Best Of

If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.

I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.

Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.

Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.

If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.

Yes, obviously the declining birth rate is the fault of "bitter academics". It's clear now you point it out. It's not that people are looking at their own economic prospects and the cost of having children. No, it's because they're reading The Sociological Review. Thanks heavens for some common sense thinking from MaxPB!

There's a lot of engineering him into position I think, and Starmer is clearly on board - not sure how else someone openly campaigning for the top job is still in the Cabinet. He is the annointed successor - and always was.

For that reason, I don't think he makes it.

Doubt he is anointed. There was number 10 briefing against him about a month ago.

IMO wouldn't be surprised if Starmer sacks him, says he needs to bring someone in to end the strikes.

I think it depends on how desperate Labour becomes, which itself depends on how catastrophic the local elections are. If Labour has a true mare - for example losing control of London Boroughs which they currently run with large majorities - then switching to Streeting might be on the cards. The one caveat is if the big winner in the cities happens to be the Greens, Labour members might conclude that being more radical and passionate and tacking left is what's required.

Labour won a NEV of 35% in 2022, and will probably win about 10-15% in May. Reform won nothing in 2022, and will probably win 25-30% next year. The Greens would surge, but the traditional outperformance in local elections by the Lib Dem’s will take a lot of votes that would otherwise go to them. The Conservatives will probably win 20-25%, compared to 30% in 2022.

What that likely means is Labour being hit on multiple fronts.

Boroughs like Barnsley, Wakefield, Sunderland, Halton, Sandwell, Thurrock will go Reform.

Islington, Hackney, Camden, Lambeth, Birmingham, Southwark, Brent, South Tyneside, will be lost to NOC at least (Your Party will also be challenging in some).

The Tories will lose a string of counties and new unitaries to Reform, but pick up Westminster, Barnet, Wandsworth,

And of course, the results in Wales and Scotland will be horrid.

I suspect Labour will actually get about 20%, win London overall still and do better than expected in Scotland where Holyrood polls suggest Labour gains from the SNP as in the Hamilton by election. That will stop a bad night for Starmer becoming a catastrophe and may save his job

Otherwise agree with Reform and the Greens likely the main winners next year plus Plaid in Wales and the LDs treading water as the Tories and Labour collapse

Morning HYUFD,

I'm not so bullish over Labour in Scotland, they aren't polling as well as pre Hamilton, recent by elections in working class areas were poor for them. Right now they are losing voters to Reform and only slightly more competitive in white collar areas, and they are up against a party with only 1 MSP and effectively no Scottish leader.

Sarwar needs a very clear message and to take the fight on all flanks, to Reform, SNP and the wider electorate. It's easier said than done. He is going hard on the NHS, but needs to attack the SNPs record more. I don't share the view that Labour are heading for multiple gains over the SNP, they have both dropped, but Slabs vote has been squeezed more. Mr Starmer could find himself in big trouble once the votes are all counted up here. It all could change though

Morning DocG.

Since the 2021 Holyrood elections the SNP constituency vote is still down about 10 to 15% and the SLab vote only down about 5%. So you would still expect Labour to gain constituency MSPs from the SNP, more with unionist tactical voting. The SNP vote is actually down more than the Labour vote in Scotland since 2021.

Don’t forget the SNP have also been losing votes to Reform, especially white working class Scots who voted SNP in 2021 and maybe Labour in 2024. Sarwar does though need to attack the SNP hard I agree to get unionist tactical votes in Holyrood constituencies the SNP won in 2021 but where Labour were second

I foresee both the SNP, Labour and the Conservatives all losing seats to Reform. The seats that Labour would hope to gain from the SNP are seats that will have a strong Reform presence. While I don’t see Reform picking up many FPTP seats, they will win a lot of list seats. Things have changed a lot since Labour gained Hamilton. Starmer’s Labour are despised as much in Scotland as they are in England and Wales. Outwith Edinburgh and Glasgow, the Greens are not as popular as they are in England, because they have a poor record in government from when they were part of the Bute House agreement. The Lib Dems will pick up a few more seats. The SNP will remain the largest party. Reform will probably be second. Labour, the Greens, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems will be jostling for third place. I can’t see any way that anyone will be able to form a stable government.
We live in interesting times.

In Scotland, as Reform are still not polling first like in England or even at least a clear second or sometimes narrow first as in Wales, Reform may help Labour gain constituency seats in Holyrood. That is provided more 2021 SNP voters vote Reform than 2021 Labour voters vote Reform on the constituency vote in Holyrood seats Labour were second to the SNP in 2021

Remember that Scotland has a form of proportional representation. If Reform were second in every seat in Scotland, they would not pick up any constituency seats, but would gain the majority of the regional seats.

If those Reform regional list gains are added to Labour gaining a number of SNP constituency seats as some 2021 SNP voters go Reform could give a unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011

I will be amazed if the four unionist parties can agree on enough to form a government, though. Independence isn’t the only issue. Currently it’s not even an important issue with the voters. Unless Reform try to abolish the Scottish parliament, all parties will currently be happy with continuing devolution, despite what they tell their supporters.

Who cares about forming a government? The main thing for unionists is to completely neuter the SNP so they have to actually focus on governing Scotland and Scottish domestic policy rather then endlessly whinging about the need for indyref2! A unionist majority does that even if the SNP still win most seats

Except another election will happen if no FM can be elected.

Unlikely, even the Tories gave Salmond and the SNP confidence and supply from 2007 to 2011 provided they didn’t push for indyref2

So on your logic a pro-indy majority of MSPs is sufficient to trigger indyref2. Must remember that. You certainly weren't claiming that before.

No, the UK government would correctly refuse indyref2 even if the SNP won a Holyrood majority until at least a generation since 2014. A unionist majority means the SNP can’t even ask for one though and have to focus on Scottish domestic policy

Your focus on Scottish politics is entirely coloured by your fear of an Independence referendum and counting the numbers for an anti independence majority

It is somewhat arrogant for a right wing English conservative to do everything to influence the Scots against self determination , a fierce and proud nation

Despite your claim labour will do ok in Scotland next May, I expect a SNP government and with support of the greens a possible pro indpendence majority

Certainly, why should the Scots and Welsh be dictated to by a Westminster government, especially as inept and painful as Starmer and Reeves's labour

Hello BigG. Well said. Just to follow up your comment the other day - my annual RNLI sub has just gone in.

Why are HMRC spending £11m on office furniture?

https://x.com/lnallalingham/status/2003029277759979530

Why do posters who rely on right wing news never spend 20 seconds checking their facts before getting angry?

A quick google of "did hmrc spend 11m furniture?" leads to:

No, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) did not spend £11 million on furniture. Recent news reports indicate that HMRC spent over £1 million on office chairs and other furniture over a three-year period.
Specifically, figures obtained via a Freedom of Information request in 2024 revealed the following spending:
Over £1 million on office chairs
£59,000 on desks
£16,000 on storage units
The spending, which included an £852,000 deal with the seat firm Posturite starting in October 2023, has drawn criticism from groups like the TaxPayers' Alliance, particularly as the purchases were made despite staff only being required to be in the office for a portion of the week.
Other reports referencing £11 million relate to different government initiatives, such as funding for town and city centre recovery schemes or homelessness prevention programmes, not HMRC furniture.

Link to contract. Published last week, value £10.9m to a single supplier.

https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/c2ebc7d5-e787-4fd4-95ec-133629f52f74

Single supplier is to be expected. Uniform styling in office furniture is the norm, especially with the use of open plan design. Also making sure that modular design stuff actually fits together with wiring ducts, etc. - think open plan cubicles. And key systems. And single point to go to for assembly and installation.

So not an objection per se.

That contact will include the equipment for HMRC's new Newcastle Office which is 9000 workers.

And 9000 Aeron chairs at full retail (yes cheaper, crappier chairs are available and will be inflicted on HMRC's staff) would cost £12 million at retail prices.

I guess one new large office could take a fair bit of the budget, although one might argue why exactly HMRC needs so many people, nearly 70k in total, given that most of us now do everything tax-related ourselves online.

HMRC doesn't just deal with individual tax returns.

True, but one in a thousand residents of a country working for the taxman?

Country
Tax authority
Staff
Population
% of population
UK
HM Revenue & Customs
~70,000
~70 million
~0.10%
USA
Internal Revenue Service
~90,000
~335 million
~0.03%
France
Direction générale des Finances publiques
~95,000
~65 million
~0.15%
Germany
Bundeszentralamt für Steuern + Länder
~115,000
~84 million
~0.14%
Canada
Canada Revenue Agency
~59,000
~40 million
~0.15%
Australia
Australian Taxation Office
~19,000
~26 million
~0.07%

Does that include Customs?

I don't know, but it's a good question.

If the government does want to fix the birthrate then they need to start working with positive male social influencers like Joey Swoll and family first women influencers to really push home the message that having a family is a good thing, having kids is a blessing, and whatever perceived sacrifices there are don't come close to the emotional rewards of having amazing children in your life everyday.

If male influencers want to influence the TFR then they should be encouraging stay at home dads who are eager to help with the chores, and not just the fun stuff like the cooking.

But I don't think it will make much difference. The drop in TFR is a worldwide phenomenon, even in places not noted for its Woke University professors like Russia and Iran.

TFR still holding up in the poorest but most religious continent, Africa though.

How religious parents of child bearing age are is probably the biggest factor in TFR

Infant mortality is another.

Why are HMRC spending £11m on office furniture?

https://x.com/lnallalingham/status/2003029277759979530

Why do posters who rely on right wing news never spend 20 seconds checking their facts before getting angry?

A quick google of "did hmrc spend 11m furniture?" leads to:

No, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) did not spend £11 million on furniture. Recent news reports indicate that HMRC spent over £1 million on office chairs and other furniture over a three-year period.
Specifically, figures obtained via a Freedom of Information request in 2024 revealed the following spending:
Over £1 million on office chairs
£59,000 on desks
£16,000 on storage units
The spending, which included an £852,000 deal with the seat firm Posturite starting in October 2023, has drawn criticism from groups like the TaxPayers' Alliance, particularly as the purchases were made despite staff only being required to be in the office for a portion of the week.
Other reports referencing £11 million relate to different government initiatives, such as funding for town and city centre recovery schemes or homelessness prevention programmes, not HMRC furniture.

Link to contract. Published last week, value £10.9m to a single supplier.

https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/c2ebc7d5-e787-4fd4-95ec-133629f52f74

Single supplier is to be expected. Uniform styling in office furniture is the norm, especially with the use of open plan design. Also making sure that modular design stuff actually fits together with wiring ducts, etc. - think open plan cubicles. And key systems. And single point to go to for assembly and installation.

So not an objection per se.

That contact will include the equipment for HMRC's new Newcastle Office which is 9000 workers.

And 9000 Aeron chairs at full retail (yes cheaper, crappier chairs are available and will be inflicted on HMRC's staff) would cost £12 million at retail prices.

I guess one new large office could take a fair bit of the budget, although one might argue why exactly HMRC needs so many people, nearly 70k in total, given that most of us now do everything tax-related ourselves online.

HMRC doesn't just deal with individual tax returns.

True, but one in a thousand residents of a country working for the taxman?

This is what Google tells me...

Country     Tax Authority                          Staff     Population      % of Population
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UK          HM Revenue & Customs                   ~70,000   ~70,000,000     ~0.10%
USA         Internal Revenue Service               ~90,000   ~335,000,000    ~0.03%
France      Direction générale des Finances pub.   ~95,000   ~65,000,000     ~0.15%
Germany     Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (+Länder) ~115,000  ~84,000,000     ~0.14%
Canada      Canada Revenue Agency                  ~59,000   ~40,000,000     ~0.15%
Australia   Australian Taxation Office             ~19,000   ~26,000,000     ~0.07%

Worth noting that this doesn't include the US State's tax gathering staff, which are going to be quite significant.

Are we seriously back talking about what “A” customs union, rather than “THE” customs union, looks like in practice?

Ask the Turks what “A” CU looks like, it’s terribly one-sided.

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. Sandpit, easier (and less honest) to try and get us closer and closer to the EU then say "We may as well join seeing as we're already bound by their decisions but currently have no say" than it is to actually make a case for rejoining.

That approach has consistently failed to win over public opinion in Norway, however. But Norway was never foolish enough to volunteer for a damaging separation, and we would have been less foolish to have copied the Norwegian approach from the beginning.

Certainly. But then wankers like Ed Davey and Keir Starmer refused to map anything like that through Parliament when May would have agreed to it and now they are desperately trying to magic up what they could have had if they hadnt been prats.

May’s red lines clearly ruled out a Norway model. It’s May’s and Cameron’s decisions that killed that option.

There's a lot of engineering him into position I think, and Starmer is clearly on board - not sure how else someone openly campaigning for the top job is still in the Cabinet. He is the annointed successor - and always was.

For that reason, I don't think he makes it.

Doubt he is anointed. There was number 10 briefing against him about a month ago.

IMO wouldn't be surprised if Starmer sacks him, says he needs to bring someone in to end the strikes.

And of course, the results in Wales and Scotland will be horrid.

You may see some LD gains from the Tories, Labour and SNP but offset by some LD losses to the Greens and Reform and Plaid

Mark Pack is a good scout and he has been dutifully recording the LD's ups and downs since the GE. It's been generally a pattern of modest progress, and I would expect that to continue through the May contests.

One would think the ID card Bill, and rejoining the EU moving the agenda, are both in the LibDem’s favour?

Mark Pack is standing down as Lib Dem President from January 1st, so he will have more time on his hands (as if!).

I hope to engage him in suggesting ways in which members of the House of Lords can be held to account when they waste the time of the HoL repeatedly spouting inane bollocks into the national conversation, displaying the hinterland of a lobotomised slug.

(That follows a particular recent debate on aspects of 'cycling' where there were peers reading out bits of the Telegraph, and proposing amendments to introduce laws that have already been in law for nearly half a century already.)

Since when has death by dangerous cycling, death by careless cycling or serious injury by dangerous or careless cycling been UK law for cyclists unlike the equivalent death or serious injury offences by dangerous or careless driving for drivers of vehicles?

1 of 2. Fairly serious answer.

You've alighted on non-controversial aspects. Those are the Government proposals, which I've been saying I have no problems with since they were raised on PB 1 or 2 (?) years ago. From my point of view it is tipping Parliamentary time away, which could be far better spent, on 0.3 or 0.5% edge cases, but some Parliamentarians have bees in their bonnets and these are on balance are minor changes that will affect very few people.

The ones I'm more concerned about are crass ignorance followed by vindictiveness. I think you need to read the debate and see what some of Lord Hogan-Howe's (the ex-Met Commissioner) crew are actually proposing *. They are after populist stuff to make their jerking knees feel better, rather than useful measures that will help improvement.

I think you need to read the debate to appreciate the ingrowing gormlessness of this group. One of my more serious concerns is that they have entirely swallowed the fake "disabled people vs cyclists" narrative.

Example: The Government proposal is that sentences for dangerous/careless and death by dangerous/careless should be equalised. No problem with that, as I have said. Though there will be concerns about equal enforcement.

Example: An amendment that cycling on a pavement should be "careless driving". The problem here is that we are made to cycle on shared pavements because that was the law introduced by Conservative Governments in the Cycle Tracks Act 1984, Local Transport Note 1986/1, and the National Cycling Strategy 1996. That has never been improved in most places - London and now Manchester are in some measure recent exceptions.

And long term investment in suitable mobility networks have never been made for periods of more than about a year or two at a time. Since our roads are so dangerous in many places, there is no option. Except of course, like people in wheelchairs we are forced into roads because the pavements are often blocked with dumped motor vehicles. Mr Cameron (or it may have been Ms May) cocking up his legislation, ignoring expert advice as to what he was doing, rendering on road cycle lanes unenforcible in around 2016, did not help.

In principle I can see why in culpability terms simple dangerous or careless driving (and indeed cycling) should be equalised with sentences where serious injury occurs or even potentially death after dangerous or careless driving. In practical terms there aren’t the prison spaces for jailing more dangerous drivers who don’t kill or injure and careless drivers even if they seriously injure or sometimes even if they kill normally just get suspended sentences and community orders not immediate prison terms unless on drink or drugs anyway.

Equating dangerous and mere careless driving in sentencing terms would of course be ridiculous.

I also agree we need more cycle lanes

Thank-you for the reply.

What I'm after from Mark Park is some insight on how to encourage the likes of Lord Hogan-Howe and Baroness Rolfe to improve the quality of their contributions, since at present it is mainly going round in culture war circles. There are linked questions around such as why we do not have universal British Standards required for Lithium Batteries, as we do for say Washing Machines, to deal with fire risks, and tighter control of delivery cycle businesses so that dangerous behaviour is disincentivised rather than encouraged by business models.

On dangerous and careless, there is a definitional problem that I think Government of either side has not even looked at yet which causes dangerous to be charged as careless as the former requires mens rea, and there is endless nitpicking case law.

I'm a big fan of longer term suspended sentences, as an incentive for long-term good behaviour. In the UK we suspend sentences for up to 2 years (3 years is proposed). In Ireland they can do it for a decade.

The differential enforcement problem I highlight is partly imo about Jury identification with a defendant (ie: "I have done that, so it is not guilty"). There was a case this month where a driver near Ipswich went round a blind bend on a narrow road and killed one cyclist in a line of four coming the other way, and was found innocent. The defence was effectively "There was a 1.1m gap, that was enough room for them to fit and the one who was killed was out of line, therefore it was their fault that they were killed". The Jury said "not guilty". Whilst the law is clear that you are required to be able to stop in the room you can see, and leave the cyclist their own width plus 1.5m. Imo that requires a speed round that bend of at most 10-15 mph not the 20-30mph claimed, and the motor vehicle should have stopped for the pass.

(He was actually charged with death by careless; the initial headline was wrong.)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15357139/Accountancy-hit-cyclist-car-country-road-late-childrens-nanny-cleared-death-dangerous-driving.html

On that case he was likely guilty of careless driving as he was charged with even if the jury acquitted him. He should have left a 1.5m gap for all the cyclists.

However the driver was still doing only 30mph in a 60 mph limit road when he approached that bend and was not on his phone or on drugs or drunk. I can see why the jury acquitted him therefore, though there may be a case to make all narrow single track country roads 10 to 20mph limits maximum that is not the law now

It's actually a 2.5m-3.0m width at least - as it is 1.5m plus the space for the cyclist plus the space between the cyclist and the verge / kerb.

The "30 in a 60" fails the most basic teaching. It is a limit not a target, or a safe speed for a road. That's peppered through the entire Highway Code.

So there's zero basis for any Jury to reach that conclusion, and a Judge should point it out when any lawyer tries the argument. Equally with "there was not time to react when he went round the corner". That, like "I was blinded by the sun", is an admission of guilt for careless driving, not a reason or mitigation for a collision.

Insurance Liability Youtuber Big Jobber calls that "Bungalow Behaviour" (ie not much upstairs).

I know that most here will agree on those; I'm cross that the delusional thinking exists.

If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.

I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.

Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.

Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.

If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.

If that was the case, then places like Iran would continue to have really high birth rates.

After all, the media is state controlled, and if there are any "bitter academics who never had kids" then the people don't hear about them.

Iran's birthrate is just above the UK's.

Birth rates have fallen everywhere, which suggests the problem is global in nature.

I don't know about that but I do know how pervasive the anti-kids/anti-family stuff is everywhere across modern media, social media and in universities from bitter older academics who didn't have kids. Again, it's one of those anecdata vs official statistics situations, I guess I just don't believe the same people who try and tell me the sky is green anymore and call me uneducated for disagreeing with them.

The idea that women aren't having children because of "bitter old academics" is ridiculous enough to require a bit more than anecdata.

You really don't know how pervasive it is in universities across western countries. Go out and speak to Gen Z women about their university experiences and what the diet of information was from their professors. I've got cousins who talk about this stuff to my sister and to my wife at family gatherings all the time (both of whom have kids), one of the more delusional ones called my sister a gender traitor for giving up her career for 4 years to concentrate on her family. It's genuinely terrible out there.

On the flip side we've got younger men being fed a diet of the most awful women hating shite on social media and is it any wonder that the birth rate is crashing?

It's not economics or anything rational driving down western birth rates, it goes well beyond that. I say this as someone who was convinced just a few years ago that better economic incentivisation for kids would solve the issue but I realise now that it's so much more complicated than simple maths.

You're a splendid chap Max, but really? How many professors even talk to undergrads if they can help it, let alone about this sort of thing? Not that it doesn't happen at all, but I rather doubt that it happens enough to tilt the statistics.

Go and speak to Gen Z women and even some younger millennials, the attitude is pervasive. Universities have been teaching young women that kids, families etc... are a sacrifice and it sticks with them into later life. My theory is that misery loves company so those bitter childless academics are just passing their loneliness and bitterness onto the next generation.

You also have the problem of how can a family buy a house and get to a stable position in which they can have children.

Back in the 70s that was easy, back in the 90s we were able to do so but those graduating after me found it harder and post 2000 it’s got more and more impossible to buy a home big enough to have children in.

Until that problem is fixed many people are going to see having children as an impossible dream

In the 19th and early 20th centuries their great grandparents and great great grandparents rented their whole lives and still managed to have two, three or more children. Having to wait until your late 30s to be able to buy a home is not as big a factor as the relative decline of religion and more women going to university and having full time careers is in the declining birthrate

Equally at that time no children meant zero support when you got old - remember that was before the State pension arrived..

If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.

I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.

Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.

Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.

If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.

If that was the case, then places like Iran would continue to have really high birth rates.

After all, the media is state controlled, and if there are any "bitter academics who never had kids" then the people don't hear about them.

Iran's birthrate is just above the UK's.

Birth rates have fallen everywhere, which suggests the problem is global in nature.

I don't know about that but I do know how pervasive the anti-kids/anti-family stuff is everywhere across modern media, social media and in universities from bitter older academics who didn't have kids. Again, it's one of those anecdata vs official statistics situations, I guess I just don't believe the same people who try and tell me the sky is green anymore and call me uneducated for disagreeing with them.

The idea that women aren't having children because of "bitter old academics" is ridiculous enough to require a bit more than anecdata.

You really don't know how pervasive it is in universities across western countries. Go out and speak to Gen Z women about their university experiences and what the diet of information was from their professors. I've got cousins who talk about this stuff to my sister and to my wife at family gatherings all the time (both of whom have kids), one of the more delusional ones called my sister a gender traitor for giving up her career for 4 years to concentrate on her family. It's genuinely terrible out there.

On the flip side we've got younger men being fed a diet of the most awful women hating shite on social media and is it any wonder that the birth rate is crashing?

It's not economics or anything rational driving down western birth rates, it goes well beyond that. I say this as someone who was convinced just a few years ago that better economic incentivisation for kids would solve the issue but I realise now that it's so much more complicated than simple maths.

You're a splendid chap Max, but really? How many professors even talk to undergrads if they can help it, let alone about this sort of thing? Not that it doesn't happen at all, but I rather doubt that it happens enough to tilt the statistics.

Go and speak to Gen Z women and even some younger millennials, the attitude is pervasive. Universities have been teaching young women that kids, families etc... are a sacrifice and it sticks with them into later life. My theory is that misery loves company so those bitter childless academics are just passing their loneliness and bitterness onto the next generation.

You also have the problem of how can a family buy a house and get to a stable position in which they can have children.

Back in the 70s that was easy, back in the 90s we were able to do so but those graduating after me found it harder and post 2000 it’s got more and more impossible to buy a home big enough to have children in.

Until that problem is fixed many people are going to see having children as an impossible dream

In the 19th and early 20th centuries their great grandparents and great great grandparents rented their whole lives and still managed to have two, three or more children. Having to wait until your late 30s to be able to buy a home is not as big a factor as the relative decline of religion and more women going to university and having full time careers is in the declining birthrate

Good afternoon

You do know that times change and we live a far better life today despite all the problems we face

And why shouldn't more women go to university and have full time careers

Indeed our daughter in law did both and has three children, the youngest when she was 42