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).

KonnieLingus Wed 04-Sep-13 12:59:56

MamaToMany your surplus children will be redistributed amongst those who do not exceed the quota.

This is absolutely a benefit bashing thread.

BrokenSunglasses Wed 04-Sep-13 13:01:05

YANBU, I agree with you. But I don't just think the birth rate should be reduced because of school places, there aren't enough of many thing to go round, like homes or jobs, even spaces in hospitals and prisons.

Apart from any of that, children cost money, and people are aware of that when they choose to conceive them. The taxpayer should not have to fund children that people can't afford, but it would be wrong to try and stop people having children at all. So limiting child related benefits to two children would have a positive effect on many problems.

Mumoftwoyoungkids Wed 04-Sep-13 13:20:48

Why not just improve the standard of telly program's?

(Looks down at 3 month old and remembers that it was rubbish this time last year.)

Seriously though - we have an average birth rate of 1.96 and an aging population. The current baby boom is likely to be temporary. (And allegedly there is one at the moment due to 50 shades of grey.)

Mamatomanymunchkins Wed 04-Sep-13 13:21:09

konnie agree, complete benefit bashing ~ however OP, not everyone with children receives benefits and I don't think benefits are so huge as to encourage people to have more than 2 children anyway x

utreas Wed 04-Sep-13 13:22:13

YABVU Even a superficial look at the demographic structure of the country will tell you why the OP is both wrong and ridiculous

NK493efc93X1277dd3d6d4 Wed 04-Sep-13 13:26:47

YANBU at all just sensible. However there will be lots of people taking offence here as they just cannot help taking it personally.

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou Wed 04-Sep-13 13:30:03

cuckinfunt British born women have slightly less births than migrants. Something like 1.8 compared to 2.5. It's pretty rare for any women to have 4 or more children, much more common to only have one child. My children go to a large( 2 form entry) Catholic school with a huge migrant population. One family (british) have 4 children, most people have 2, I would guess around a third have 1. My dd has 11 Eastern European children in her class, 10 of them are onlys. They are Y5 so it's quite possible that they will remain onlys.

The birth rate just isn't that high, it's less than 2 so how is trying to bring it 'down' to 2 even remotely helpful?

MortifiedAdams Wed 04-Sep-13 13:31:42

Maybe migrant children should be at the bottom.of the priorities list for places at schools?

SilverApples Wed 04-Sep-13 13:33:38

'OMG ~ I've got 5 ~ what shall I do with the surplus 3?!?!'

They will be bussed to somewhere with falling roles. Possibly Grimsby or somewhere in Dorset. They will double up as house elves to keep the school running and you can come and get them in the holidays.

HeySoulSister Wed 04-Sep-13 13:34:09

Ha ha so where is the op? Wanted a discussion on this.....started one..... And buggered off?

thecatfromjapan Wed 04-Sep-13 13:34:56

I think OP had his mobile 'phone confiscated by one of his teachers. smile

cantdoalgebra Wed 04-Sep-13 13:35:41

Reading these threads, it is obviously better to shout very loudly so that no reasonable discussion can take place about how many people the earth, or our own country, can support and to what level that support might be. Burying heads in sand is, of course, another option.

specialsubject Wed 04-Sep-13 13:36:40

the bizarre thing is that this appears to be a surprise. Every single birth in this country is registered so it should not be difficult to know how many kids will want primary education.

the other half is immigration, which is probably harder to track but still possible.

I don't see all the new housing estates coming equipped with a school, or even a corner shop.

BTW the 'one-child' policy does seem to result in population drop, because in the countries where it has been implemented there has been a mysterious drop in the number of girls born. So a generation later there are far fewer women to have the babies. Not good.

morethanpotatoprints Wed 04-Sep-13 13:37:51

YABU

The schools round here, a large town in the NW have very small classes many having under 25.
London is busy of course many more people live there.
If there is a shortfall of places there should be more schools. Why should people have fewer children because London is busy.
You could always move up here, we have small classes and lots of school fields. grin

Callani Wed 04-Sep-13 13:44:11

Maybe migrant children should be at the bottom.of the priorities list for places at schools?

Fantastic idea Mortified - does that include me moving my brats from Birmingham to Yorkshire or just immigrants from other countries?

I can think of nothing better than banishing all nasty furrin kids from schools so they never learn English and grow up in sink estates... that's one way to really encourage a positive society \sarcasm

TrueStory Wed 04-Sep-13 13:44:34

Well, OP, you are definitely not being unreasonable. My son also cannot get a school place. Though I think you are a brave lady to raise this on MN!

There is obviously a serious overpopulation crisis, not just in UK (which is a small country at the end of the day), but in the world generally. The housing crisis is massive and it is getting worse every decade.

Our local schools are not full. Move here. They're building new houses nobody wants so you'll get a bargain.

::solves crisis::

filee777 Wed 04-Sep-13 13:46:50

See I couldn't give a monkeys whether its a 'local gal' or a 'bloody immigrant' having the babies. There are just too many of them!

Limiting benefits for families just means that we spend more on law enforcement and via services, including the prison system and health/SS. It is cheaper and easier to throw a small sum of money to those that need it, the low paid, the disabled than to keep the UK's standard of living as it should be.

Every piece of research shows that migrants are the cause of the UK's rising birth rate, so the world's population isn't getting bigger, people are just moving to where there is a reasonable Welfare system.

It has been shown, by again numerous studies that there is no correlation between benefits and family size.

What we need is Town planning that is "on the ball", but then the politicians would have to admit to what is happening and about to get worse and that certainly will not happen.

It is always lower working class Western women who are told that they must control their fertility, I could imagine the out roar that suggesting that many across Africa, the EU and India etc should be doing their bit to solve this appearant over population of the planet.

Come up North, we don't have any of these problems, we have little employment, but school places and housing are a-plenty.

TrueStory Wed 04-Sep-13 13:57:58

Just to clarify, the world populations is growing, its not just people moving about hmm.

1999 - 6 billion
2011 - 7 billion
2025 - 8 billion
2043 - 9 billion.

(These are UN actual and projected figures).

This obviously creates a massive strain on world resources, both national and international, as well as destroying wildlife freely existing.

There are lots of reasons as to why the planet looks as though it is becoming overcrowded, some are environmental, to many people are being packed into a ever growing smaller area that sustain them.

There is more arable land being dedicated to growing food for cows and coffee/ chocolate etc, trees cut down for "holiday villages" has meant that deserts have formed quicker than they should.

Women giving birth isn't the biggest issue our planet faces.

morethanpotatoprints Wed 04-Sep-13 14:08:06

Whenever I travel from the North to South I pass lots of green unpopulated areas and beautiful countryside. It seems like the problem really only exists in the South.
I can't believe that sterilisation has been given as a serious solution to the over crowding of the Southern cities and towns.
Its usually at least page 16 before the s word is used. Shame on you and pity your dc, growing up listening to such a vile attitude.

BlazinStoke Wed 04-Sep-13 14:23:06

OP my DCs 2 and 3 are twins. Please let me know how your proposals for a brave new world would have dealt with that situation.

filee777 Wed 04-Sep-13 14:34:46

Well blazin I would suggest you plan to support your own children.

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