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.

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.

I suspect Max is a 40 something going on 80. Theyve just had a really interesting prog on radio 4 about GenZ girls and their politics and how their social concerns are greater than their male equivalents which is why they are big fans of Zack and Sultana and they care about immigrants and Gaza. It was like an oasis in a desert and quite uplifting.

I have two girls (13, 19) and a boy (16) and it is quite notable the difference in their interests/concerns. The girls are ultra woke, the boy is a bit of an edgelord.

On the other hand my 18 year old son is ultra woke and my 12 year old daughter is showing proto-Thatcherite tendencies.

At 3, 1 and 0 happily we don't have to worry about that yet! I do think this generation is going to be very anti-clanker.

So far as my own 4 adult children in their 20s are concerned, their political outlook seems to shift quite a bit as they hit the 40% tax band.

I think getting a job at all is the next big challenge as quite a few have been saying here, it's very tough out there even for kids with good degrees or a decent skillset.

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.

I suspect Max is a 40 something going on 80. Theyve just had a really interesting prog on radio 4 about GenZ girls and their politics and how their social concerns are greater than their male equivalents which is why they are big fans of Zack and Sultana and they care about immigrants and Gaza. It was like an oasis in a desert and quite uplifting.

I was chatting with my boys over the weekend. Both will be voting Green, as will Fox jrs partner. They are turned off Starmer and the Tories particularly by the Culture war stuff. Fox jr and his other half (female University staff...) interestingly arent planning to vote YP despite being in one of the few YP held seats (Leicester South). Too shambolic it seems. Fox jr2 is really put off by the Transphobia stuff, as his best friend and former flatmate is Trans. Another one for Zack.

No grandchildren yet, but both keen as are their partners.

I would happily vote Labour or Lib Dem, if it were a choose between them and the Green Party, who are essentially communists.

When I look at my next GE vote and my local situation is such that the Greens are in with a genuine shout.

Huddersfield is Labour 1st, Green 2nd at the moment and has the lowest required swing nationality for the Greens, including Bristol seats. But it is not a city central seat where one couldn't possibly imagine Reform coming through the middle. Choose wrong, split the vote and we get a Reform MP, simple as.

Labour, as incumbent, will get some benefit of the doubt with me, but if they are dead as dodos come GE time, I'm perfectly prepared to go Green to defeat Reform. The likely local candidate is excellent and a local councillor I already vote for, so despite Zac, despite knowing I'm aligning myself with the Gaza vote, I will go there if I have to.

Did I avoid voting Corbyn Labour at any election - local, national, European - to end up here? Possibly not, but unless the Greens end up challenging for Downing Street, I think it would be a considerably different circumstance.

Chris Rea has died..

Did he give a lift to a PBer the other day ?

He was from Middlesbrough. Imagine having to drive home to there every year.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c0q5g3v02qjt

I'm there right now.
His brother was our village ice cream van man.

I assumed he was a three hit wonder.

But he was prolific and shifted load of LPs.

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

Kylie must be relieved that he didn't pass away a week earlier, or else it would have been an XMAS number 2 for her.

That song is utter shite, btw.

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

Your methodology is good HYUFD, but I don't think tactical voting is going to be as big this time. Reform have scooped up lots of voters including some SNP, but more from Slab and Scon. As we get closer to polling, these guys won't be backing out. you're right, it's definitely white working class areas where the Labour vote is under severe pressure. The only reason the SNP look like retaining scores of constituency seats is due to the splintering of the unionist vote.

Labour should be worried about the list vote as most of their MSPs are elected there. The guy in Edinburgh Southern should be ok, maybe Jackie Baillie, East Lothian is a possible gain too. There's going to be a squeeze on the list vote in urban Scotland from Reform on the right and the Greens on the left, in rural areas there is a chance for the Lib Dems to come back - can they get their message out?

Elsewhere there could be some gains for other parties in rural Scotland. For the time being, I generally agree with the ballotbox Scotland analysis here

https://ballotbox.scot/ipsos-december-2025/

You are still focusing on 2024 DocG and the last general election in Scotland where indeed more Labour voters have gone Reform than SNP voters have. Since the 2021 Holyrood election though more SNP voters have gone Reform than 2021 Scottish Labour voters have gone Reform, even though the Scottish Tories have lost most to Reform.

Some SNP voters have gone Green even on the constituency vote too not just for the list vote

I think what will do for a Labour comeback is the squeeze their vote is getting from other parties, the list is going to be way more competitive this time.

A lot of independence minded voters are now voting Green, and they won't have won many (if any) constituencies, so expect the Greens to be picking up 2 MSPs in a lot of areas. Ditto Reform, and where Labour previously got 3 or 4 list MSPs in regions, there will now be an almighty fight to get the 5th, 6th and 7th list MSPs.

You are right, the Labour vote of around 18% on the list is static from 2021, but I don't think the results will fall as kindly, if this polling continues. I can't see them getting 4 MSPs in Glasgow, for example, if the Greens are polling as strong, *unless* (big caveat) the Greens start winning constituencies.

The forecast on ballotbox page has Lab losing 3 seats on 2021, list MSPs in each of South, West and North East Scotland. I'm in South Scotland and would struggle to disagree with that, they are not polling as well outside the central belt

On UNS that is underestimating the SNP constituency seats that would go Labour on the projected 4% swing or so from SNP to Labour since 2021 on the constituency vote polls for Holyrood show

Drop in constituency vote is 13% for SNP versus around 6% for Lab. The problem is Labour are starting from so far back, they were more than 10k behind in quite a number of seats . Could easily end up with a string of near misses, less than 2k in it, or they could gain 5%, get more competitive and land a score of seats in central Scotland. Time will tell, I expect Reform to have the burners put on them come April

Er, 'burners' - the weed-burning kind or the Concorde reheat kind, please?

Lol I meant have heat put on them. No weed or phones involved

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

Starmer has made clear he will refuse indyref2 as has Farage. We are a United Kingdom and the devolved parliaments are subordinate to Westminster. Nats were allowed one independence referendum, Madrid refused the Catalan nationalist government even that

You make my case for me

Subservience to Westminster is your demand

It was thanks to Westminster the Scots and Welsh even have a devolved parliament

How generous of them to allow us some pocket money. Similar to what you would do with a 10 year old. TWAT.

Malcolm, in my experience any 10 year old would be grossly insulted if it was suggested if they were as irresponsible with money and indeed pretty much anything else as the Holyrood government. The level of governance and competence there is much more akin to pre-school.

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.

I suspect Max is a 40 something going on 80. Theyve just had a really interesting prog on radio 4 about GenZ girls and their politics and how their social concerns are greater than their male equivalents which is why they are big fans of Zack and Sultana and they care about immigrants and Gaza. It was like an oasis in a desert and quite uplifting.

I have two girls (13, 19) and a boy (16) and it is quite notable the difference in their interests/concerns. The girls are ultra woke, the boy is a bit of an edgelord.

On the other hand my 18 year old son is ultra woke and my 12 year old daughter is showing proto-Thatcherite tendencies.

I hope like me you are gently guiding them both to the mushy centrist dad worldview.

They’re getting there. Need to guard against overshoot though.

After my LTN experience today I’m off to join the taxpayers alliance.

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.

It is but even in the UK Christian evangelicals and Muslims and still to an extent Roman Catholic and Orthodox Jew parents have more children on average than atheist parents do

Which is weird, when you think about it.

Because atheist parents know their kids won't be going to hell. While it has to be a constant worry for the more religiously minded.

The hope is though for religious parents their children will go to heaven if they follow God, Jesus, Muhammad etc

Well, if Revelation 7:4 and 14:1 are correct, then only 144,000 people are going to heaven over the entire history of humankind.

So, statistically, the chance don't look good.

Jesus made clear that all who trust and follow him go to heaven. As atheists like you are largely responsible for declining fertility a bit more humility would be a good thing, even if you yourself have produced some heirs

Also, I'm agnostic, not atheist.

I admit, I'm on the militant, prosthelitizing hard line wing of agnostics.

But I'm definitely on the agnostic rather than atheist side of the fence.

Hedging your bets without clearly committing to one side or the other, as usual RCS

Was it Micahael Palin who said he was an Agnostic but with serious doubts?

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

My Dad was born in 1946. For the first few months his parents lived with my Dad's grandparents. Then my Dad's Dad returned to university to finish his degree, and they rented a cottage on a farm outside Bristol. My Grandad remembered having to patch the walls regularly after mice chewed their way through.

They weren't in a stable position. They didn't own a home. They just got on with it. Now my Dad owns a house worth £2m, so it didn't do him any harm, and I don't think his upbringing was why he failed to complete his Cambridge Maths PhD.

Being in a stable position helps. Look at Mary and Joseph!