Princess of Wales article in Financial Times (25-03-2023)

[RYGO]

Investing in early childhood is a down payment on all our futures | Financial Times (ft.com)

Looking at the US for paid leave standards is not a great idea, is it? Baltic countries with depopulation problems and Scandinavia would have been..
Anyway this has been discussed on other threads.

Indeed @DewinDwl - the report cites pay comparisons between UK and wider European neighbours and the link to Ready Nation initiative is about the role that business leaders can take in creating an environment that is supportive of early year's development

The OP only ever posts positive stuff about W& K. Nothing else. How odd.

She obviously admires them and there is nothing wrong with that.

I wonder if you're falling into easy assumptions about Iceland?

It sells processed food like every other supermarket. It also has a wider range of plain cheap frozen vegetables, fruit, fish and meat than any of the rest of them.

It gives interest free small loans to customers in need. It got its act together to offer fast reliable delivery to vulnerable people during the pandemic. It's still a presence on high streets in poorer areas. It has good supply chain and stock control and is a much more reliable source of nutritious food than most shops around it.

I know this as a not poor, educated, mildly disabled, busy, single shopper, who also helps elderly neighbours with shopping.

I can buy more nutritious food, less likely to be wasted, more easily delivered, at Iceland for my £25 than anywhere I can think of. It caters better to the old, and to busy single or disabled shoppers than anywhere else I can think of.

It offers a lot of practical help to the poor in this country, but it's not a slum. I am not poor but I shop there very happily. I am not a royalist but I wouldn't expect any celebrity to show up in a hairshirt. Zara is not a brand that would cause me and my fellow shoppers there to fall over in shock and grovel.

I have actually been told by a colleague that Iceland isn't for "people like us". I find that kind of snobbery sickening.

Happy to be educated out of my prejudice. I do use it occasionally on the 10% off for over 60s on Tuesdays but don't find a lot to buy that can't be found cheaper at Lidl or Aldi tbh. I mostly buy stuff from the Warehouse version, and it tends to be Uncle Ben's microwave rice (in bulk) and hash browns !

I also use Lidl - no Aldi close by. Big attractions for me in Iceland are plain frozen veg in a much better and more consistent range; plain fish likewise. Compare ingredients with Sainsbury's / Lidl / Ocado on that kind of thing - Iceland's good. Not a big meat eater. Like their small range of salad, yoghurts etc. Prepared but not processed veg is a big attraction for me - joint issues. Delivery is another - mobility issues.

Lidl is fun for a browse when I have time and energy and good value for what I find. Iceland picks me up when I am least healthy but need a reliable source of low prep needs nutritious food. It also has a narrow range of the 'old reliables' of predictable processed food - heinz, kelloggs, ambrosia etc. Not perfect on palm oil but better than anywhere else I think?

Shops like the Co-op have more social cachet but are expensive and not much range. I would love to have time in the day to shop at greengrocers etc but I work. I am often exhausted at weekends. A good online Iceland shop - good as in ordering mostly healthy food, a bit of "safe" known processed food, nothing overwhelming that will be wasted - is always a step in the right direction for me when mood or energy are low. I'm glad if that supports their social initiatives too. They're not glamourous or posh thrifty but they would be a huge loss to the high street.

Novella4 · Yesterday 16:53
She's a Tory puppet

Kate is a mouthpiece for the Tory party?
Surely that means they are keen to pour money into Early Years??
No?

Literary the whole article is placing what should be a government responsibility at the feet of businesses and communities that are suffering from recession.

I guess that this is telling us that we will never regain that SureStart that the tories took away.

And we are also supposed to believe that KM wrote this article? I have to say, the palace PR has gone a bit further in their brazen ways. Actually going out to FT readers of all audiences to push their royal puff piece ? Like it will escape them that KM has done nothing about EY except a 5 questions in a decade.

It's more subtle than the spider letters, and using KM for this lobby. Well, I'll give them that.

Enough to only post about them and absolutely nothing else

It's not very subtle really is it. Charles was never going to be a hugely popular king, and all this W& K publicity to try to keep the monarchy relevant is so transparent.

William nodding along to people talking about homelessness. Oh the irony.

I asked ChatGPT about the initiative and how we could measure success. This is what it said ! I somehow doubt we will see metrics accompanying the campaign, but I could be wrong.

Will Kate Middleton's early years initiative make a difference, and how can we measure that and finally is it a political initiative ?

Kate Middleton's early years initiative, the Royal Foundation Centre for Early Childhood, has the potential to make a difference in improving the quality of early childhood education and care, and raising awareness about the importance of the first five years of a child's life. However, whether or not it will actually make a significant impact remains to be seen and will depend on various factors such as funding, implementation, and evaluation.

To measure the effectiveness of the initiative, some potential indicators that could be used include:Improved outcomes for children: Tracking the development of children who participate in high-quality early childhood education and care programs to measure improvements in outcomes such as language and literacy skills, social-emotional development, and school readiness.

Increased awareness and uptake of early childhood education and care: Measuring the number of families who access high-quality early childhood education and care programs to evaluate the initiative's success in raising awareness about the importance of the first five years of life.

Improved quality of early childhood education and care: Monitoring the quality of early childhood education and care programs and the professional development of educators to measure improvements in the quality of early childhood education and care.

Increased investment in early childhood education and care: Tracking government and private investment in early childhood education and care programs to measure the success of the initiative in mobilizing resources to support early childhood development.

Regarding whether the initiative is political, it is important to note that the initiative was launched by the Royal Foundation, a charitable organization founded by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. While the initiative aims to raise awareness about the importance of early childhood development, it is not affiliated with any political party or government agency. However, any initiative that seeks to address social issues and promote positive change can have political implications, and may require the support and collaboration of policymakers and government agencies to achieve its goals.

Seems weird to me.

To admire people who only have their voice and platform by an accident of birth.

I see the latest private secretary hasn't taken up her new role - and has stayed with Jamie Oliver. Wonder what the back story is to this? The tabloids were trumpeting her appointment a few weeks ago.

Probably Jamie Oliver offered her a ton of money to stay, and she heard about the temper on Will and though 'naah'.

Ah Surestart. With family centres in every town, where parents of EY could pop in for support and social contact as well as courses in parenting. Now public services rely on charities and volunteers such as Homestart to fill huge gaps. We have a lost generation with inadequate early support. It is disgusting that a Royal patronises us with the idea EY is important and encourages private investment. The US is hardly a good example to look towards.

Not a single mention of government in that FT puff piece - but a few seconds googling brought back this useful summary from Wikipedia. But they don't do politics, do they ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sure_Start

In 2017 the evidence concerning the effectiveness of Sure Start from both the NESS and the ECCE studies was summarised by a briefing paper that was written for members of Parliament. The value-for-money analysis concluded that most services provided a net financial loss to Government, but that the overall benefits (to both individuals and the Government) were seen to provide overall value for money: "This report has shown that policies which have impacts within reasonable bounds of magnitudes on early child and family outcomes can potentially generate substantial monetary returns over and above the costs of delivering the services."

In June 2019, a study conducted by the Institute for Fiscal Studies concluded that Sure Start reduced the numbers of people taken to hospital and saved millions of pounds for the National Health Service. The study found that where Sure Start offered high levels of service in poor neighbourhoods in England, visits to hospital to treat injuries fell among all children of primary school age, and by a third of all 11-year-olds.[9] Access to the programme cut the probability of admission to hospital in the poorest 30% of areas by 19% at the age of 11, while in the richest 30% of areas there was almost no impact. Across all areas, the programme's effect was equivalent to annually averting 5,500 hospitalisations of 11-year-olds.

Two years later, in June 2021, the cuts in early years support were also linked to children obesity, "the cuts correspond to 4575 more children with obesity or 9174 more overweight/obese children between 2010/11 and 2017/18 than would have been expected had funding levels for the centres remained the same, estimate the researchers. With deprived areas hardest hit by these cuts, the effect is likely to have widened the 'obesity gap' between the richest and the poorest children, they say."[39]

You'll be pleased to hear vera that the report (Big Change Starts Small) from the Royal Foundation's Centre for Early Childhood which sets out the workstreams for this work cites Sure Start as a positive govt programme

System-wide interventions can be hard to evaluate but evidence has shown, for example, that in England the presence of Sure Start children’s centres, offering multi-agency support to families, helped save healthcare costs when those costs were looked at in later childhood [44]

The linked to report in the appendix is this one https://ifs.org.uk/publications/health-impacts-universal-early-childhood-interventions-evidence-sure-start - which is the one referenced in your Wiki link @vera99 - the IFS report has since been updated by this one https://ifs.org.uk/publications/health-effects-universal-early-childhood-interventions-evidence-sure-start

The research commissioned by the CfEC by LSE identifies £16bn (pa) of lost opportunities by not investing effectively early years via system wide programmes like Sure Start (launched in 1989 under a Labour govt)- it also references the Leadsom Early Years review and the concept of locally placed family hubs - it doesn't however reference the 75 local authorities who are taking place in the Family Hubs and Start for Life programme launched by (mainly because the Big Change Starts Small report was published in 2021 and the Family Hubs/Start for Life Programme was launched in 2022 - under Tory govt.

The report does call upon politicians (rather than a specific government) to invest in early years programmes such as Sure Start and furthermore recognises that without intervention to reduce/eradicate poverty in its broadest sense that early years interventions like Sure Start 2.0 will have limited impact.

Blimey Kate fans that sweat the granular detail you should get a job with Kensington Palace PR team assuming you don't already have one !😉

Such a tired trope of a comment vera - I have a policy background so enjoy reading reports and detail... others don't... it would be dull if we were all the same! Just as with gem stones, well managed/intentioned disagreement creates positive friction/abrasion to polish ideas and jewels!

In that vein of polishing... I wonder whether one of the debates we're having in the margins could be brought to the centre ground - so.....

At the moment we have a situation in which members of the RF have initiatives they are interested in/passionate about - Sophie with VAWG particularly in war zones, Camilla - domestic abuse, Charles - environment and place making, William/Kate - early years/environment - Harry around the way in which society treats veterans etc

To my mind, social movements are always political - they exist as a reaction to something politicians are doing or not doing. So, what is the role we want the royal family to play - to support charities (eg through visits/promotion) or to support movements for social change. The former can lead to valid accusations of 'what difference does it make' - for example the report previously cited by @Roussette about the impact patronage has on fundraising. The latter will obviously bring about a greater 'win' but with some (not unsubstantial) costs along the way...

I appreciate that some on this board will answer "do away with them all" - which is a very legitimate proposition but also not one that is likely to occur in imminent future so what do we want from them in terms of charitable endeavours/social change in the forseeable future? Is the country/political system grown up enough for the latter or do we prefer the safer but more limited former?

(I should also add - this is posited as a theoretical discussion rather than a discussion about the merits or otherwise of individual areas of work!)

so what do we want from them in terms of charitable endeavours/social change in the forseeable future? Is the country/political system grown up enough for the latter or do we prefer the safer but more limited former?

For me it's not about whether the country is 'grown up' enough for the royals to promote true social change but whether they can be trusted. I think Kate probably has her heart (mostly) in the right place, at least when it comes to EY, but I don't think so of William, Charles, or Camilla. Or even Sophie. The RF may purport to be apolitical but we all know they're not, we all know they're Tories ultimately. I don't believe they would promote social change for the good of others only, without also ensuring that it's good for themselves and others of their class first and foremost.

'I don't believe they would promote social change for the good of others only, without also ensuring that it's good for themselves and others of their class first and foremost.'

Probably applies to pretty much every human on the planet. Those who claim to be altruistic usually practice their altruism by giving away other's rights and riches before their own.

This what the palace needs to do with Kate AND Will if I cared about them one fig. They should have stopped this trying to hard to make a difference farce years ago. Those two are not visionaries. They don’t have the skill set or work ethic to come with these big campaigns or foundations. They can’t create from scratch their own Sentebale, Invictus, Archetypes, Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme or Prince’s Trust. Just pull the damn plug on trying to be Harry or Meg. Sit their asses down, make them do 500 bread and butter engagements a year and get on with it. Meet, greet, open things, plant trees mouth platitudes with a smile and move onto the next. It's what the Queen and her husband did to perfection.

It's odd how people assume Kate and William don't have the 'skillset or work ethic', assume that their staff do all the work behind the visits, initiatives etc but are perfectly willing to believe Harry and Meghan do everything themselves with reference to Sentebale, Invictus etc etc, despite much evidence to the contrary (Harry turns up, does meet and greet, sits in stands, applauds athletes, goes home). Makes you wonder why they have/had so many staff if they do it all themselves.

Kate is admonished for thinking she knows anything about early years, William is berated for speaking about homelessness, but Harry and Meghan, from their million dollar mansion, hand half a dozen parcels out to the homeless and they're feted, sainted, charismatic, regal etc etc.

Decidedly odd.

Except that most people don't have as much power to cause as much change / damage to a society that the royal family could potentially do.