Assuming the figures are correct neither Sunak or Starmer have any need to work and could see out their lives at least very comfortably. It matters little what the wealth multiple of one to the other is. It is questionable whether the wealth of a spouse should be included.
Criticism based on the proposition they don't know "how ordinary folk live" is nonsense.
Proven success outside politics should score higher than career spent principally climbing the greasy political pole. Understanding wealth, job creation, investment, capital etc is far more important than knowing the price of bread or how the benefits system works.
I want my PM (Tory, Labour, or any other colour) to be the best available candidate - competent, demonstrable integrity, articulate, knowledgeable, able to form relations across society and internationally, fair, able to empathise with all, etc.
More fundamental is understanding what drives folk to seek political office and expose themselves to almost constant scrutiny and criticism. Both wealthy and poor could use the talents they have to make far more money outside politics unless corrupt.
There is no justification asserting wealthy are likely to be more corrupt than poor - the reverse possibly applies as the poorer may be more motivated by money that the wealthy don't need.