[seankenny]

I’m not entirely sure where the idea that brown people can’t be far right xenophobes comes from. Modi and the Rajapaksas were all voted into power and are/were very popular - including amongst diaspora in Europe and N America.

[MischaHY]

I’m not entirely sure where the idea that brown people can’t be far right xenophobes comes from. Modi and the Rajapaksas were all voted into power and are/were very popular - including amongst diaspora in Europe and N America.

Mm this wasn't so much my angle as much as simple surprise that the child of immigrants would be so diametrically opposed to immigration - but I suspect JB is on the money in that it's mixed with a class/social ranking aspect. The lack of empathy makes more sense in that context.

[jwi]

The policy-seeking voter: evaluations of government performance beyond the economy might be of relevance.

[seankenny]

The likes of Braverman are totally xenophobes who like to shit on outsiders or the socially acceptable out-group, and this happens as often - or more - back in the old country as it does here. They’re fitting into a tradition that has roots both in the U.K. and the subcontinent, and it’s easy for white British people to miss the later. BJP dignitaries draw big crowds at Wembley, for instance, and in both the U.K. and US Dalits (very low caste Indians) have campaigned to make caste discrimination illegal. I don’t think they are against immigration as such -  they aren’t complaining about Akshata Murty - but rather they like control and power more.

As for oppression leading to ultra right wing views, in the U.K. ethnic minorities vote more left than one would expect from their socioeconomic status, with the exception of Hindus.

[spidermonkey09]

Off topic, but Sean (or anyone else), did you watch the BBC doc on Modi? I thought it was interesting and shed quite a lot of light on eg, the Leicester riots last year, but it was received very poorly in India to the extent that the BBC in India are having their tax affairs investigated and the Indian government demanded that YouTube take clips of it down.

Think understanding the darker aspects of Hindu nationalism is very relevant to some UK politicians attitudes towards migrants.

[seankenny]

I haven’t seen it yet but I’m meaning to at some point. I thought I had an okay sense of how bad things were becoming in India but I had a bit of a shock talking to a friend of mine (secular, but Muslim background) a few months ago. He and his family moved from Delhi to Europe in part because he was worried about Hindu mobs attacking his very genteel Muslim neighbourhood. They live about twenty minutes drive from the parliament building - it’s the equivalent of someone leaving Hampstead because it’s too dangerous. My friend is level headed and not prone to exaggeration, and he really didn’t want to leave.

[spidermonkey09]

I'd be interested in your thoughts if/when you watch it. Thats pretty terrifying. I don't think its an exaggeration to say India is at risk of slipping into a form of fascism, if it isn't already in some ways. I'm going for a research trip in November which will be fascinating but am also very aware that if I was Muslim I'd probably think very differently about going (and probably wouldn't be able to get a visa anyway).

[Oldmanmatt]

I’m not entirely sure where the idea that brown people can’t be far right xenophobes comes from. Modi and the Rajapaksas were all voted into power and are/were very popular - including amongst diaspora in Europe and N America.

Mm this wasn't so much my angle as much as simple surprise that the child of immigrants would be so diametrically opposed to immigration - but I suspect JB is on the money in that it's mixed with a class/social ranking aspect. The lack of empathy makes more sense in that context.

I have and do encounter more (and often violent ) overt racism and conflict between ethnic groups; here in Dubai, than I have seen anywhere outside of Israel (including the time that I lived in Sri Lanka during the troubles (has that actually subsided, have to check)). Despite a large number of (quite unpleasant) white South Africans here and Russians who are equally shocking; “brown on brown” is really more awfully bad and agressive. Lets just say, Muslims and Hindus are not best mates and the latter usually the instigators. Seems more common amongst recent arrivals. Most of us settle down to a, almost peculiar, sepia toned, colourblindness after a while. Wandering around the yard each morning involves a litany of various versions of “hello” and gestures of salutation, for instance.

Edit.
We’re all immigrants. There isn’t a single “local” or even a GCC national in the company (just under a thousand staff).

[seankenny]

I have and do encounter more (and often violent ) overt racism and conflict between ethnic groups; here in Dubai, than I have seen anywhere outside of Israel (including the time that I lived in Sri Lanka during the troubles (has that actually subsided, have to check)).

Basically yes - but then they got some new ones to replace the old! 

The war ended, the govt killed all the Tamil Tigers, put lots of ordinary Tamils in internment camps and flooded the Tamil regions with Sinhala people, all with the aim of effectively neutering any even slightly separatist or even federal Tamil political movements. They then tried to bolster their popularity by instigating violent anti-Muslim sentiment (perhaps inspired by Myanmar; the two countries have a close religious tradition). It is absolutely to the credit of many young Sri Lankans that they rejected this call to violence outright. All the while the Rajapaksas (govt was their family business) looted the state and overvalued the currency, in the end causing an economic crisis which has wrecked the living standards of most Sri Lankans, including some of my in-laws. Protests led to a new government, who have promptly started murdering their opponents.

If it wasn’t an incredibly beautiful country whose inhabitants are mostly charming and lovely it would be completely depressing.

The imported hatred you’re seeing in Dubai is miserable but unsurprising.

[Falling Down]

I'm starting to wonder if there is a psychosocial response to experiencing racial/social predjudice which leads to aligning with ultra right-wing nationalistic views as some kind of self-defense mechanism.

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internalized_racism and the section on Intra/Interracial discrimination.

It is Wikipedia so check references.  There’s lots of good evidence based research out there if you’re interested.

[seankenny]

Now I’m officially Old I have licence to find young people increasingly weird, but this nugget from Nick Cohen’s substack really shocked me:

“The anti-fascist group Hope Not Hate  found in October 2020 that 30 percent of 25–34-year-olds, and 27 percent of 18–24-year-olds, agreed that ‘ Jews have disproportionate control of powerful institutions, and use that power for their own benefit and against the good of the general population’. Just 6 percent of 65–74-year-olds and 7 percent of 55–64-year-olds followed suit.”

This is blatant antisemitism, is this 30% the followers of Jordan Petersen, bigoted progressives or some unsightly mix of the two? I find it quite troubling especially considering this is a cohort that are notably more left wing/liberal than others.

[Will Hunt]

Just in case anybody's watching the news and wondering what all this childcare chat is about...
The government's plan is to extend the support that is there for 3 and 4yr olds to younger children, hoping to get 60k parents back into work.

The support is called 30 Hours Of Free Childcare - it's not that simple. The free hours are only claimable during certain times of day and during term time; it doesn't include food etc. Our 3yr old goes to nursery for 34 hours per week. So we'll only pick up the bill for 4 hours a week, right? Not quite. The bill prior to him turning 3 was £982/month; now it is £601/month.

The hourly rate that the government pays nurseries for those free hours is widely recognised to be insufficient to cover the cost of actually providing the care. To stay solvent, nurseries have made up the shortfall by charging a higher hourly rate to parents. This disproportionately affects the parents of the under-3s because they're paying for all the hours that the child attends (over-3s are still paying an hourly rate but the government is picking up some of the hours).

The government has promised to "substantially increase" the hourly rate that it pays nurseries, but this has been in real-terms decline since 2017 and we all know that the government isn't going to actually pay the nurseries enough to cover the costs of providing care. Nurseries operate on profit margins that are absolutely razor thin. Now that they are faced with being short-changed by the government for the 1 and 2-year-olds' fees they have some choices to make up the loss.
They can reduce the quality of care they give (the government is going to allow them to do this by increasing the number of children that can be looked after by one member of staff), they can charge a greater hourly rate to parents for the hours that they pay, or they can go bust.

The government's plan to get 60k parents back to work means that you need at least 60k additional nursery places. This in a sector that already has a huge labour problem where providers won't be able to offer significant pay rises to staff (because they're already making microscopic profits).

[sdm]

Are you entitled to any new help as the parent of a 3 year old?

I'm not a parent so I didn't follow the childcare changes too closely, but I thought the changes for 2+ year olds don't come in to effect until September 2025 (so current 3 year olds will already be in school by then)?

[Will Hunt]

Are you entitled to any new help as the parent of a 3 year old?

I'm not a parent so I didn't follow the childcare changes too closely, but I thought the changes for 2+ year olds don't come in to effect until September 2025 (so current 3 year olds will already be in school by then)?

No new support for over-3s. I haven't looked at when the measures are being phased in for different age groups but, yes, if your kid is past a certain age now then there's no change to the status quo.

[kac]

Don't think there is any new help for 3yr olds although believe the funding rates are being increased a bit. The help for 2yrs olds is being phased in with 15 free hrs from April 24. It's 15 free hrs I wouldn't have had before so although will is right it's at least some progress. the current system of getting no help until they are 3 is just bonkers. Shame about the rest of the budget.

[TobyD]

Now I’m officially Old I have licence to find young people increasingly weird, but this nugget from Nick Cohen’s substack really shocked me:

“The anti-fascist group Hope Not Hate  found in October 2020 that 30 percent of 25–34-year-olds, and 27 percent of 18–24-year-olds, agreed that ‘ Jews have disproportionate control of powerful institutions, and use that power for their own benefit and against the good of the general population’. Just 6 percent of 65–74-year-olds and 7 percent of 55–64-year-olds followed suit.”

This is blatant antisemitism, is this 30% the followers of Jordan Petersen, bigoted progressives or some unsightly mix of the two? I find it quite troubling especially considering this is a cohort that are notably more left wing/liberal than others.

I saw those statistics, I think that this is exactly what David Baddiel is driving at in his recent book; ie that there is a certain section of broadly left of centre people who have a blind eye to antisemitism, though they may reject all other racism. I'm not sure if I entirely agree but he does have an interesting argument.

[TobyD]

...
 Shame about the rest of the budget.

You're too picky, at least it hasn't crashed the economy yet.

[petejh]

Just in case anybody's watching the news and wondering what all this childcare chat is about...
The government's plan is to extend the support that is there for 3 and 4yr olds to younger children, hoping to get 60k parents back into work.

The support is called 30 Hours Of Free Childcare - it's not that simple. The free hours are only claimable during certain times of day and during term time; it doesn't include food etc. Our 3yr old goes to nursery for 34 hours per week. So we'll only pick up the bill for 4 hours a week, right? Not quite. The bill prior to him turning 3 was £982/month; now it is £601/month.

The hourly rate that the government pays nurseries for those free hours is widely recognised to be insufficient to cover the cost of actually providing the care. To stay solvent, nurseries have made up the shortfall by charging a higher hourly rate to parents. This disproportionately affects the parents of the under-3s because they're paying for all the hours that the child attends (over-3s are still paying an hourly rate but the government is picking up some of the hours).

The government has promised to "substantially increase" the hourly rate that it pays nurseries, but this has been in real-terms decline since 2017 and we all know that the government isn't going to actually pay the nurseries enough to cover the costs of providing care. Nurseries operate on profit margins that are absolutely razor thin. Now that they are faced with being short-changed by the government for the 1 and 2-year-olds' fees they have some choices to make up the loss.
They can reduce the quality of care they give (the government is going to allow them to do this by increasing the number of children that can be looked after by one member of staff), they can charge a greater hourly rate to parents for the hours that they pay, or they can go bust.

The government's plan to get 60k parents back to work means that you need at least 60k additional nursery places. This in a sector that already has a huge labour problem where providers won't be able to offer significant pay rises to staff (because they're already making microscopic profits).

I (literally) don't have any skin in this game.. but the picture you paint doesn't seem to tally with the facts that popped into my inbox last time this subject breached its oversized head. For example, is there a special reason British children need to have the tightest ratio of childminders per child compared to our neighbors? Are British kids more delicate and in need of this 4:1 ratio compared with Irish, French or German or other European children?
From fullfact:
The ratio for two-year-olds in England is 4:1, whereas it is 6:1 in Ireland, 6:1 in Germany and 8:1 in France, while in Denmark and Sweden—countries that the shadow Secretary of State has explicitly advocated—there are no national staff ratios at all."
And is there a pollical reason attributable only to the tories that childcare costs in the UK have outstripped inflation since 2003? Don't let facts get in the way of the narrative though. Could there be, shock horror,  a more nuanced and complex reason than simple 'current tory government to blame'? For example could there be some inefficiencies going on, or some sub-optimal thinking being allowed to prevail behind the 'tight ratios needed for British kids'?  And is there any evidence for 'some' profiteering going on? As well no doubt as the usual government incompetence?

https://fullfact.org/education/childcare-uk-tightest-and-most-expensive/#:~:text=Child%2Fstaff%20ratios&text=%22The%20ratio%20for%20two%2Dyear,national%20staff%20ratios%20at%20all.%22

[Will Hunt]

the picture you paint...Don't let facts get in the way of the narrative though. Could there be, shock horror,  a more nuanced and complex reason than simple 'current tory government to blame'?

I'm confused, Pete. I suggest you read my post again without prejudice because you seem to be reading into it an argument that I'm not making. I'm just trying to add detail for anybody reading about this who doesn't have any experience of dealing with the childcare system. What the government is trying to do is a step in the right direction but some of their efforts are likely to fall short because of the detail.

I don't necessarily think a 1:5 ratio is a terrible thing, but from my point of view as an individual I'll be paying more money (because the hourly rate will go up) for lower quality care - not necessarily bad care but certainly lower quality. That will feed into the level that children are at when they reach school because at 3+ nurseries start to transition the kids towards school. Numbers, phonics, and writing education begins at nursery and children are expected to be able to do things such as write their own name, know the alphabet etc before arriving at school.

Btw don't call them childminders because they're not. Qualified nursery staff are doing more than just entertaining the kids. They're an important part of the early years learning the feeds into progression through school. You might sniff at their chosen profession but the good ones are actually doing quite skilled labour. The reason we have govt support from 3 years old is not just about returning parents to the workforce, it's because children do demonstrably better in school when they receive nursery education. The reason that the "30 free hours" is only claimable at certain times of the day is because studies have shown that the optimum nursery day is shorter than an a adult's working day. The provision was originally centered around child outcomes, not necessarily parental economic productivity.

[petejh]

Fair enough. But by your logic you're saying any ratio higher than 4:1 is lower quality. I find it hard, as in impossible, to believe that's true, considering the wider context of most other neighboring countries not having disastrous experiences...

bte I'm not sniffing at anything (that's your prejudice rearing its head). I called them childminders because I'm not a qualified parent like you and haven't a clue what their actual job title is.

[lukeyboy]

Just in case anybody's watching the news and wondering what all this childcare chat is about...
The government's plan is to extend the support that is there for 3 and 4yr olds to younger children, hoping to get 60k parents back into work.

The support is called 30 Hours Of Free Childcare - it's not that simple. The free hours are only claimable during certain times of day and during term time; it doesn't include food etc. Our 3yr old goes to nursery for 34 hours per week. So we'll only pick up the bill for 4 hours a week, right? Not quite. The bill prior to him turning 3 was £982/month; now it is £601/month.

The hourly rate that the government pays nurseries for those free hours is widely recognised to be insufficient to cover the cost of actually providing the care. To stay solvent, nurseries have made up the shortfall by charging a higher hourly rate to parents. This disproportionately affects the parents of the under-3s because they're paying for all the hours that the child attends (over-3s are still paying an hourly rate but the government is picking up some of the hours).

The government has promised to "substantially increase" the hourly rate that it pays nurseries, but this has been in real-terms decline since 2017 and we all know that the government isn't going to actually pay the nurseries enough to cover the costs of providing care. Nurseries operate on profit margins that are absolutely razor thin. Now that they are faced with being short-changed by the government for the 1 and 2-year-olds' fees they have some choices to make up the loss.
They can reduce the quality of care they give (the government is going to allow them to do this by increasing the number of children that can be looked after by one member of staff), they can charge a greater hourly rate to parents for the hours that they pay, or they can go bust.

The government's plan to get 60k parents back to work means that you need at least 60k additional nursery places. This in a sector that already has a huge labour problem where providers won't be able to offer significant pay rises to staff (because they're already making microscopic profits).

I (literally) don't have any skin in this game.. but the picture you paint doesn't seem to tally with the facts that popped into my inbox last time this subject breached its oversized head. For example, is there a special reason British children need to have the tightest ratio of childminders per child compared to our neighbors? Are British kids more delicate and in need of this 4:1 ratio compared with Irish, French or German or other European children?
From fullfact:
The ratio for two-year-olds in England is 4:1, whereas it is 6:1 in Ireland, 6:1 in Germany and 8:1 in France, while in Denmark and Sweden—countries that the shadow Secretary of State has explicitly advocated—there are no national staff ratios at all."
And is there a pollical reason attributable only to the tories that childcare costs in the UK have outstripped inflation since 2003? Don't let facts get in the way of the narrative though. Could there be, shock horror,  a more nuanced and complex reason than simple 'current tory government to blame'? For example could there be some inefficiencies going on, or some sub-optimal thinking being allowed to prevail behind the 'tight ratios needed for British kids'?  And is there any evidence for 'some' profiteering going on? As well no doubt as the usual government incompetence?

https://fullfact.org/education/childcare-uk-tightest-and-most-expensive/#:~:text=Child%2Fstaff%20ratios&text=%22The%20ratio%20for%20two%2Dyear,national%20staff%20ratios%20at%20all.%22

I don't know about ratios elsewhere or why they are different, though anecdotally I suspect the high level of form filling and bureaucracy has an impact. For example, needing to create a paper record  every time a child has a nappy change, eats, drinks etc. must reduce capacity of staff to actually look after children, and I don't know if that's the same elsewhere, though of course I can see why recording that sort of data is beneficial.

It seemed a pretty useless budget announcement to me as it will only really affect people who don't already have kids (or just babies), as others have noted the funding for nurseries makes the viability questionable, and in any case - good luck to the extra under-3s trying to get a place at a nursery! You may well be entitled to it in theory but that doesn't mean any nurseries will have capacity to take on those children. Where I live (Bristol) my experience and that of friends is needing to book a nursery place before the baby has even been born.

It also seems a cynical move by the tories who know they likely won't be in power when it actually comes to implementing this, so it's just a headline and bit of election fodder for now, then it'll be a good one to blame on labour when it inevitably fails.

If the tories were serious about sorting this chronic issue they could have done so at any point in the last 14 years.

Lastly I'd add the conflating issue of tax cuts for childcare costs steadily reducing in real terms. For those who don't know, you can set up a government account, pay in money and it'll be topped up by an additional 25% (essentially reversing tax already paid on that money) and you can then use this account to pay for childcare. There is a cap of £500 top up per quarter, after which you receive no benefit. This has been fixed at the same level since at least 2018 when I first started using it. At the time I could pay most of my childcare costs using this, but now I use almost the whole quarter's allowance on a single monthly bill, so the next 2 months are extra expensive.

Childcare has always seemed a mad one for the government not to target - incentivise more people to go back to work (esp at a time of low unemployment) and you cut spending on benefits, earn more on income tax, generate more jobs in childcare and have a host of other indirect benefits.

Obviously the core demographic of old rich people have been well looked after in this budget, as usual.

[Will Hunt]

Fair enough. But by your logic you're saying any ratio higher than 4:1 is lower quality. I find it hard, as in impossible, to believe that's true, considering the wider context of most other neighboring countries not having disastrous experiences...

Pete, have you been lobotomised this evening? I suggest you take yourself down to your local nursery and see if they can take you in, because you seem to be struggling to read. I didn't say it would be disastrous, I said the quality of the care would be lower. If you were to ask me to quantify that I couldn't, but it is obvious that the care quality will be lower (and I will pay more for it for the reasons I've explained).

[petejh]

Why would it be lower? What's your evidence? The rest of Europe doesn't have that low a ratio.

[petejh]

Obviously the core demographic of old rich people have been well looked after in this budget, as usual.

Yeah those fucking health care staff hey, what have they ever done for us.

generate more jobs in childcare and have a host of other indirect benefits.

Well they're not exactly scrimping on staff as it is with the highest ratio of staff to kids in Europe! 

It seemed a pretty useless budget announcement to me as it will only really affect people who don't already have kids (or just babies)

Aka 'people in the near future', as per most policy announcements.

[Will Hunt]

Why would it be lower? What's your evidence? The rest of Europe doesn't have that low a ratio.

It's got nothing to do with the rest of Europe. It's a comparison of the future care against the current provision. The fact that care quality will be lowered when moving from a 1:4 to a 1:5 ratio is so intuitively obvious to me that I'm struggling to find words to explain it. I must also need to go back to school.
Teachers with fewer students would tend to get better outcomes than teachers with more students, yes?