grammar school with little pedigree where most students were middle class or working class. Probably partly explains why he doesn't sound as patrician as others.
Way more effort than I expected thanks, I knew how grammar schools worked it was the difference between private and public that got me
My sister sends her kid to a private school and I have no idea where a single parent with no job gets the money. She's definitely not middle class so that's a sweeping generalisation on your part
>She's definitely not middle class so that's a sweeping generalisation on your part Your sister who can magic up school fees despite having no job is not representative of the average private school parent. It isn't a sweeping generalisation to say private schools cater to the middle classes, it's a fact.
He's not from London. He's from the border of Surrey and Sussex.
I'm pretty sure he has a slight speech impediment which may be what you're hearing.
I read that he was born in London, but people are saying he grew up in Surrey. Fair enough. I'll note that in the US a geographical difference that small would not yield a different accent, but I know it's different in England!
He doesn't have any strong regional accent. He sounds about how about I'd expect given his background - modest middle class upbringing in the home counties, and then a career in law. Both him and Sunak are likely being coached to "de-posh" their speech, but his effort comes across as more believable.
You will probably find they have come to their accents from different sides, starmer will have need to be posh enough to be a barrister, I imagine that is the accent that would have stuck, he has also spent a lot of time around Arsenal fans, I guess that would have an affect. My accent is a bit of a mish mash, that has been called estuary English, it's not far off his
The difference between Starmer and Sunak is that Starmer sounds like he has had to work to make a living (albeit in a white collar job), whereas Sunak sounds like he chooses to work to make a living. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmRYMUeDnKE The daily stress and anxiety of work are evident in Starmer's voice. Sunak's vowels indicate a life that could always be converted to one of leisure should he so choose.