to think that when there is a schools place crisis perhaps the government should think of ways to reduce birth rates?

(648 Posts)

MNHQ have commented on this thread.

jellysandwich Wed 04-Sep-13 10:27:30

In my area (London) there is already a huge shortfall in places because there has been a baby boom. They are constantly opening new schools or creating bulge classes but this is often at the expense of other children who lose their playing fields and there is just not enough room in London to keep opening new schools and there is already a housing crisis because the country is so overcrowded.

I think perhaps it is time the government thought about limiting child related benefits to 2 children (which is the replacement rate) and those that want to have more can do so but not with taxpayers money. It would go some way to stopping some of the problems that rising birthrates create such as the school places crisis, overcrowding, pollution, increasing struggles for resources such as food and water and in an already overpopulated world I think the government is being negligent in not putting some sort of limit on child related benefits, especially when it seems to be counter-intuitive (if you work you don't get more money each time you have another child).

thecatfromjapan Wed 04-Sep-13 10:32:01

I suggest you do a little research into what is causing the rising birthrate. Quite a lot of it is migration, particularly European migration.

I give you three starts for managing to controvery-up this subject. One of those stars being for the complete novelty of what you have added. You have definite potential showing there.

Might I suggest you try tacking on compulsory migration? Sending proles to the Outer Hebrides? I think you could stitch that in quite easily if you tweak benefits being linked to where people have to live, perhaps?

Have a good day. smile

Pinkpinot Wed 04-Sep-13 10:32:04

Really??
Seriously??

SalaciousBCrumb Wed 04-Sep-13 10:32:31

And how would that help with the baby boom you admit we've already had? Shall we shove them back up inside their mothers' wombs?

MOST people don't have large families. The problem is not caused by lots of large families; it's caused by lots of people having a child or two. How would you propose to deal with that - compulsory Mirenas all round unless you can get a licence to have it removed, only available by applying to your local council who tally it with future school places?

thecatfromjapan Wed 04-Sep-13 10:32:43

"Three stars". Don't know where the random "t" came from.

duchessandscruffy Wed 04-Sep-13 10:33:06

You're gonna get your arse handed to you on a plate on this one......

ginmakesitallok Wed 04-Sep-13 10:35:50

London and the South may be overcrowded, the rest of the country isn't. With an increasingly elderly population we need to increase birth rates to ensure enough people and cash to look after them

gordyslovesheep Wed 04-Sep-13 10:35:50

And how would that help with the baby boom you admit we've already had? Shall we shove them back up inside their mothers' wombs? grin brilliant!

Maybe not allowing house builders to build massive developments without contributing to improving facilities locally may also be an issue

Where I am we get a new estate every year - the town has doubled in size in 10 years - but no new schools - maybe some of their profit could be plowed into building more schools?

angelos02 Wed 04-Sep-13 10:36:43

YANBU. I once suggested giving childless couples money - a sort of rebate for saving the country money on education, NHS etc. I got flamed and no doubt will again. water, ducks, back.

Ev1lEdna Wed 04-Sep-13 10:39:10

Ah quite right OP that'll sort it. Perhaps we could introduce the same sort of sterilization programme they had in 1960s America and target specific 'problem' groups by way of enforcement of your proposals.

Super, all sorted. When are you running for PM?

gordyslovesheep Wed 04-Sep-13 10:40:24

or maybe follow the success of China's amazing one child policy - that worked so well grin

SilverApples Wed 04-Sep-13 10:43:02

What you need is an architectural revolution with new schools designed for the 21st century and radical rethinks as to use of space. Then you need a lot of funding to build them, and you need a lot of excellent teachers to staff them.
But you seem to think of London children as vermin, OP. Which is very mid-19th century thinking.

gordyslovesheep Wed 04-Sep-13 10:44:15

what you mean something like the Building Schools for the future program?

angelos02 Wed 04-Sep-13 10:53:19

Worrying about overcrowding is a very real concern. The world has finite resources. The UK has a small land mass. etc.

yetanotherworry Wed 04-Sep-13 10:53:41

Governments used to do this, didn't they? Wasn't 'family allowance' introduced as a way to encourage people to have more babies? I suspect the phasing out of child benefit has a lot to do with population control as well as money-saving.

Personally I think the size of the population is a problem. When you consider the fact that everywhere is busier than 10 years ago, there are more cars travelling on the roads, trains are busier etc. There has to be a limit to the number of people the UK can support. Its all very well saying we need more housing and more schools but I happen to like green space. I think it would be a shame if the Uk ended up like cities such as Hong Kong which are overbuilt and very polluted (although very green in places).

BTW the baby boom and school crisis is not limited to London. It exists in many parts of the country.

SilverApples Wed 04-Sep-13 10:53:55

Sort of, but I'd like to see schools designed better. Like the wittering on about playing fields which are often not the best use of space and are often unusable for half the year or more.

Fakebook Wed 04-Sep-13 10:56:49

Ok OP. Lets sterilise everyone with 2 children and abort all third babies, and distribute all step children to other families so everyone has 2 children each. Great idea. You should be proud.

hmm.

SilverApples Wed 04-Sep-13 10:58:03

Well, you could export everyone over 70 in the SE. That would leave most of the coast free. Or do a Logan's Run Reality TV show.

Meglet Wed 04-Sep-13 11:06:37

FWIW 2 babies isn't actually the replacement rate. They don't all make it to adulthood. There's a good book on this called 'Peoplequake'. Birth rates are dropping virtually everywhere. IIRC there will be a period of 'peak baby' then the worldwide population will drop. Even in developing countries women are having fewer children than they used to.

And YABU.

angelos02 Wed 04-Sep-13 11:06:55

Lets just ignore the issue then & expect everyone other than the very rich to live in 100 storey high tower blocks.

YoungGirlGrowingOld Wed 04-Sep-13 11:07:57

With an increasingly elderly population we need to increase birth rates to ensure enough people and cash to look after them

Hmmm...afraid I don't buy this Ponzi-scheme argument. More babies = more elderly people to be looked after when their time comes. We are a small island and cannot accomodate ever-increasing numbers of immigrants or births. I think the OP makes a reasonable point - and my DP is a first generation immigrant before anyone starts accusing me of Little-Englander-ness!

KonnieLingus Wed 04-Sep-13 11:16:33

How many children do you have OP?

Benefits are given to those on low or no income to ensure they can live. Are you suggesting that only those who can afford private education can have more than two children? What if I agreed to home school my children,could I then have more than two?

rattlemehearties Wed 04-Sep-13 11:16:43

Do your homework OP. The school places shortages happened in London because schools had been closed despite birth rates rising. The government saw birth rates rising and didn't think 4/5 years ahead and start expanding schools/opening new ones. We need birth rates to rise to create a working population.

rattlemehearties Wed 04-Sep-13 11:19:01

Also no one I know had children to get benefits! Many large families I know have parents who both earn. Your argument is nonsensical.

izchaz Wed 04-Sep-13 11:21:14

Ooh this makes me fizz with rage. If you're going to suggest something as radical and life limiting as trying to control family unit size as a method of population management could you please do some research into what your talking about? Population replacement rates and statistics gleaned from census data are hugely important in terms of charting population trends. Across the Westernised world populations are falling, and there are two reasons for that:
1) emancipation of women and the ability to control their fertility: give a woman a choice about her childbearing years and she will choose what is right for her (coincidentally often in line with what the population needs - see post war/famine/plague baby booms throughout history)
2) education of women. Statistics from WHO and other world population charting agencies show that educating women to a higher standard and for longer slows their birth rate, and in most cases causes them to birth children later in life.

So if you want to slow population growth or maintain a population level DON'T take money out of the pockets of the people, but emancipate and educate the women. We hold the key to our own fertility, and will use it wisely if given the chance. Build more schools, make education more accessible, set up women's funds to help disadvantaged women into education and onto birth control and WATCH as the birth rate magically does what you want it to.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now