Best Of

A low birth rate is a consequence of greater wealth, and greater female choice. It isnt to do with the cost of having children. There isnt any civilised area in the world that has managed to materially reverse the trend.
Women when given the choice choose to do something else.

The evidence is that people in the UK are now having fewer children than they want. That doesn't mean a return to pre modern birth rates but with lower housing costs and better economic prospects the fertility rate would be higher than 1.4.

That matches with what I’ve seen from personal experience - you can bring up a single child in a 2 bed flat. Even a 3 bed flat - let alone a house - is a big jump in price. Then you have al the other costs. Plus (usually) the mother taking a career hit for each child.

All the childless women I know regret it - and those with 1 nearly always wish they’d had more. And are quite upfront that the cost & space issue was a big factor.

Just as with housing, this is an issue where you face the fewest barriers if you are in the richest or poorest groups in society. If money is no object OR you get taken care of by the state.

It's always those in the middle who have to make difficult choices and sacrifices, and who generally get the poorest value from life.

It's something I noticed as a child, and it contributed to my personal politics in a big way. My sociology teacher didn't like it when I argued that 'stable poverty' was a somewhat preferable state to 'volatile middle classness'.

AJP Taylor used to argue that the Uk avoided revolution because the ruling classes made sure that middle classes had *just enough* of a stake in society that it made sense for them to support the status quo rather than risk revolution.

It’s not clear to me that the condition holds for an increasing segment (age band) of the population.

I think Starmer/Reeves probably know they've walked into a trap over the child benefit cap, but they have a parliamentary party of over 400 MPs to manage - many of whom are very left-wing - just to stay in office.

Good morning

Badenoch unequivocally said this morning she will reinstate the 2 child cap - 'we have to draw the line somewhere'

She is right but the savings should be put into increasing child benefit for most parents which is a better use of taxpayer funds than ending the child benefit cap for parents on university credit

What is the justification for redirecting funding from children living in poverty to those not living in poverty, which is the effect of Kemi's proposal?

Problem with this is it's a particularly poor "when did you stop beating your wife" question.

If we were actually concerned with children in poverty, we'd almost certainly get way more bang for our £3bn bucks by sending it as overseas aid to places that are genuinely poor.

Instead we're borrowing £3bn we haven't got to dole it out to the feckless parents of kids who are pretty well off in global terms - and doing it in a way that doesn't improve the kids life chances.

The IFS did a (very balanced) podcast a month or so ago on the two child limit, and the really striking thing was that their study found *no* effect in the school readiness survey from imposing the two child limit. So we can reduce *child poverty* via scrapping the two child limit, but without actually improving outcomes for children.

That's quite remarkable (I was expecting at least some measurable effort), and tells you that the problems for these kids are not really related to household income.

My sister did a load of education stats for one of the devolved governments. Her comment to me was that the *only* "inputs" which influence educational outputs are those which function as proxies for parent interest in their kids. Everything else was just noise.

So poor parents who care - their kids do fine. Poor parents who don't care - their kids outcomes are unfortunately poor, and no amount of government largesse will fix them because it's not really a money problem.

A curious story from down my way. A 14 year old boy killed on the crossing of a railway track:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx23mzvdgjgo

Network Rail will want it closed; it's policy, and there is no upside for them of keeping it open. I'm always baffled as to how pedestrians get killed on railways; trains do not do unpredictable things.

The zebra crossings and road crossings outside all our houses are more risky, as both the unpredictable pedestrians and the unpredictable traffic create risk. The only one near me in recent years was someone at a place called Kings Mill, who pushed his bike across, without looking, wearing headphones.

Trains aren't very unpredictable, but they are quiet, and potentially very fast compared to road traffic. Oh, and very long stopping distances which mean their drivers are unable to take anything resembling evasive action.

No idea of the circumstances of this incident, but among railway workers, the saying is "it's the second train that gets you" - plenty of people have died over the year having got clear of an approaching train by stepping onto another line, and then being hit by another train, the sounds of which were masked by the first train.

Indeed, so it is about appropriate behaviour by those crossing tracks.

It's also interesting how much attention cases such as this get compared to those on roads, On railways there are about 5-6 pedestrian deaths on level crossings per annum (ignoring eg people breaking into tracks not at crossings).

I think one of the greatest culture shocks when I visited New Zealand two years ago was the different attitude to rail safety. Firstly I would never diminish in any way the need for serious railway safety but it does seem perverse to me that in a really remote railway station namely Garsdale when you come off the train you have a 200 yd detour to get to your car because you aren't allowed to cross the lines even though you have a good quarter mile visibility in both directions. That involves walking on a road which has four blind exits in the pitch black whereas there is full lighting on the not permitted route.

But in New Zealand the railways lines run for tens of miles along side the state highways without a fence between them. Admittedly they don't have quite the same level of traffic. Our Leeds to Carlisle line has six times as much traffic as the main North Island Kiwi Rail from Wellington to Auckland. In NZ there is one train northbound one day and one southbound the next day - that is again from Wellington to Auckland. If it arrives the same day as it sets off then it is deemed to be on time ! It is one hell of a journey though and rivals the Settle and Carlisle for its beauty.

Oh and if the cockerel at Garsdale station were a dog it would have been put down for attacking people years ago.

Surely the best argument for getting rid of the child benefit cap is the demographic crisis? Unless some couples have more than two children we face a population timebomb without mass migration - with all the challenges that poses.

The biggest problem for families would seem to be the extortionate cost of housing in this country.

Yes, it's odd to see how many on here complain incessantly about the low child birth rate and then bay loudly againstt the very idea of removing the cap, let alone bringing back Sure Start.

I've heard a rumour, uncorroborated, that people sometimes have children for reasons other than gaining entitlement to benefits.

Power cuts.

Surely the best argument for getting rid of the child benefit cap is the demographic crisis? Unless some couples have more than two children we face a population timebomb without mass migration - with all the challenges that poses.

The biggest problem for families would seem to be the extortionate cost of housing in this country.

Yes, it's odd to see how many on here complain incessantly about the low child birth rate and then bay loudly againstt the very idea of removing the cap, let alone bringing back Sure Start.

I've heard a rumour, uncorroborated, that people sometimes have children for reasons other than gaining entitlement to benefits.

Power cuts.

In the late 90s, the one video shop in Malmesbury closed for some months. Reopened under new owners, the next year.

The local doctors noticed that….

So perhaps, if we turn off domestic Internet every evening between 9pm and 7am?

Surely the best argument for getting rid of the child benefit cap is the demographic crisis? Unless some couples have more than two children we face a population timebomb without mass migration - with all the challenges that poses.

The biggest problem for families would seem to be the extortionate cost of housing in this country.

Yes, it's odd to see how many on here complain incessantly about the low child birth rate and then bay loudly againstt the very idea of removing the cap, let alone bringing back Sure Start.

I've heard a rumour, uncorroborated, that people sometimes have children for reasons other than gaining entitlement to benefits.

Power cuts.

So we need another bout of Heathite mismanagement to head us away from the demographic cliff?

Three-day week >> rolling power cuts >> increased birth-rate.

A low birth rate is a consequence of greater wealth, and greater female choice. It isnt to do with the cost of having children. There isnt any civilised area in the world that has managed to materially reverse the trend.
Women when given the choice choose to do something else.

The evidence is that people in the UK are now having fewer children than they want. That doesn't mean a return to pre modern birth rates but with lower housing costs and better economic prospects the fertility rate would be higher than 1.4.

That matches with what I’ve seen from personal experience - you can bring up a single child in a 2 bed flat. Even a 3 bed flat - let alone a house - is a big jump in price. Then you have al the other costs. Plus (usually) the mother taking a career hit for each child.

All the childless women I know regret it - and those with 1 nearly always wish they’d had more. And are quite upfront that the cost & space issue was a big factor.