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. Read here.

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.

Souredstones Wed 04-Sep-13 11:21:41

I'm in an area where estates are being slapped up at a rate of knots but no amenities to go with them, no schools or shops or adequate roads or public transport...

Why isn't the onus on developers to provide infrastructure? It's all very well meeting housing targets but most areas now can't cope with the influx if people (London overspill for instance). It's getting ridiculous now.

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Wed 04-Sep-13 11:25:08

I was going to suggest compulsory sterilization but fakebook beat me to it.

OnTheBottomWithAWomensWeekly Wed 04-Sep-13 11:25:27

Maybe you should just leave London. It's not the capital of the fucking world, despite what most people who live there think.

Souredstones Wed 04-Sep-13 11:27:57

The other issue, at the other end of the scale, is in coastal regions there is a massive influx of elderly people retiring there from out of county and contributing nothing to the county but taking a lot. The elderly are a huge cost to a counties resources.

Resources that could be spent on building schools.

Partly why elderly people should sell up to pay for their care.

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou Wed 04-Sep-13 11:29:36

The UK fertility rate is 1.96, so under replacement level anyway. YABU, and also short sighted.

The thing that bugs me about the 'first two children' thing is it really means women can have two children. Men can have as many as they please, just so long as they don't go down on the birth cert, and anyway, people don't opt against having a 3rd child for the sake of £13.40 a week.

Callani Wed 04-Sep-13 11:31:37

OP, I think you've raised a real issue but your proposed solution is slightly faulty at best.

The main issue with overcrowded schools in London and the South East has much less to do with the birth rate (which is still holding pretty steady) than it is to do with forced migration.

The key issue is that there are WAY more and a far better variety of jobs in London than elsewhere and so, if you work in some industries, you have no choice but to move to the South East. People who move to London for their career then have kids there and boom, overcrowded schools.

I was very fortunate (for my personal preferences) in that I've managed to escape London and get a good job where I'd prefer to live, but many people don't have that choice. Of my school and uni friends about 80% are now in and around London and a lot of them went there out of necessity.

This causes a talent drain from all other areas, leaves home towns with a disproportionately high percentage of tax dependent people rather than tax payers as well as turning London into an overcrowded monstrosity with ever rising rents.

It'd be best to tackle that issue before you start on anything as drastic as forced birth control.

Callani Wed 04-Sep-13 11:38:58

IThinkOf I've never thought of it like that before - I guess in China where they do control the birth rate they're far more traditional and it's easy enough to limit both of the parents...

Succubi Wed 04-Sep-13 11:42:00

As I understand it, the basis of the Welfare State in this country is about social responsibility. Beveridge recommended to the government of his day that they should find ways of tackling the five giants, being Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness. He argued to cure these problems, the government should provide adequate income to people, adequate health care, adequate education, adequate housing and adequate employment. It was proposed that all people of working age should pay a weekly National Insurance contribution. In return, benefits would be paid to people who were sick, unemployed, retired or widowed.

The ideal set out by Beveridge is in many ways simply that an ideal but it is a gem that needs to be preserved.

The reality here is that the welfare pot is limiting and we all have a social responsibility. The welfare state was set up to help people in poverty and hardship. Quite frankly it makes me livid when people get upset when anyone suggests that Child Benefit should be limited to two children.

The welfare state is already under huge strain and matters will only continue to get worse. As far as I can see it is not unreasonable to suggest that help be limited in these circumstances.

I know I have slightly gone off on a tangent but the comments that its not fair that only rich people can have more than two children makes my blood boil. Welcome to the real world. Life is inherently unfair.

YoungGirlGrowingOld Wed 04-Sep-13 11:46:17

Soured I don't disagree with paying for their care, but many elderly people feel they have contributed their whole lives already and believed it would be provided by the NHS. I would be in favour of much greater transparency of what the state will and will not provide, including child benefit, so that people can budget and plan acordingly - purchasing top-up insurance where necessary. Anyway, totally off-topic. :-)

Souredstones Wed 04-Sep-13 11:48:34

But we can't afford it. There is a finite amount in the social care pot and, sorry, but the priority should be children's education.

It riles me knowing a person can live and pay taxes in one county then move and take a large amount in social care from another that they haven't contributed to.

Don't know why. It just does.

Souredstones Wed 04-Sep-13 11:49:07

I agree with a top up insurance and also feel you should have to pay a levy to a new county

VodkaJelly Wed 04-Sep-13 11:49:40

I have just had my 4th DC, I did that soley to get the extra £40 a month in child benefit. The cost of formula, clothes, nappies, nursery fees etc is easily covered by the £40 a month the government gives me. Infact, if they had announced that they were limiting child benefit to 2 children I would have had serious second thoughts about having my 4th child. Really, i would have, really.

jessieagain Wed 04-Sep-13 11:52:44

Maybe a solution to the overcrowded schools issue is too raise the school starting age to 6 or 7 like most of Europe.

turkeyboots Wed 04-Sep-13 11:53:28

Like others above I live in an area which has massive New build estates. And massive post war, 70s, 80s etc etc estates. Families live in the new areas, their parents in the 80s developments and their grannies in the post war ones.

None of the estates had enough schools when they were first built. And once built have a 15 to 20 year lifespan before being closed as there are few children nearby. Planners and developers need to be forced to build schools, and pre schools and community facilities.

filee777 Wed 04-Sep-13 11:59:31

Lol at the ridiculous drama queens ranting about abortion.

In this country, on a low income, you get 80 odd quid a week for each child you have. That is NOT the actions of a government or society who understands the importance of food and air. I don't want a country chocka block full of people who can't get jobs or housing so just keep making more people. It's ludicrous,

Of course it's fair to cut all child related benefits to two children. Learn to feed your brood on 160 a week plus income support/jsa or wage or stop having them.

Fairy1303 Wed 04-Sep-13 12:01:23

Brilliant idea OP.

Whilst we're at it why don't we enforce that all third children in the existing families are shipped abroad.

If we then enforce sterilisation after the birth of the second child and pay those who stick to the rules, we'd be well in.
There are probably lots if ideas from china we could adopt.

I have a step daughter who I look after full time and a small baby, am I allowed another one or do I have to stick to one baby because her mother can't be bothered to look after her?

YABU.

blueberryupsidedown Wed 04-Sep-13 12:02:03

As a temporary emergency solution to part of the problem, all schools in all classes all over the country should take on 31 children instead of 30 and be given budget for more qualitied support staff and TAs. That would solve part of the problem in a temporary way, until more schools are built.

Jan49 Wed 04-Sep-13 12:10:22

I do feel very strongly that people should aim to stop at 2 children, that is, I don't think people should be making the decision to have 3 + children, though obviously there are families with 3+ children who were unplanned or multiple births. We live in a massively overpopulated world and we can't just keep adding to the population and straining the resources as happens now. BTW I've got one child (adult). I don't think whether a person can afford more children or not is relevant. Their children will still be using resources and adding to the number of people on the planet whether their parents get child benefit or other benefits or not.

But I'm not sure it's particularly relevant to the issue of overcrowded London schools. If that's where the jobs are, people will move there and send their children to school there. Perhaps the answer would be for the government to encourage more companies to move away from London to places where housing and rent is cheaper and employees will have a better journey to work, cheaper living conditions, etc.

Pendeen Wed 04-Sep-13 12:13:48

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

This already happens; developers have contributed millions of pounds towards public facilities and infrastructure improvements via so-called Section 106 Agreements however the government is scaling back this system and at the same time easing planning restrictions to encourage growth in house building.

As an Architect, I am torn between my (quite natural) desire to keep my fellow Architects and me in work - although precious few housebuilders actually employ or use qualified Architects - sad and a deep sense of unease about what is likely to be poorly thought out and badly-regulated developments exacerbated by less Section 106 contributions from the housebuilders and their financial backers.

BeCool Wed 04-Sep-13 12:16:42

I am in London and I am struggling to think of more than one family at DD's school who have more than 2 children.

So even if the govt were to implement your "idea" I doubt it would make a dent in the school population.

We've had a huge very posh housing/apartment development built around the corner. When the massive site was first walled off they were advertising that they were also building a new primary school on site. Then that billboard/wall was removed. Now the development is nearly complete and flats are selling for millions - and no school!

ouryve Wed 04-Sep-13 12:17:07

Why don't they just go the whole hog, jellysandwich and sterilise poor people? hmm

Mamatomanymunchkins Wed 04-Sep-13 12:27:01

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

cuckinfunt Wed 04-Sep-13 12:27:02

Is it poor people or is it immigrants who have a culture of large families?

Jan49 Wed 04-Sep-13 12:52:58

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

Obviously no one is suggesting you have to get rid of the ones you have. hmm

IneedAsockamnesty Wed 04-Sep-13 12:57:33

How very silly

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.

TrueStory Wed 04-Sep-13 14:41:27

Coffee, cows, holiday villages? confused. The main use of arable land in the world is actually growing grains and has been thus since we stopped being hunter-gatherers and became land settlers and had much larger families as a result. Historical fact.

comingalongnicely Wed 04-Sep-13 14:43:37

LOL, have as many as you like - as long as you can afford them.

I totally agree that benefits should only be paid for the first 2.

If you can't afford more than 2 then don't have them. Simples

Sure it's your right to have more, it's my right to expect you to feed & clothe them...

BlazinStoke Wed 04-Sep-13 14:55:39

Filee - the OP was suggesting that CB should not be available after 2 children, presumably to act as a disincentive to conceive additional children. In my circumstance, which is hardly unusual, should I get CB for the third child or not under the OP's policy.
Anyway Filee I'm sure youll be delighted to know that I did and continue to make adequate provision for my children. Thank you for your helpful advice.

filee777 Wed 04-Sep-13 14:57:40

I don't think it really matters does it? Two kids get child related benefits, including tax credits and you learn to adjust for the rest.

BlazinStoke Wed 04-Sep-13 15:02:09

But it does matter Filee. Is CB to be capped as a disincentive to future conceptions or as a punishment? Parents of twins don't choose to have a multiple birth. So is he proposal a disincentive or a punishment?

filee777 Wed 04-Sep-13 15:11:02

But some people have accidental pregnancies too, it's simple, gov pays for 2 kids and no more

BlazinStoke Wed 04-Sep-13 15:16:13

So your policy is based on punishment and not disincentive. Lovely.

filee777 Wed 04-Sep-13 15:17:13

Nope, it's based on money and sense.

filee777 Wed 04-Sep-13 15:18:05

Only in the uk could giving someone up to 160 quid a week be a 'punishment'

LadyInDisguise Wed 04-Sep-13 15:29:37

Can someone explain me how we have a baby boom if the natality rate is under 2.00??
I mean we are under the number needed to maintain the pillar ion (which us 2.4) so wo immigration, the population of the uk would actually be going down...,

The issue isn't a baby boom, it's an increase of number if children born in a certain area that is higher that the capacity planned by our political leaders.

So my advice is...
Just fire any politician who hasn't been able to plan the increase in children number in his area as they have been failing at their job.
Do you think that would help? wink

jellyandcake Wed 04-Sep-13 15:32:19

So does that mean you feel it is irresponsible to plan a pregnancy unless you can afford for it to be twins?

And on another tangent, what happens in China if you become pregnant with twins under the one-child policy? It seems to me that multiple births are unexpected and you can't plan in advance for it to happen so it doesn't seem fair to punish people for it.

BlazinStoke Wed 04-Sep-13 15:37:34

Jellyandcake - I've wondered about that too (re China)
Filee appears to believe that a multiple birth is a failure of "sense". As Fillee also believes that a child can net £160 a week for it's parents then I think he/she is living in Daily Express land and I shan't bother to engage with him/her anymore.

LadyInDisguise Wed 04-Sep-13 15:37:49

Btw the increase in the world population is a real issue. But you need to have a look at each individual country.
In Europe, there is a deficit of birth which will create some big issues in the coming years. Not just how do we pay for their pension. But also who is going to look after them, who is going to work in the factories and offices if there is less people around?
Our system is based on constant economical growth so not enough people to work IS an issue.
The answer to that of course is immigration, which we already do to cover shortages in some professions for example. But you are left with other issues on how to integrate the migrants. And issues on managing immigration

None of it is easy and this needs an answer that will take the full

BlazinStoke Wed 04-Sep-13 15:40:19

Jellyandcake - just realise you are the OP - what is your answer to my question about CB for the third child where he/she is the second of a multiple birth?

LadyInDisguise Wed 04-Sep-13 15:40:19

Sorry ....
The fil picture into account rather than being vet short sighted and looking at what is happening on a local basis on a specific year.

Eg on our area, 2003 had a high number of baby and school places were far in between. Move on 2 years later, in 2005, there was less babies born than planned do classes are all small for that year.

filee777 Wed 04-Sep-13 15:41:16

No we are talking about benefits for 2 children

Which is 160 a week, 15 odd on cb and the rest on ctc.

Plenty to feed three children on.

jellyandcake Wed 04-Sep-13 15:46:55

Blazin it's on my mind atm as I'm six weeks pregnant and keep thinking 'argh, what if it's twins' (which would make my total three children, completely not what I've planned for!). I wasn't prepared to not have anymore children on the offchance it could be twins but I would struggle financially if it was whereas I can afford a singleton. That's the problem with planning ahead - you can't foresee every eventuality, you just have to do your best to make sensible decisions.

BlazinStoke Wed 04-Sep-13 15:47:11

You're funny Filee smile smile smile

jellyandcake Wed 04-Sep-13 15:47:50

No I'm not the OP!

BlazinStoke Wed 04-Sep-13 15:49:47

So jelly if your second turns out to be twins or more would it be fair that DC3 was denied CB? That seems to be what your are advocating in your original post.

BlazinStoke Wed 04-Sep-13 15:51:07

Sorry jellyandcake! Ignore my last post!

jellyandcake Wed 04-Sep-13 15:52:04

And Blazin I feel the same as you that if you withdraw CB after two then it's unfair to parents of multiple s who couldn'tforesee that happening.

Not sure where the figure of £160 comes from - ctc depends on income so would vary rather than being a fixed sum that everyone gets?

Loa Wed 04-Sep-13 16:11:07

Ten years ago the local area I'm in was closing down several smaller primary schools - as there was an excess of places. They are now/ or have merged secondary schools to reduce places for the same reason.

Currently there are just enough Primary school places but the next few years have even higher numbers of children so places even at undesirable schools are getting harder to get.

I can't help thinking there will be a completely unforeseen crisis of places in 6 -8 years time at secondary level.

While immigration may play a part in some areas - I would image London would be an example and I think Bristol has UK based relocation as issue- some areas like mine don't have a large immigrate population or population movement skewing figure.

After the second world war - birth rate boomed - creating a bulge in population now their children are in their 30s - prime age these days for starting/having families so even though less of the total number of fertile adults have children and often fewer DC there was always going to be a bulge in the children figures.

It's not a new problem - only have to look at Primary school pages to know that - but one that has gotten steadily worse exacerbated no doubt by the recession meaning fewer families scan afford Private schools.

Polices such as Academias and free schools - often not step up in areas of greatest shortages of places - taking the number of places out of LEA control probably haven't helped.

It is a failure of planning for a completely foreseeable event at both national and local levels. To link it to large families and benefits - is at best bizarre.

DuckToWater Wed 04-Sep-13 16:17:04

If we all stopped having babies the human race would die out in 100 years. Who should be 'allowed' to have them?

Loa Wed 04-Sep-13 16:35:03

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom

Has a population chart - you can see the post second world war baby boom - then 20 years later slightly smaller boom - then at the bottom 20-30 years later start of third again smaller population budge.

It's not because people are having larger families - it's more people at peak age to start families at certain points in time.

Obviously that nationally and local variations are going to play on top of that.

filee777 Wed 04-Sep-13 16:44:30

That's why I said 'up to' 160 in my original post.

dirtyface Wed 04-Sep-13 16:49:28

i don't live in the south. i live in a large midlands city, and my city is, IMO, very overcrowded

not sure what the solution is TBH :/

FrigginRexManningDay Wed 04-Sep-13 16:52:13

Enough to feed three children on maybe but not enough to lift them out of the poverty trap. Investing in children now means less adults and families to support in the future.

JerseySpud Wed 04-Sep-13 16:59:13

gets the popcorn out and makes herself comfortable

dysfunctionallynormal Wed 04-Sep-13 17:00:01

@catfromjapan - migration is NOT the msi cause of overpopulation. I think you'll find that 'indiginous' people having large families for benefit purposes is a contributory factor,as is the number of teenage pregnancies and older mothers. Also the fact that we have very good health care and are living longer.

Pisses me off when people try to blame all the social ills in this country on immigrants and 'foreigners'.

SubliminalMassaging Wed 04-Sep-13 17:03:50

Maybe we should give CB for children 1 and 2, nothing for numbers three and four, and then start clawing it back in an 'excess child tax' from 5 onwards.

dysfunctionallynormal Wed 04-Sep-13 17:04:08

Angelos02 - i love ya! :-D i think that child free people should be be given a tax rebate.

HappyMummyOfOne Wed 04-Sep-13 17:04:12

Its a failure of planning and the population growing.

I think capping CB at 2 could cause problems as people would moan re not being able to have x children or a new family with a partner who already has two children. Would be far better to scrap CB and instead plough the money into schools and hospitals etc to cope. People are then free to have children but at their own expense and numbers would reduce themselves as less would have children knowing they didnt come with benefits.

dysfunctionallynormal Wed 04-Sep-13 17:12:18

@konnielingus- unless there had been a recent change,ALL parents are entitled to and recieve child benefit if they apply for it - regardless of their income.

I met quite a few trust fund babies and rich kids whilst living in SW london and they recieved it. It paid for their horse riding/ballet/acting lessons or it went into their savings accounts.

BlazinStoke Wed 04-Sep-13 17:15:03

Excess child tax? Tax rebate for childless adults? And perhaps parents could be given help and support for producing the next generation who will do all the work when the current generation is old and decrepit.

morethanpotatoprints Wed 04-Sep-13 17:18:17

The problem is not enough schools though. Even in our area where classes are small schools have been closed and then whoops they're needed again. Its National and local gov who need to get their act together where planning is concerned. It isn't a case of family planning.
When your LEA seem surprised by the number of children needing school places in a particular year, there is something fundamentally wrong, irrespective of how many children there are.

dirtyface Wed 04-Sep-13 17:18:49

anyway as for child related benefits such as child benefit and tax credits (ie benefits people get whether they are in work OR unemployed)- IMO the real problem is the extortionate cost of living ie housing / food / petrol / water / gas / electric. if these were affordable on minimum to average wages, there would be no need to pay benefits to people in work.

why are the powers that be not working to sort that out??

bit of a tangent i know but relevant i think

comingalongnicely Wed 04-Sep-13 17:19:41

Ooh, I like "excess child tax", that'd learn 'em!!

@ HappyMummyOfOne "I think capping CB at 2 could cause problems as people would moan re not being able to have x children or a new family with a partner who already has two children."

As long as they can afford to have them without handouts, they can breed away!!

I really can't understand why people think that others should fund their liefstyles. If you were a Paraglider or Horse Racer I wouldn't be expected to fund your Equipment or Horsey - so why, just because you want to surround yourselves with kids, should money be diverted from better uses to allow you to do so?

And in this context, "better uses" is anything from potholes to the NHS - things that benefit us all as a collective.

IneedAsockamnesty Wed 04-Sep-13 17:20:17

Dysfunctionally.

Check your facts CB has changed and is now income based.its been a massive news item for the last 18 months.

And if you can produce one respected study that states people have children for benefit reasons I would be shocked given that the dwp confirms larger families (more than 3 kids) dependant solely on benefits are really quite unusual.

Oblomov Wed 04-Sep-13 17:21:19

Ds2 is just about to start school. He got a place. In this 'baby boom year'. Which is the biggest yet. But has been steadily increasing every year.
So hardly a shock for the council's. And he was born nearly 5 years ago, so they have had 5 years to plan.
But they've done bugger all.
As they did the last 10 years, when birth rates have been steadily increasing.
And there has also been a huge migration.
Immigration is a problem.
but no government wants to deal with it.

= conclusion
= We are totally screwed.
What comforting thought.

Dysfuntionally, the latest statics show that our population is rising, firstly from people living longer and through once fatal illnesses ( dam those cancer etc survivors) and then from immigration.

There is no such thing as "government money", they are the safe keepers and policy makers that ensure we retain and improve the standard of living in the UK that we all should have.

Every country in the EU has to have a Welfare plan and follow a consistent model, our Government cannot, thankfully just pluck a scheme such as this out of thin air and implement it.

Research and previous attempts, doesn't back up that cutting benefits, without a certain level of employment that pays a living wage as a means to save the country money, it creates more problems that it helps( it actually doesn't help at all, as "those sort" of families will be catered for by SS, anyway.

Quangle Wed 04-Sep-13 17:22:10

Government's job is to manage services for the population it has, not engineer the population around the services it has.

FrigginRexManningDay Wed 04-Sep-13 17:22:57

Dysfunctionally have you been living in a cave? Lots of families have lost their CB since the rules changed last year.

SubliminalMassaging Wed 04-Sep-13 17:23:00

It's not just the direct benefits though is it, it's getting more points towards being eligible for a bigger house, and it's deferring being expected to look for a job once your other children are at school.

Oblomov Wed 04-Sep-13 17:23:03

By the way, Op, take comfort in the fact that I will NOT be having any more children. 2 is my lot.
So your Op is irrelevant to Me.
As it is to many people who have already had the said 2 children.

Wuldric Wed 04-Sep-13 17:26:32

Pay as you go pensions are a ponzi scheme - quite literally. That is what we have all subscribed to for years. The basic idea being that the state pension is funded by current taxpayers. We depend upon there being enough current tax payers to fund our elderly people. Therefore we need lots of immigrants because the indigenous population is too niggardly with the number of children they will have. We will end up living in high rise flats with a population the size of china ....

Seriously unless someone stops the ponzi scheme, this is how it will end up ...

Wellwobbly Wed 04-Sep-13 17:30:12

Jelly, birthrates is where the problem is - NOT ENOUGH.

I went to a conference where the speaker was Gavyn Davies when he was still at Goldman Sachs (before New Labour).

He was talking about grey power and how the ratio of old people would one day pass young people etc etc. So, even in the time of Mrs Thatcher they knew they had an increasingly ageing population.

And did absolutely nothing about it.

Now, why did the European Union encourage immigration? I had an interesting conversation with a German once. Watch the differing ideologies:

I said: the EU allowed mass immigration as a response to the declining birth rate of major Western countries.

The German said: no it isn't. It is because of the [post war] refugees act.

"comingalongnicely", most of what the NHS spends its funding on could be eradicated by everyone adopting a healthy lifestyle and abstaining from lots of things that are unnatural, unlike sex which is a human need.

The goverent should of started its inference at a time when we would all expect and demand that employers should pay a living wage, that is what created the problem, not people's natural want to have children.

If benefits are not paid at a liveable rate, then we pick up the bill in health, anti depresents for a start.

Dobbiesmum Wed 04-Sep-13 17:30:52

It's naive to think that the money saved by cutting Cb off at 2 children will be spent on improving the infrastructure of local communities unless it's in some kind of 'look at how we're cheering up the plebs' type of way, with bright colours and catchy phrases on the walls. (Cynical? Me?). When I was at high school many years ago the LA closed every single high school in the area, amalgamated some and reopened them all the following September. The actual figure escapes me but there were significantly less schools in the borough when they had finished. No new schools have been built since despite a population rise and a large number of new housing estates being built in the mean time.
The roads are full of potholes, libraries and Sure Start have had budgets cut to a minimum, the high street in the town is suffering badly and it is constantly featured in documentaries about payday lenders and in articles on the most deprived areas of England.
Despite this though they find the funds to out on a free festival and build a brand spangly new council office block...
If you think that by cutting CB this will change you are, quite frankly a fucking idiot.

Wellwobbly Wed 04-Sep-13 17:31:37

PS the ultimate attack on the family unit, is capitalism. We have declined from the extended family communal system to a poor harried nuclear family, and even that is under strain.

FrigginRexManningDay Wed 04-Sep-13 17:32:37

Have you had a look at what jobs are out there subliminal? I can't gamble my family on zero hours and a pittance wage.

Also under "Every Child Matters" the LA has a duty to take into account the population under 19 and plan so that every child can achieve what is set out, it sounds as though there should be lots of questions asked across some LA's and quite a few sackings.

Oblomov Wed 04-Sep-13 17:42:02

I agree with Wellwobbly.

filee777 Wed 04-Sep-13 17:45:44

This is no just about cb.

alemci Wed 04-Sep-13 17:47:29

but the people having the dcs will get old so even more people to look after.

I think that the school place shortage is disgraceful but after Tony Blairs open door policy is it surprising.

our school down the road is expanding. when dd attended the 2 forms werent full in 2000. more cars and chaos as I expect some kids may not be that nearby

dysfunctionallynormal Wed 04-Sep-13 17:49:11

I'm quite suprised at some of the vitriol on this thread. I can understand this is an emotive issue for those with children-but your feelings don't trump everyone elses. Overpopulation is a serious issue and needs to be discussed openly,honestly,maturely and calmly.

In MY opinion,having children is a lifestyle choice (a selfish one in essence), it is not compulsory. I agree that on one level we do need to keep the population growing so humans don't die out-but we need to start being more responsible. Let people have one child of their own (by whatever means) and recieve financial assistance from the gvmnt. If they then want more then they pay for them out of their own pocket. If you want more children but can only afford to do so with gvmnt aid then you should ADOPT! Gvmnt should pay cb etc for each adopted child. (Of course if your first pregnancy results in twins etc then each child should recieve cb).

There are sooooo many children in care who need adopting. How fair is any of this on them? Don't they deserve to be loved and looked after too? Personally,i think it's very selfish to keep breeding when there are other ways to satisfy that desire for a larger family.

This would be far more beneficial to our society.

Of course-i wouldn't expect this to be applied retrospectively (for the benefit of those posters who ask 'should we shove them back in their mothers womb?'

Before you ask-no,i don't have any children of my own. Hopefully one day i will be able to afford to have one as i would love to be a mother. I am,however,training to be a foster carer and will be adopting in the future when i can afford it. This way i'm not only satisfying my desire to be a mum/parent and have someone i can nurture and give my love to,but i'm also providing a home for a child who needs one. Everyone incl society benefits.

Wellwobbly Wed 04-Sep-13 17:53:40

Here is an extract from one of today's editorials, just for you OP!

"Many politicians lie. But few lie so flagrantly as Stephen Twigg did yesterday, speaking about the looming shortage of primary school places. “The root of this,” he claimed, was what Michael Gove and David Cameron “did back in 2010 when they cancelled Labour plans to rebuild and refurbish schools”. No, Mr Twigg. The root of the problem, as you very well know, is the immigration-driven baby boom that has resulted (as of the most recent Office for National Statistics figures) in the highest number of births since 1972.
Not only did Labour open the borders, it then washed its hands of the consequences. As far back as 2004, the ONS pointed out that a growing population would put acute pressure on schools, housing, hospitals and other public services. Reaction came there none. In fact, as education secretary, Ed Balls was keen for schools to cut any surplus places, and actually threatened to remove capital funding if they refused. As for Labour’s vaunted Building Schools for the Future programme, which Mr Gove is accused of vandalising, this is a red herring: it was about refurbishing schools, at vastly excessive expense, rather than providing new places."

Dobbiesmum Wed 04-Sep-13 17:55:49

What you're doing is admirable Dysfunctional and I hope you're successful but if adoption can be a replacement for biological children, for lack of a better way to put it, shouldn't the adoption process be easier? Some friends of mine adopted and were put through the wringer for years before they were judged suitable. Every aspect of their lives was ripped apart and they almost gave up several times. I should should be fairer IMO. I don't think I could go through what they did.

morethanpotatoprints Wed 04-Sep-13 17:56:00

Dysfunctional

Not everybody meets the requirements to adopt and imo it shouldn't be used to control the population. It wasn't that long ago it was used to control the morals of unmarried women.
As good as your intentions are I disagree with your view entirely.

Good luck with the fostering training and I think you are doing a wonderful thing. grin
I

MortifiedAdams Wed 04-Sep-13 17:57:50

I have one child. Can I give my "second child credit" to a family wanting a third? Wonder how much id get for it on ebay.

comingalongnicely Wed 04-Sep-13 18:10:47

Birdsgottafly - Beer is as much a "human need" for me as "sex" I'm afraid - your round?

My employer does pay a living wage thanks, it's more than ample for me & my family.

The eternal yowling that if we don't pay people to get what they want, we then have to pay to treat their unhappiness doesn't really wash.

I honestly can't see why you have a problem with people taking responsibility for their desire *(not need) to breed.

Dackyduddles Wed 04-Sep-13 18:22:59

Gee op coz the 1 child policy in china has been a resounding success we simply must try a variation on that (ridiculous) theme....

AnneTwacky Wed 04-Sep-13 18:23:54

If it helps you can think of them as future tax payers. wink

LynetteScavo Wed 04-Sep-13 18:29:49

Yeah, because £13.40 CB a week really affected my decision on whether or not to have a third child. hmm

And if you stopped providing benefits for more than 2 children, the result would be that the whole family suffered...including the first two children.

It's all a bit Victorian if you ask me.

I've got a great idea! Maybe state education and free health care should be provided for the first two children only!

filee777 Wed 04-Sep-13 18:33:44

It's not just cb. It's child related benefits which includes tax credits.

Dobbiesmum Wed 04-Sep-13 18:34:30

If those of us with 3 or more decide to home educate will we get a prize of some description then?

HappyMummyOfOne Wed 04-Sep-13 18:35:59

"If it helps you can think of them as future tax payers"

Thats not the case anymore. We already have too many unemployed and non tax payers and a high percentage in work claim far more back in tax credits, child benefit, housing benefit etc than they pay in tax in the first place.

dysfunctionallynormal Wed 04-Sep-13 19:18:10

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Taxpayers have children.
Benefits claimants breed.

Apparently.

dysfunctionallynormal Wed 04-Sep-13 19:28:57

@dobbiesmum - totally agree re the adoption process. It def needs to be made easier. This is where we need to speak up and put pressure on the gvmnt via our ward counsellors and mp's and media. I personally find the current adoptive system demoralising and dsgusting. If the gvmnt seriously believe all that red tape and beuracracy is necessary to ensure the welfare of the child- then why is that not the case for every other child that is born? Or does their safety and welfare not matter?

dysfunctionallynormal Wed 04-Sep-13 19:30:58

In my opinion 'birthing' offspring is breeding-be that only one child over the course of a lifetime or many.

dysfunctionallynormal Wed 04-Sep-13 19:31:32

Oh-and regardless of whether parent is employed or not.

dysfunctionallynormal Wed 04-Sep-13 19:35:09

In a world of trillions of people and open borders i dnt think finding future tax payers is a problem. Creating a sustainable economy and finding employment for future tax payers,however,IS.

BoffinMum Wed 04-Sep-13 19:38:28

Actually, a major contributory factor in London is probably the selling off of London School Board buildings in the early 1990s in Tory controlled boroughs. Thousands of primary school places were lost and the buildings turned into posh apartments.

People have very short memories when it comes to politics.

AintNobodyGotTimeFurThat Wed 04-Sep-13 19:38:52

Right.

Good luck with that.

ubik Wed 04-Sep-13 19:43:13

It's time for The Hunger Games. Winner gets a school place. Sorted. P

dysfunctionallynormal Wed 04-Sep-13 19:43:25

Im not trying to offend people with my opinion, so i apologise to those who are feeling offended. I come from a large family myself and i wouldn't want to deny any loving parent that desire. In an ideal world there would be no problem in living our lives exactly as we please ,but we don't live in an ideal world. Unless we sort this out then your children and my nephews n neices (10 of them so far) will be inheriting a far worse future than it needs to be.

filee777 could you please tell me what I should be claiming to get my 160 quid pw benefits. We are on a low income. Ta.

dysfunctionallynormal Wed 04-Sep-13 19:47:37

@dobbiesmum - i'd give you a prize! :-D i would like to homeschool when i adopt or have my own.

maddening Wed 04-Sep-13 19:53:31

Thing is we've spent so much time as a race making time and energy saving things and made so much efficient (eg mass production) that we need less humans full stop - we as a race are unsustainable. Maybr they're hitting us both ways - squeezing benefits for dc and downgrading the nhs - birth rates down and death rates up.

As an aside i also wonder whether the baby boom is also a response to the unsettled atmosphere in global politics/wars - like there was a baby boom after ww2 - maybe an innate survival instinct?

ubik Wed 04-Sep-13 19:58:21

Oh God. Are we back to the feckless poor?

No one on mumsnet ever goes on about the feckless bankers who started all thus nonsense in the first place.

Perhaps we should only give school places to those who can pay fur it?

ILetHimKeep20Quid Wed 04-Sep-13 20:02:47

As the third child, I'm feeling quite unwanted!

Dobbiesmum Wed 04-Sep-13 20:03:14

Dysfunctionally if the same red tape was extended to every potential parent it would solve the problem there and then.... Demoralising was the word I was searching for btw. That is exactly how it seems.

IMO there is no point punishing the children by cutting off CB, which could /should pay for food and clothing purely to punish the parents for their choices, and yes I am aware that some have children for less likeable reasons, I know some. Those in power want to save money? They should have the courage of their convictions and go after all levels of society, not just taking away the safety net at the bottom.
We as a society need to go back to something closer to what wellwobbly touched on, become more community and family minded and self sufficient.

alemci Wed 04-Sep-13 20:05:15

you can't blame bankers for too many kids and our small island being overcrowded.

agree boffin about closing schools. this happened in 80s to local secondaries, no guessing what they put there, more housing then 15 years' later more schools needed.

Dobbiesmum Wed 04-Sep-13 20:07:28

I'd love to home ed, we're giving our eldest one more year and then we'll see. My prize will be wine and chocolate, I'll probably need it grin

SubliminalMassaging Wed 04-Sep-13 20:08:22

No one on mumsnet ever goes on about the feckless bankers who started all thus nonsense in the first place.

Oh please. Seriously, we would have been in much the same mess, banking crisis or no banking crisis where things like birth rate spikes immigration and school places are concerned. And the pension crisis. And probably the housing bubble.

SubliminalMassaging Wed 04-Sep-13 20:08:57

that shourl read 'birth rate spikes, immigration' etc

givemeaboost Wed 04-Sep-13 20:10:03

I think immigrants should not be allowed to live within London/London counties....I believe that would reduce the strain. I also think the universal credit will help the problem as poorer families/those on benefits either have to suck up the shortfall in the money or move out of London to a cheaper area. I know that's not idea many will like but I don't believe you should live in London if you cant afford to biscuit

morethanpotatoprints Wed 04-Sep-13 20:13:16

I H. ed so somebody can have my dds place if they want it, and the NW isn't over crowded.
I do receive tax credits and cb though. However, dd has 6/8 more years of education yet.

MrsDeVere Wed 04-Sep-13 20:15:10

You shouldn't live in London if you can't afford to?

No.words.for.that.stupidity.

Well apart from those ones obviously.

The short-termism of government is a problem here too - because any bumper birth year only affects school places 4-5 and 11-12 years later, ie at least one election away. Governments do little that won't have an effect during the parliamentary term, and practically nothing that will have a negative effect during this parliamentary term with a positive benefit in the term after.

twistyfeet Wed 04-Sep-13 20:20:56

so how come people in poor countries without benefits have lots of kids? Methinks there isnt actually a link between benefits and numbers of children.
CTC didnt exist when I had no's 3 and 4 btw and I certainly didnt have them to get Child Benefit.

twistyfeet Wed 04-Sep-13 20:24:08

'but I don't believe you should live in London if you cant afford to'

Wave goodbye to shop assistants, bus drivers, nusrses, teachers, road sweepers, cleaners, midwives and all those others on below 30K. Probably to most people on below 50K.

Dobbiesmum Wed 04-Sep-13 20:26:25

Has anyone mentioned education? Why don't we educate young people about the realities of day to day life with a family, financial planning, budgeting etc?

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou Wed 04-Sep-13 20:29:34

"I think immigrants should not be allowed to live within London/London counties"

I'm an immigrant and I turn over close to £1000000 a year and employ 28 people, 26 of whom are British born. I'll live where I want which happens to be not in London

Jenny70 Wed 04-Sep-13 20:38:26

Doesn't the govt want more children to be working/paying tax when the population ages? One child will make an imbalanced population, with lots more pensioners and noone actually working?

They need to make more places with smart building programs asap.

Mumoftwoyoungkids Wed 04-Sep-13 20:40:59

A measure of a humane society is how they treat their most vulnerable. A child with parents who are not able to support them - whether through illness, death, redundancy, disability, bad luck or just plain fecklessness - is incredibly vulnerable.

I'm a higher rate tax payer - have been for nearly a decade now. Would I prefer to pay less tax - yes. Would I prefer it if people could support their own children - yes. Would I prefer it if people made their family planning decisions sensibly - errrr obviously!

But you can't "punish" the parents without punishing the children. And leaving British children in severe poverty - to me - is unacceptable.

Dobbiesmum Wed 04-Sep-13 20:43:06

Ithinkofhappy but you're a GOOD immigrant, not one of those nasty feckless ones coming over here and stealing our jobs, benefits and Wimmin all at the same time! You may live where you want. wink
givemeaboost who would clean the streets or serve you coffee if only the rich lived in London?

BoffinMum Wed 04-Sep-13 20:45:28

I am pretty egalitarian by nature, but the root is probably self-interest. Societies that abandon their vulnerable 1. End up being aggressive, unpleasant and crime ridden places to live in, and 2. Might abandon me if I suffer misfortune.

LtEveDallas Wed 04-Sep-13 20:51:27

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

LadyMacbethWasMisunderstood Wed 04-Sep-13 20:58:22

I do not think that YABU to want to debate these issues.

But I do think that YABU to think things are so straightforward.

When we had DC3 it was not with a thought as to what benefits were available. He was a much longed for baby and no amount of 'disincentive'' would have made us cease to want him.

JaquelineHyde Wed 04-Sep-13 21:09:35

BINGO!

I have 4 DC, my husband is an immigrant and we are poor and in receipt of means tested benefits <hides the flat screen tv>.

Quick take me outside for 50 lashings and run the children to the workhouse.

givemeaboost Wed 04-Sep-13 21:31:33

to clarify, I don't meaning working poor I mean the unemployed :-p

MrsDeVere Wed 04-Sep-13 21:35:18

If everyone restricted to only having one child
where would all the children for adoption come from? confused

And people who blithely talk about adopting as a simple alternative to having birth children know fuck all about adoption.

BrownSauceSandwich Wed 04-Sep-13 21:40:47

How about we deport the surplus kids to the bleak northeast?

Dahlen Wed 04-Sep-13 22:21:57

I disagree strongly with the statement that children are a lifestyle choice. The urge to procreate is hard wired into our species as a means of perpetuating it. Granted, we have conscious intelligence, free will and (in the UK) contraception. Also, human nature is diverse enough that some people will not feel that urge at all or choose to ignore it. But most don't. Across westernised countries with adequate access to contraception the percentage of those who become parents is consistently about 80% - regardless of welfare provision. To equate having children with choosing to take up horse riding is a fallacy.

Lifestyle choices come into it in terms of
how many and when, but that's about it .

If we want to look at ways of discouraging people from having more than one we have to ensure it's not done in a way that discriminates against women. We also need to question the assumption that people have children to get benefits. I know several women for whom benefits have meant that an unplanned pregnancy is not considered that big a deal but I know none that deliberately chose to get pregnant to get benefits. Scrapping benefits may make them a bit more careful about contraception but we should be asking ourselves why they aren't doing that in the first place. Where is their aspiration? How has society failed them so badly that a career was never an option and motherhood understandably is viewed as a better alternative to an abortion and a dead end job with no guaranteed hours and a pittance to live on. And what about the fathers in all this? Why aren't they insisting that more effective contraception is used?

The trouble with any attempt to control reproduction is that it always affects women unfavourably.

morethanpotatoprints Wed 04-Sep-13 22:27:49

MrsDeVere

Oh you are so right.
I left the thread a while ago because of the posts on adoption.
For once words actually fail me and I find it difficult to understand why any civilised person could even contemplate the suggestion. shock angry sad

Anniegetyourgun Wed 04-Sep-13 22:35:17

CBA to read 8 pages of this, has anyone suggested mincing the surplus offspring into rissoles and giving them out in food banks? Killing two birds with one stone, innit.

caramelwaffle Wed 04-Sep-13 22:37:23

Is it 90% of Britain that has not been built on?

Or 80% with 10% developed for farming...?

skyeskyeskye Wed 04-Sep-13 22:39:40

Ive only got one DD so if anybody has got a spare going let me know grin

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

MrsKoala Thu 05-Sep-13 00:32:48

i fucking hate Malthusians. I really do. For some reason i hate their opinions more than any other. I think it's because it's spouted by 'liberals' under the quise of being good for the planet blahblah bullshit. But what it really boils down to is only 'people like me' deserve to live and brown people and poor people are somehow less deserving than me and i've had my children so i'm alright Jack (i wonder how they feel about their relatives/dc adding to the population boom?). If people are so bothered about it, when they spout off earnestly i suggest; if over crowding and being a burden on the environment bothers them so much, they could consider taking one for the team. Funnily enough they don't agree with that point.

The answer to the worlds problems lies within human innovation. If anything, we need more of us not less. The issue is distribution (of wealth and resources) not the amount of people using them.

ShadowSummer Thu 05-Sep-13 00:39:34

Given that families where one parent earns over £60k don't get child benefit any more, I wonder if birth rates are starting to fall yet among that section of the population? hmm

I'm also very skeptical about the notion that child related benefits are a major factor in most parents with more than 2 DC having decided to have DC3 or more.

Mimishimi Thu 05-Sep-13 01:05:13

We, and the Western world generally, actually has a problem with declining birthrates. Jonathan Last's "What to Expect When Noone's Expecting" is a good book to read on this. I do agree with WellWobbly that mass immigration has been the proposed solution for this for those who want to try and keep the numbers looking good to prove their theories that survival of the fittest is the best economic policy even if the evidence is that families are cracking and their offspring are choosing, or are forced, not to reproduce.

It's silly to blame immigrants when so many have better jobs/education/capital than us. I hardly know any who rely on welfare although undoubtedly there might be somPr

Mimishimi Thu 05-Sep-13 01:13:08

We, and the Western world generally, actually has a problem with declining birthrates. Jonathan Last's "What to Expect When Noone's Expecting" is a good book to read on this. I do agree with WellWobbly that mass immigration has been the proposed solution for this for those who want to try and keep the numbers looking good to prove their theories that survival of the fittest is the best economic policy even if the evidence is that families are cracking and their offspring are choosing, or are forced, not to reproduce. The book has a failing in that it doesn't make a connection between the policy of perpetual warfare and people choosing to give up ... mainly because he seems to agree with that proposition.

It's silly to blame immigrants when so many have better jobs/education/capital than us. I married one and he is one of the hardest working people I know as are many of his friends. Many immigrants create new businesses which generate new jobs. Personally I hardly know any who rely on welfare although undoubtedly there might be somPr

Mimishimi Thu 05-Sep-13 01:20:57

Sorry for the multiple posts. Kept getting an error message that the server did not understand my browser requesPr

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 02:16:16

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 02:24:16

Dahlen - the urge to procreate may be hardwired into our biology, however, that does NOT mean our wombs should be dedicated to endlessly producing children.

By the way - horse riding is a hobby (and i did not say anything of the sort) so you may want to pick a different analogy.....

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 02:30:26

morethanpotatoprints - exactly what is it about the adoption comments that offends you and leaves you lost for words? I'd really like to know.

Those children DESERVE to be loved and looked after. They NEED parents and to belong to a family. Why should they not have that?

Perhaps you were referring to the person who asked where any future adoptees would come from? I'm not even going to dignify that comment with a reply.

LtEveDallas Thu 05-Sep-13 06:02:25

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

LtEveDallas Thu 05-Sep-13 06:22:41

You may find the following interesting/enlightening Welfare Britain especially the part where it points out that only 8% of everyone claiming some sort of benefit (that includes pensioners - our biggest welfare claimants) have 3 or more children. The lady you claim to know...she will be one of them, then.

Loeri Thu 05-Sep-13 07:17:35

I think having a children is definitely a lifestyle choice nowadays. Women with good jobs tend to have fewer (or no) children while women with crap jobs or no job tend to have more. It's very worrying for the future IMO. Especially when you hear about children being sent to school still in nappies/not being able to read/sit up unaided/eat with cutlery. Or even knowing their own name in some cases. sad

JakeBullet Thu 05-Sep-13 07:26:48

"tickets for the outrage bus"....I love that @ fiftieslosttheplot

JakeBullet Thu 05-Sep-13 07:32:59

Loori, I agree with you about the children missing out on basics. Yet there is another thread going on at the moment with people expressing outrage because those very children are being sought for 15 hours of free childcare at 2yrs. This is about giving them the chance of a level playing field with their more fortunate peers when they reach reception.

Sadly on the thread there are lots of people saying "it's not fair" and seemingly not able to see that this is a scheme to try and benefit those children. ....not the parents.

So yes I agree that there are children out there born simply because their parents have no hope or aspiration to do anything else. The sad thing is that if you ask the average 7 year old girl what she wants to do when she grows up then you are highly unlikely to get "I want to be a Mum and have lots of children". Seven year olds have ambition and hope.......I wonder when that dies or is knocked out of them? sad

Loeri Thu 05-Sep-13 07:41:32

So having children IS a lifestyle choice then?

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 07:56:15

Like I said
Knows fuck all about adoption.

JakeBullet Thu 05-Sep-13 07:59:41

I think sadly in some cases it is.....except I don't think there is much conscious choice. Rather I think that young women with few skills (for whatever reason) are more likely to fall into the lifestyle of having a baby, and then another one and another one. As a midwife I was interested to see just how many babies were unplanned (across all sections of society).....and it is was almost two thirds. Not planned but happy about the pregnancy in most cases.

The saddest case I ever came across was as a HV several yeArs ago. I saw a young Mum on her 21st Birthday .....I was doing the initial visit to her and her new baby......and it was her fourth child. I can e member saying to her "Oh K it's your 21st Birthday" (I did know her pretty well by this time) and her eyes filling up as she said "I'm 21 and I've got four kids".

I think that is an issue.....no real planning....no real hope and life just happens.

That 21 year old actually wanted to be a hairdresser, it took a lot of work to hep her see that her life wasn't over. ...that she COULD still be a hairdresser.

Needless to say her childhood had been horrific and she had ongoing issues as a result.

FrigginRexManningDay Thu 05-Sep-13 08:08:27

What about devout Catholics who do not use contraception? Are they not allowed practice their religion? What about children of rape?

You are suggesting control of women and their biological function. If you want to control your body that's fine,but do not even think about controlling mine.

Loeri Thu 05-Sep-13 08:11:22

Controlling womens body is wrong but on the other hand, women have to take responsibility for what they do. Having loads of children that you can't afford because you don't use contraception is wrong, whatever relgiion you bleive in.

MidniteScribbler Thu 05-Sep-13 08:12:41

It's not a problem of people having too many children. It's a problem of governments lacking the simple logic of saying "hey there were x children born last year, so in four years time we're going to need x school places" and to start planning accordingly.

Dahlen Thu 05-Sep-13 08:25:06

loeri the choice comes into it only in terms of when and how many. Not if, IMO.

Career women may have reproduce less and later but very few have no children at all and for many that was unintentional rather than deliberate. The same as how the young woman in JakeBullet's example didn't exercise conscious choice about becoming a mother of four. Fertility 'choices' run much deeper than that. Even those of us who plan pregnancies do so off the back of a primeval urge to have a child. No amount of rationally thinking "ok, got the husband, house, career and car, I'll have the baby now," would tempt you to have a baby if you didn't want one. Conversely, lots of people feel compelled to have children in less than ideal circumstances. The biological clock is a powerful thing. You can manipulate it but not choose to switch it on or off. You either want children or you don't. Most do.

And while I agree that people should exercise personal responsibility towards reproductive choices, let's not forget that it takes two to make a baby yet discussions like these always focus on women's choices. In many cases they don't have any. You cannot talk about penalising people for irresponsible reproduction unless you include plans to hold men equally accountable.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 08:38:04

I think they focus on women mostly because contraception focuses on woman and the RP is more than often the woman.

Personally I think the only way a system where by more than two children were not state funded, would be if the neglect laws were changed to cover financial neglect.

Dawndonnaagain Thu 05-Sep-13 08:41:48

(if you work you don't get more money each time you have another child).
Oh, be still my beating heart, yet another benefits bashing thread.

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 08:43:23

I have at no point said people should not recieve benefits,what i have said is that child benefit should be limited. People who choose to keep breeding and expecting the rest of society to pick up the tab ARE selfish. Are you telling me that you would teach your daughter to do exactly as she pleases with no regard for anyone else or the consequences?!!!!

I lack of knowledge of current affairs? Why-because i didn't pay attention to one particular topic that didn't really concern me? Lmao!

My daily mail attitude?!! :-D what is that exactly? Im not an avid reader of that rag but you seem to very au fait with it so go ahead and explain.

I have been paying my tax since i was 18 and i have no problem with some of it going towards a persons first child. However,i disagree with it being used to fund every child that they choose to have.

I also never said anything about not giving people financial aid if they need it in the circumstances you describe above. So why try and attribute that to me? If you would like to know my opinion on that-i would like to see my taxes helping those who are in need or in dire straits. Nice try but you can't lie and twist my words to fit the daily mail lover image in your head.

As for my age....my my aren't we getting desperate for more stones to throw :-D

Good job you're not an expert in judging who is fit to be a carer. Incidentally,my foster agency and social worker know me pretty well and they wouldn't agree with you. In fact they don't!!

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 08:56:58

MrsDeVere -you know fuck all about me and what i know. I already know how the adoption system works hence why i've chosen not to go down that route just yet.

Loeri Thu 05-Sep-13 08:59:44

There's nothing wrong with "benefits bashing" when it's justified. Having multitudes of children when you can't even afford to raise the first one IS justified.

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 09:14:16

Leori - I agree. Men should be held equally accountable but unless more women press that issue it won't happen. I recall having a discussion (amongst the ladies) re the need for more choice in male contraception when the male pill was in the news . It didn't go down half as well as i thought it would. The majority consensus was that men can't be trusted to use it. Yet when i asked my male friends they were all for it,their main reason being the fear of being trapped into fatherhood when either they weren't ready or didn't want to be dads.

LtEveDallas Thu 05-Sep-13 09:17:21

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

JakeBullet Thu 05-Sep-13 09:21:14

I think what we are seeing here IS women bashing though. Why are we reserving our bashing for the woman who has been left behind and IS caring for the child. WHY are we not raising hell about the men who have walked away?

I am constantly amazed by the number of men out there who can walk away from women and children, conceal their income or otherwise avoid paying for their children. THEY are the ones we SHOULD be shouting about and bashing. Not the poor mother left behind.

And lets not forget some of these men (not all) earn well....but are quite happy for the taxpayer to pick up the tab when they move on. Why are we reserving our vitriol for the woman who has been left behind? I think that is sad sad

MrsK. I hate Malthusians too. They make me want to throw stuff (and tell them to get off the guardian website the Internet, and recognise the irony of their sitting on their arses using up all manner of resources to complain about how there are too many people using up too many resources). Practice what you preach.

It's also fascinating how children have been constructed as a social evil in these debates, just by their mere existence. (And all those who are so anti-children will be glad other people had some when they're old and need someone else's children to take care of them).

I think the thing that most annoys me is that it all seems to be about locating 'the problem' in other people, so that one doesn't have to examine one's own behaviour. The major source of world population growth is among people who actually use very little in the way of resources, but smug fuckers in the west get to sit there congratulating themselves on how environmentally conscious they are for not having children.

LtEveDallas Thu 05-Sep-13 09:37:17

I agree with you there JakeBullet. I have a friend with a large family. She is a SAHM, her husband was a high earner. He was tragically killed when his youngest was only 3 months old. My friend had to go on benefits for the first time in her life (3 children under school age, 2 older at the time of his death), and for her it was soul destroying. The attitudes she has come up against are disgusting, people assuming that she had multitudes of children when you can't even afford to raise the first one would have killed her off I think.

I have another friend with 3 children, the father of whom suddenly fucked off to Canada and hasn't been seen since. Should she be demonised for having 'too many children'? Of course not. Each and every one of us are only a divorce, a death, a disability from relying on the state. Something we should all do well to remember.

Hopasholic Thu 05-Sep-13 09:38:43

Couldn't agree more jake I've lost count of the number of times I've had to say to my MIL 'Its absent Fathers, not lone parents who society should be ashamed of' it make my blood boil angry

Loa Thu 05-Sep-13 09:42:04

Why are we having smaller families

In 1996 - the earliest year that the data is available for - there were 7.4m families, but they tended to be bigger. The percentage of families with only one child has gone up - to 47%. Those with three or more kids is now 14%, down from 17%

Family size is decreasing and yet this thread is trying to link a current shortage of school places to larger families. Leading to large family bashing.

offcie for National stastics

•Married couples had a higher average number of dependent children in their family than other family types, at 1.8 children per family compared with 1.7 on average

Perhaps a campaign against marriage is in order - as clearly marriage is leading to a shortage of school places hmm.

maddening
As an aside i also wonder whether the baby boom is also a response to the unsettled atmosphere in global politics/wars - like there was a baby boom after ww2 - maybe an innate survival instinct?

I think it is the Grandchildren of the baby boomers being born - along with the previous cohorts delayed birthd due to later motherhood - but the Guardian article above suggests economics is playing a role.

It shows poorer area have higher numbers of bigger families - however we have 3 DC and live in a poorer areas - with good primary - than perhaps expeced from our income/background as we wanted a bigger house for the money we had because of number DC wanted and we are not alone in that.

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 09:44:52

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 09:46:14

Still waiting find out where these adoptable children will come from if people stop, erm, having children...

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 09:52:37

Who said anything about STOPPING having children alltogether? Where are they coming from at the moment?
Even if the UK adoptive registers were down to zero there is a whole world outside our shores.

alemci Thu 05-Sep-13 09:53:28

I agree about the absent fathers comments. I have heard this so many times from different people. Dads who could pay deliberately not and pretending they have no income etc.

However, i do think that there is a lack of aspiration in some circles and young people should try and get a job first and some ability to earn and pay for themselves then think about a family further down the line rather than being pregnant in their teens and needing the taxpayer to fund this.

Oh good idea. No one in the UK should have babies and we'll just import children from the majority world in the same way that we import, say, bananas and coffee. hmm

Indeed, the schools place issue could really be alleviated if we insisted that people could only import children of secondary school age.

Loa Thu 05-Sep-13 10:04:44

Dads who could pay deliberately not and pretending they have no income etc.

I know many woman who have parnters like this - one case guy gave up a good well paying job just so to spite ex-wife and his own DC.

I've know cases where when increases have occured through child support agency and the reponse is to punish the DC by stopping contact.

In my DN case father pays nothing but DSis doesn't persue it as she is so worried it will mean he'll be even more of an awkward bastard than he is at the minute. Our parents subside and support her and she works bloody hard as well. He now has a second DC with another woman. She has been told she is lucky he is still around and showing a spordic interest.

ubik Thu 05-Sep-13 10:05:46

Move to Scotland! We need immigration.

Only difficulty is that all the jobs are...oh look, they're in the over populated, wealthy south east...

LtEveDallas Thu 05-Sep-13 10:06:20

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 10:13:13

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

littlemog Thu 05-Sep-13 10:13:36

Career women may have reproduce less and later but very few have no children at all and for many that was unintentional rather than deliberate

I would love to see your evidence for this claim.

The statistics point to the fact that the more educated the woman is the less likely she is to have children. It would seem that promoting education and giving women life options is the best way of tackling the massive problem of overpopulation.

And I fundamentally disagree that men and women have a 'right' to as many children as they like - social responsibility has to kick in somewhere.

ubik Thu 05-Sep-13 10:14:10

That dysfunctionallynormal poster has a very individualistic attitude to the way our society should function.

We all have a responsibility for the next generation whether we have children or not. We need each other - children included - otherwise we will fall apart and we all have a responsibility to ensure the next generation is educated, healthy and happy.

I raise my children to be socially responsible, I hope they have jobs which give something back in the future. Most families are doing their best, some parents are terrible,

I know a few childless couples who also cost the state a fortune through alcoholism, prescription drug addiction, unemployment...

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 10:15:54

Sorry arbitrary
That post was obviously NOT meant for you!

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou Thu 05-Sep-13 10:17:03

"Even if the UK adoptive registers were down to zero there is a whole world outside our shores."

shock

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 10:17:12

Yes I am an adoptive mother.
What exactly is your experience?

MrsDeVere: I was trying to take the piss out of the argument about there being 'the whole rest of the world' to source adoptive children. I don't actually think it's in any way a good idea. Indeed, I think it's laughably awful.

Ah, I was worried that my attempts at mockery came across as serious.

It's a horrible children as nothing more than commodities argument, and it makes me feel a bit nauseous.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 10:19:26

I know I know I know.
Have grovelled accordingly grin

littlemog Thu 05-Sep-13 10:19:57

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

MrsBucketxx Thu 05-Sep-13 10:21:38

Not read the whole thread but its not about big families or immigration.

After the war massive baby boom, I, e parents of 30 somethings now, who are now having normal amounts of children.

Stopping cb wont stop this, more schools are needed end of.

littlemog Thu 05-Sep-13 10:21:39

I know a few childless couples who also cost the state a fortune through alcoholism, prescription drug addiction, unemployment...

Oh yes - there are positively millions of these kinds of families....

I agree that individualistic outlooks are very silly. Arguments about how childless people should be reimbursed for saving money in not having to educate their children (etc) completely miss the point that educating all children and ensuring that they are healthy is good for society as a whole and everyone benefits. Even those who don't actually see children as people or care about anyone but themselves should be able to see that other people's children are important to society.

FrigginRexManningDay Thu 05-Sep-13 10:26:36

A vast majority of children in the foster care system are damaged emotionally. They are wonderful lovable children but need so much more than a lot of people can give. They won't suddenly turn into model children with a strict bedtime and 5 portions of fruit. They have seen and experienced things that people should never. A lot of them are available for adoption. I don't see people lining the streets to take them. Throwing adoption around like its the same as browsing the pet shop for a goldfish is sickening. These children deserve a home because they are wanted not because it fills some one biological child ideal.
Ask yourself why people see having children as their only option. Why their situation,lives and prospects are so bleak?.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 10:32:47

If dysfunctional is open and honest during her assessment.
It is unlikely she will be approved to adopt.

But people who see adoption and fostering in the way she does are very easily put off when they face the reality.

I don't happen to agree that adoption should be made easier.

It shouldn't be unnecessarily bureaucratic but it shouldn't be easy.

It would not be doing the adoptive parents any favours and it certainly would be doing the children any.

Look at this way, if something happened to you, would you want your children 'easily' adopted or would you want them adopted by a family who had gone through stringent assessments and checks?
Who were as aware as they could be of what they were entering in to?

Loa Thu 05-Sep-13 10:37:26

And I fundamentally disagree that men and women have a 'right' to as many children as they like - social responsibility has to kick in somewhere.

I don't disagree with that - though most parents I know with more than 3 DC have at least one parent working if not both - second part time - but how do you stop people without giving the state the right to decide who can have DC or by punishing the DC born to such families or accounting for drastic and unforeseeable changes in circumstances that can occur?

Even the problem families that have DC taken from them I believe often go on to have more DC who are also often taken from them. What do you do with them – forced sterilisation ? cause historically such programs end up with massive abuse of them.

If you fine these families with more than allowed DC – as I believe china does – that means more DC living in poverty limiting life chances of those DC and if you deny service such as state education who then have a subpopulation who may end up uneducated and much less employable in later life adversly affecting the economy.

IneedAsockamnesty Thu 05-Sep-13 10:39:28

MrsD is correct if views like that were expressed or picked up on during an assessment then problems would occur with adoption, I'm also very surprised if formal fostering is happening how it is because it would also raise quite a few red flags.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 10:42:25

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou Thu 05-Sep-13 10:43:26

"It's a horrible children as nothing more than commodities argument, and it makes me feel a bit nauseous."

I think we're slipping backwards into the industrial revolution, or maybe not that far, maybe just the '80s when greed was good and the whole population were viewed for how much money they make as if there isn't more to life than money. Little cogs in the big machine, but the machine is broken. Everything has become about money, what you make and what you take and we multiply it and stockpile it until, fuck me, it's gone. Did it ever exist? People can't afford their own homes anymore, they can't afford food, if they're lucky enough to have a job they'll be working until they drop, hardly being able to afford a pension because they've been paying off their student loans. What happens to us when we are so desperate to accumulate that we can no longer help anyone except the firstborn? The little prince and his siblings, the little scroungers. Value on birth order? Is that what we want?

Bloody pointless argument, given the low birthrate anyway.

Dahlen Thu 05-Sep-13 10:47:53

littlemog - I don't recall saying that having as many children as you want was a right. hmm

My argument about reproductive rates is based on the Office for National Statistics report, the largest survey of its kind into this (although still based on a comparatively tiny sample size of less than 13,000).

There has been a 7% increase in women choosing not to have children. There is a definite correlation between educational and career status of these women, which I'm not going to deny, but overwhelmingly the main correlation remains "lack of a cohabiting partner".

Furthermore, the study can be criticised for not examining motive. Among those career women who have chosen not to have children, there is also a correlation with them having male partners who earn less than they do, making the woman the breadwinner. Anecdotally the evidence is that some of these women regret being in that position. More work needs to be done on this to determine a more accurate picture.

Not once in this have I rejected the claim that there is a trend for better educated/higher earning women to have fewer children. But it remains the case that only a small number of high-flying career women choose to remain childless completely.

LtEveDallas Thu 05-Sep-13 10:49:54

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 10:52:06

Bloody hell filee

Out.of.order.

BangOn Thu 05-Sep-13 10:52:49

Yy, start by sterilising the poor, & or separating couples in reopened workhouses . If that doesn't work yoi could always try starting ww3. All tried & tested methods of getting the population down. Obviously i'm being very sarcastic.

MidniteScribbler Thu 05-Sep-13 11:02:07

However, i do think that there is a lack of aspiration in some circles and young people should try and get a job first and some ability to earn and pay for themselves then think about a family further down the line rather than being pregnant in their teens and needing the taxpayer to fund this.

This sort of attitude change comes from access to better quality equitable education.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 11:04:18

No more out of order than the Lt's rash and quick dismissal of another poster for thinking differently. And what have I 'failed' at exactly?

The point is that there are many different types of people in the country with different view points, telling someone they can't be a decent foster carer because they don't match your view point is absurd.

IneedAsockamnesty Thu 05-Sep-13 11:04:45

Unbelievable

Loa Thu 05-Sep-13 11:06:55

This sort of attitude change comes from access to better quality equitable education.

True and planning enough Primary school places to ensure a good start on the education path way would be a good place to start with this.

IneedAsockamnesty Thu 05-Sep-13 11:07:56

Filee,

Having such strong view points against the very children you would be adopting and the type of financial backgrounds they come from is a huge huge problem.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 11:10:17

Pp didn't give any viewpoints about children. She said that adults shouldn't be given financial incentive to breed, which might be unpalatable for some to hear but is a perfectly valid point and certainly doesn't prevent someone from being a good and loving foster carer

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 11:19:10

She is spouting nonsense about adoption. The stuff she is spouting shows a total lack of understanding about the dynamics and purpose of adoption.

Adoption is meant to meet the needs of adults.
The children she is talking about as if they were interchangeable with birth children, come from the very families she is so unpleasant about.

It would be like a racist adopting a black child.

e.g. Not a Good Idea.

TheQuietCricket Thu 05-Sep-13 11:19:40

jellysandwich

Perhaps I'm being a tad thick here but how does a reducing birth rates solve a schools place crisis ?

Crisis is now, Yes ?

Reduced birth rates in say 1 years time once the government has supposedly come up with a way to incentivise and therefore achieve lower birth rate. Reduced numbers needing a school place in 6 years time is no help to the current crisis.

Unfortunately we have a previous government to blame for the ostrich like mentality about the knock on effect on schools/hospitals of their slack immigration policies.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 11:21:03

That should be 'NOT meant to meet the needs of adults'

It is a lovely by product of adoption that adults get to welcome children into their families.

The primary focus is finding a family for the child.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 11:22:04

She's not 'spouting' anything about families though, she has mentioned that she doesn't think people should be given financial incentive to breed, that is a political standpoint. I can't see how in any way shape or form it affects someone's ability to be a caring parent or Foster carer.

mrsfuzzy Thu 05-Sep-13 11:23:27

rattlemeheaties, there are people who have kids just to get benefits and choose not to work, an ex neighbour was proud of the fact that i was indirectly working and paying taxes so she could fund yet another kid with another scummy partner who disappeared before the baby arrived. 7 kids by five different fathers? how the hell can you defend that behaviour? she has never worked a day in her life - so she told me - and didn't intend to if she was better off on benefits, makes me spit, feel sorry for the decent families who draw benefits for the right reason and at least try to look after their own kids without relying on every other poor sod to do it for them, full respect to them always.

FrigginRexManningDay Thu 05-Sep-13 11:25:56

MrsDeVere She doesn't know the reality of what she's saying. Holding these sorts of views makes me uncomfortable about children placed in her care. Vulnerable children.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 11:26:57

Indeed there is a lack of foster carers and adoptive parents, it shouldn't matter whether someone wishes to give a child a decent home because they can't have children, or because they feel compelled to, we should encourage anyone who can give a child a loving home to do so. Not shun them.

FrigginRexManningDay Thu 05-Sep-13 11:29:36

mrsfuzzy So a handful of people take advantage (although I have to wonder what has happened in her life to lead her to that mindset) so therefore everyone must be punished.

Loa Thu 05-Sep-13 11:30:31

Perhaps I'm being a tad thick here but how does a reducing birth rates solve a schools place crisis ?

Cause then the Gov and LEAs could prevaricate for another 4 years - and these DC could go throughout the school life being catered for in bulge classes as short term mesaure and there could be an unforeseen crisis when they reach secondary?

It could be the OP is worried about/ or hasn't got a place at local schools or any school because the places have been taken by siblings of DC already at those schools who come up higher in admission criteria? Hence the larger families being an issue for OP.

JakeBullet Thu 05-Sep-13 11:31:21

I whd say the families that do that consciously mrsfuzzy are rare.

And what about the scummy bugger who has sodded off leaving her holding the baby. She is at least providing care for them far more cheaply than than the care system could.

No it isn't right but what is the alternative?

Shove the baby back up?
Leave her and te children to starve?
Remove the children if she has no means to support them?

Sadly the cheapest option will always be to give her some benefits to support them in the knowledge that once they are 16-18 she is on her own with no benefits and a poor old age.

FrigginRexManningDay Thu 05-Sep-13 11:32:23

You just don't get it filee not everyone with a home to give is suitable to be a foster carer or adoptive parent.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 11:32:33

I wouldn't shun anyone who was able to give a child a loving home.

I wouldn't want someone adopting a child who thinks they can be packaged up and posted to someone in place of a birth child.

Or someone who whose views about a child's background and birth family would cause them to feel that they came from 'bad blood' and should be ashamed.

Or someone who thinks that taking a child from a different continent is an easy option if we run out of home grown ones.

Or thinks that rigorous assessments are PC gorn mad.

FrigginRexManningDay Thu 05-Sep-13 11:34:14

Push people into poverty and then punish them for being poor.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 11:35:56

As soon as you gain any awareness of adoption and fostering (they are two VERY different things by the way) you also become aware that love is not enough to make a placement sustainable.

It is a vital and amazing part of the process but if you think being loving will get you through days where a child with RAD is telling SS that you have abused them, is trying to kill the cat or when your toddler manages to disclose just what 'daddy' did to them

you have not quite 'got it' yet.

LtEveDallas Thu 05-Sep-13 11:36:37

Copied from my previous post www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/06/welfare-britain-facts-myths

This makes very interesting reading. Some posters seem to want to spread the myth that many women have children just for the benefits, popping out babies left right and centre with their hands held out "gimmee gimmee gimmee" whereas in reality less than 8% of ALL benefits claimants (including pensioners) have 3 or more children.

A direct quote from the article: Though most of them seem to end up in newspapers, in 2011 there were just 130 families in the country with 10 children claiming at least one out-of-work benefit. Only 8% of benefit claimants have three or more children. What evidence there is suggests that, on average, unemployed people have similar numbers of children to employed people ... it is not clear at all that benefits are a significant incentive to have children

alemci Thu 05-Sep-13 11:38:34

yes but people are making themselves poor by bad family planning and not taking responsibility.

what happened to working, saving, meeting a decent reliable partner (not a boy) then having a family.

I agree with giving some benefits but someone said earlier in the thread about women who keep having children with unreliable partners and timing it so they can remain on benefits. I know this is probably not the norm.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 11:38:44

I don't know that anyone has said anything about 'bad blood' and in any case, I might (for example) foster a child whose mother was a serious drug addict, my hatred of drugs would not mean I made that child 'feel ashamed' or felt they came from 'bad blood'

Some people have a true wish to be maternal and if adoption fulfils that, As well as offering a child a loving home out of the children's home environments that I know well, then that's a good thing, not a bad.

FrigginRexManningDay Thu 05-Sep-13 11:39:22

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 11:40:03

That link does not include tax credits, which are a huge part of this debate.

morethanpotatoprints Thu 05-Sep-13 11:41:07

As an adopted person some of the comments here have really upset me and I am not usually an overly emotional person.
The attitudes of some people towards adoption and fostering are disgusting.
It is the child who is supposed to come first, the best interests of the child.
This does not involve growing up in the knowledge that you were adopted because society saw it as a way of controlling the population.
Can you not see that attitudes evolve and the next thing would be to suggest that children whose parents couldn't afford to raise them had them adopted.
As a society we have been here before when unmarried mothers were forced to give up their children.
The attitudes of some here are just the beginning.
I have flash backs quite regularly now because as an adult I know what I witnessed as a child. It wasn't abuse or anything bad really.
I went with my parents to a children's home, it was a huge building with lots of dormitories full of babies, many hundreds, very stark and noisy, all only weeks old. I didn't know at the time what it was, but it is so vivid in my memory.
My life has been good compared to children in the system now, but the thought of my beginnings and the reason for my adoption is baggage enough.
I never got to meet my birth mother, she died very young and never did get over it.
Can we as a society even begin to think along these lines again.
Finally, as an adopted person I was recently asked to sit on panels for prospective adopters. I have been debating whether I would be good enough to give justice to the many nice parents wanting to adopt, and worried if I made a mistake of the consequences.
The attitudes here have given me the confidence in my ability to do a good job here, because under no circumstances could I agree with some of the comments here.

MrsDeVere, I salute you. You sound a lovely person thanks

mrsfuzzy Thu 05-Sep-13 11:49:41

frigging and jake, whatever a persons background, contraception has been invented, there are so many types available nowadays what is the excuse? she told me that by having regular pregnancies she would keep her benefits going for years upon years, as someone said these feckle types are not very common but they are having the next generation who are being introduced to the world owns me a living types, who if they don't break the pattern the cycle will repeat itself.

FrigginRexManningDay Thu 05-Sep-13 11:51:08

People are making themselves poor? Really? Poor people do not have much choice about their children's education or where they live. More likely to end up on sink estates with a less than adequate education,everything around them bleak. So they have children,often young because that's all they see around them. Generations doing the same things because instead of improving things around them as children's they were told to have ambition without any examples.
I think a lot of people grew up away from tower blocks and beans on toast for dinner and getting dressed for school under the covers cause you could see your breath. It kills your spirit.

Loa Thu 05-Sep-13 11:53:13

unemployed people have similar numbers of children to employed people ... it is not clear at all that benefits are a significant incentive to have children

That what I see around me - socially deprived area with mix of claimers, lower wage earners and some middle class families - yet no one on here ever believes that.

I just don't get all this talk of DC being cash cows - they seriously cost us and have a good income.

www.cpag.org.uk/content/cpag-publish-cost-child-2013
A new report published today by Child Poverty Action Group, with co-funding from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, has found that the minimum costs needed for a decent childhood have risen 4% in the last year.

This compares with rises of just 1.8% for the minimum wage, 1.5% for average earnings, 1% for tax credits and 0% for child benefit.

Childhood poverty impacts health and as we have an NHS that means more health costs funded by taxation and lower education levels - which will eventually impact the county economy.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 12:13:01

morethan I am a proper hardarse and your post made me well up.

You have said what I was trying to say and you said it so much better than I could have.
Thank you.

I am not at all lovely to be honest. I struggle to find the right way to do things.

I don't get it right all the time and I don't think adoptive parents should be perfect.

But they need to at least try to understand and that is what I see lacking in some of these posts.

Please do go for the panel place. They really, really need the views of adopted people on them. I am sure you would be brilliant.

alemci Thu 05-Sep-13 12:18:25

Frigging isn't that a bit defeatist. I think people can break the cycle. My parents were both 'poor' and my dad grew up on a dodgy estate in the 50's. It depends on the parents I suppose.

my maternal grandmother was very pro education and she worked as a nurse when alot of married woman didn't. I know this was another era.

alot of immigrants started off poor but became successful and prosperous.

Dackyduddles Thu 05-Sep-13 12:21:42

Thus far every suggestion appears to intimate that WOMEN find the answer or are in fact the answer on as much as contraception/stopping benefits/lack of adoption.

Why has none of the more robust posters mentioned men? Shall we chop the balls off every second boy in multiple boy families? Cull boys at foetus stage? Any other ideas? Take all money off feckless dads of multiple mothers?

It's quite funny to read but what's rather scary is this thread are voting too! Lordy! Last one off the island please turn out the lights.....

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 12:22:27

No one said it is a bad thing filee

And you miss the point.

We are not talking about a hatred of drugs. We are talking about a questionable attitude to the undeserving poor. You take on a child you take on their history. It is part of them and should never be denied. You have to find something to celebrate, however hard that might seem.

My analogy of a racist caring for a black child is nearer the mark.

How can someone who has a fundamental dislike and distrust of a section of society offer a home to a child who comes from that background?

Being able to fulfill your maternal longings is lovely and a wonderful part of being a parent whatever route you take but 'offering a child a loving home' can NOT be an 'as well as'. It has to be the core, the very point, not an add on.

littlemog Thu 05-Sep-13 12:31:26

littlemog - I don't recall saying that having as many children as you want was a right
Dahlen I didn't say that you did - not sure why you have picked me up on that. It's just my viewpoint.

But it remains the case that only a small number of high-flying career women choose to remain childless completely
I prefer the term childfree as childless implies that I am somehow lacking in something.

And I was adopted at 6 weeks old and none of the stuff posted on here about adoption has upset me a jot. People have their opinions and they are entitled to express them robustly.

mrsfuzzy Thu 05-Sep-13 12:32:17

dacky, men are able to use contraception just as much as women are it 's just some choose not to but it is women who get pregnant not men so as modern women we are more than capable of sorting it out for ourselves if we do not want children.

Loa Thu 05-Sep-13 12:41:52

Thus far every suggestion appears to intimate that WOMEN find the answer or are in fact the answer on as much as contraception/stopping benefits/lack of adoption.

The birth rate isn't above the 2.1 replacement level and the slight increase in the birth rate - foreseeable as the grandchildren of baby boomers get created - occurred 4/5 years ago giving those years to plan to create more school places.

The only women who needed to find the answers - were the ones in local and national government who along with their male colleagues should have done their jobs and done the planning of services for the population.

It's not a case of too many DC - it's a case of too few school places mainly because in the proceeding decade the was a drop in DC numbers and to save money the excess places were got rid of. No one has then done the spending of money subsequently to get back to the proceeding school place numbers.

This is not parents fault - but they and the DC are the ones having to deal with the conquences.

Lilka Thu 05-Sep-13 12:47:37

As an adoptive mum, I couldn't agree more with MrsDV and more There's nothing more I can say that hasn't been so eloquently said by them

My eldest child (whom I adopted) has just had her second child, and I know that she and her (working) husband are going to have more in future. Her experience of being fostered and adopted and in the process split up from all her siblings is a big driving force for her in wanting a big family. And her husband comes from a big family and a culture of bigger families as well. I am very happy and supportive of them, but Goodness knows what our relationship would be like if I was so stupid and rude as to sit there casting judgement on her family choices, which are largely influenced by adoption and not having lots of biological relatives around, and also by her experiences before adoption. That would be a humungous wedge in our lovely relationship. What a good thing I didn't adopt in order to save the planet! Otherwise I'd be questionning what the point of doing that is

Anyway...when it comes to the statistics, I was under the impression that less women are having children and that overall the fertility rate is under replacement rate right now. Staying that way means that in the future we will have not enough workforce to support the number of retired people. So then what's the answer - trying to encourage a very large immigrant workforce in is probably the only way round it, but you've just taken that workforce away from somewhere else. Also as shown by other posters, it's a myth that people on benefits are more likely to have a massive family

morethanpotatoprints Thu 05-Sep-13 12:50:21

filee

Its like this I think.
Unless the child has been removed from their parents at birth. i.e a known drug addict, the child will have an attachment with their parent(s)
To deny this child their background is wrong, to have conceived ideas about their parents will not be a positive influence on them when they have contact with their parent.
Just because you are adopted doesn't mean you have no contact with your birth parents, especially in this day and age where most children in the system have lived with their parents, sometimes for a considerable amount of time.
How could you positively prepare a child when you despise their parents so much. If you are incapable of empathy and keeping an open mind imo you shouldn't be approved for adoption.
This isn't personal to you, I am sure a sw would tell you this.

littlemog Thu 05-Sep-13 12:52:11

* Staying that way means that in the future we will have not enough workforce to support the number of retired people*
Pretty sure that this is nonsense.

And I think that that the statistics show that fewer educated women are having children - not just fewer women.

FrigginRexManningDay Thu 05-Sep-13 12:57:09

Its not defeatist,I am in no way condemning people to such a life. Many people come from poverty and prosper. When we start cutting benefits for an example family of a mother of three,parenting alone. Three children,less money. Less food,less heat,less electricity. Children miss school because their uniform is not clean. They go to school hungry. They leave school early to get a job. Lack of qualifications mean a minimum wage job. Its the cycle. The poverty trap.
Another baby is not such a travesty because life is bleak and a baby brings joy. Being a mother is sometimes all the girls and women know. Being a mother gives them purpose. I can't explain it properly,I lived and continue to live it. I'm in HA housing,teenage mother,now married,husband on low industrial wage,me no qualifications,sparse education.

littlemog Thu 05-Sep-13 12:59:26

Well that's no reason to bring a baby in to the world though is it? Because it cheers up someone who has a hard life? It IS a travesty in that situation.

mrsfuzzy Thu 05-Sep-13 13:00:04

seriously look at the state of the world, who wants to think about the potential problems that our children and their kids could face in the future, possible high unemployment, lack of housing, world problems etc the list goes on, things have changed dramatically over the years and not always for the best.

littlemog Thu 05-Sep-13 13:03:34

This is one of the many reasons we chose not to have children. The planet is pretty fucked tbh and overpopulation is the biggest issue.

FrigginRexManningDay Thu 05-Sep-13 13:06:00

Where did I say that people have babies to cheer themselves up? What I said is they bring joy. Or should poor people live miserable joyless,one child lives.

Dahlen Thu 05-Sep-13 13:10:00

I have fostered. I 'disapproved' of the mother's lifestyle enormously. I also felt a great deal of compassion towards her. The bad choices she made didn't take place in a vacuum. She was a hurt human being who was expressing that hurt in a completely dysfunctional way that was in turn hurting her child. Hence my involvement.

That child was too young for me to need to explain about her mother. However, I had it all prepared in readiness because it is vital that you can explain without judgement. It's not that dissimilar to when parents split up and they have to explain why that has happened without making the child think it's their fault.

Every child, perhaps moreso if adopted/fostered, wants to know where they come from. If you badmouth the parent, you are, essentially, encouraging a child to think that they are the same, since they are a product of that parent.

It is far better to remain neutral, or, if at all possible, find something positive about that parent's personality/abilities, even if in some harrowing cases it's just that they had a good sense of humour or were good at drawing. You talk about the parent's dysfunctional lifestyles or poor parenting in terms of choices (so that the child doesn't feel it is inevitable that they will be the same) but explain how those choices can be affected by experience (e.g. brought up by abusive parents) and sometimes just sheer random bad luck (e.g. accident or illness).

I think the best analogy for this is like making a cake. Sometimes the ingredients (intelligence, wit, sense of fun, ability at drawing, etc) can be of the highest quality. But if the recipe (life) isn't put together well, you can sometimes end up with a mess.

mrsfuzzy Thu 05-Sep-13 13:12:12

thank you littlemog, i sometimes think i'm a lone voice in the wilderness on the subject of the future, it's all very well taking the attitude ' it won't happen and who cares if it does, i won't be here to see it' but that's so wrong things are happening, we are racing forwards to god knows what, i find that terrifying that my dc and millions of others are going to inherit this shit. people ignore these things and hope they will never happen, it might help if i believed in a here after but i don't.

Hedgehogparty Thu 05-Sep-13 13:32:13

The schools place crisis is only one aspect of this issue.
Last year the Uk population increased by around 400,000 by natural increase and net migration.

Putting the benefits issue to one side, does anyone here seriously think we need or ought to be increasing our population further?

Where I live, you can see the effect of population growth everywhere.
More houses-but still nowhere near enough. Green fields disappearing, losing crop growing areas and places to enjoy. Constant traffic congestion.More pollution.

I want my DCs to have a decent standard and quality of life.
We should be addressing this issue.

forevergreek Thu 05-Sep-13 13:42:07

Actually the one child policy in china does have many good points to it. However the main problem there is that they chose 1 not 2 children, meaning people preferring boys to girls as only one baby allowed. This wouldn't be the case with 2. The one child policy is also only in cities, in the country it's 2, so they could theretically move I the countryside if they wanted 2. Multiples and certain religions are exempt. Even in china you can hae 8 children if you like but then you simply jave no support, so a choice is still there.I'm not saying it doesn't have faults but things the did are:

- huge incentives for first child. Ie childcare costing say £100 a month instead of £1000. So have one child, only pay £100. The thing is if you choose I have 2 you also have to pay back all the difference with first child. So £900 per month that you didn't pay the last 3 years would then need paying. Ie ( 900x12) x3. Plus from then on £2000 a month for both children.

The same applies to Heath care, etc etc

If the uk had a similar scheme for 2. In that with 2 children you get reduced childcare, good packages for 2 ie swim tickets/ clothing/ education etc then it really would be an incentive. People could choose to pay £200 each child for childcare with 2, or £1000 per child if 3.

It's harsh, life is. But people can't simply choose what they always want without Thought of others now and in the future.

We work, have 2 children. And can afford 2 children. We couldn't afford to have 3 and live the same life. So even if we wanted more we wouldn't.

With 2 children households there would be more money to help people when needed. So you work and have 2 children then lawr loose your job, then the government can afford to really help you find work/ provide money and support. If people have more this is only going to decrease and make the problem worse as everyone will end up below poverty line

alemci Thu 05-Sep-13 13:42:26

I totally agree hedge.

its not going to get any better in 2014. the successive governments don't listen or care.

JakeBullet Thu 05-Sep-13 13:55:03

I have no answers, I just know that Govt's tend to go for the cheapest option. Maybe THIS is the cheapest option, I don't know.

I would like to see much more in the way of mentoring and voluntary work going on with difficult families who will accept it.

Surprisingly many do, I volunteer with a local education charity which works with families.....you would be surprised by the ones who DO ask for support.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 13:57:02

Women are forced into late abortions.
Forced to be sterilised and people are fined for having more than one child.
Parents have resorted to tying their daughters up whilst they work to try and prevent them being kidnapped as prospective wives.

It does NOT have good points.

That is like saying 'well the Nazis DID make the trains run on time'

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 14:07:17

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

alemci Thu 05-Sep-13 14:11:40

the China thing is awful. I remember working with a y7 class looking at in geography and studying an article about a dead baby girl 'rag doll on roadside'' type headline.sad sad

Loeri Thu 05-Sep-13 14:20:22

One child is strange. People will not only have no siblings, but no uncles, aunties, nephews, nieces etc. All the family attention from two sets of grandparents and two parents will be on one child. It would certainly change society as we know it.

mrsfuzzy Thu 05-Sep-13 14:29:58

as an only child i had all the pressure on me to do well, be successful etc, it was and still is very stressful, with an ailing mum to care for, no one to help out. i sometimes feels envious when people talk about their siblings, but then again there is no sibling rivalry and the like.

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 14:45:09

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

vile just vile.

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 14:53:48

Sockret - my strong views relate to selfish ADULTS-where have i said anything negative about the children?! This is very typical-make up your own rubbish and then try and attribute it to me!

Tell me-do you think it's fair or civilised to ignore the needs of children in care and focus soley on your own selfish desires?

DuckToWater Thu 05-Sep-13 14:54:08

seriously look at the state of the world, who wants to think about the potential problems that our children and their kids could face in the future, possible high unemployment, lack of housing, world problems etc the list goes on, things have changed dramatically over the years and not always for the best.

They will face different challenges than we've had, that's all. Or did I miss the period of human history when there was world peace and harmony?

I wonder what my parents were thinking in the 1970s with widespread famine, war in Vietnam, Middle East and Northern Ireland, an economic crisis and a oil crisis. I wonder what baby boomers' parents were thinking having children just after a war involving most of the planet and almost embarking on WW3 (a nuclear holocaust).

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 14:55:49

oh calm down.

You talk bollocks you get called on it.

Deal with it.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 14:57:21

And a tip

you really should be making up your mind whether you are going to adopt OR foster.

They are two totally different things.

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou Thu 05-Sep-13 14:59:00

well, this thread is a bit mad but it has reminded me to book a blood donation appointment

Mrsfuzzy: you do know that no form of contraception is 100% reliable, don't you?

Lilka Thu 05-Sep-13 15:01:21

The desire to adopt has to be a SELFISH desire! You shouldn't adopt if you don't want a child of your own very very deeply. Adopting a child is a selfish action - as it should be, because the children need to be loved and wanted very much. Adopting purely from some 'selfless' motive to help a child will not suffice - if you aren't selfishly desperate to have a child then how will you keep the adoption going if your adoptive child has many troubles, and how would the adoptive child feel? Adopting purely to save a child (and NO I'm not accusing ANYONE here of doing that, before anyone leaps on me) is a surefire way to wind up with a child who is miserable and thinks they have to be grateful for something they have no contol over, and is also a great way to wind up with a disrupted adoption.

I adopted primarily to fulfil my selfish desire to be a mother. I was hoping the adoption would make a real difference to my childs life - and it has - but adopting to have a child is selfish. That's a good thing, for reasons of see above.

Having a baby = meeting your selfish desires
Adopting a child = meeting your selfish desires

There's no difference in that respect

The increased population is the urban south east isn't all due to immigration. There's a lot of migration from within this country because that's where all the jobs are. So one of the issues is that there isn't enough housing in the places where people need to live.

Another issue is that household types have changed. There are far more single-person households, for example, which means we need more housing. 4 people living alone need more housing than 4 people living together.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 15:13:50

You are right Lilka
It was not my intention to suggest that adoption should be about rescuing children (ugh!), quite the opposite.

My point was more that that wanting a child and being maternal and a good person is not always going to be enough with the children who are in the system. The ones it was suggested should be a replacement for someone who wants to have more than two birth children.

The motivations for giving birth, adopting may be the same but the situations are very different.

I am not trying to explain that to you btw, it was a point I was trying to make.

I cannot abide the way adoption is thrown onto fertility threads (for example) as if it is a simple alternative to having a birth child.

RowanMumsnet (MNHQ) Thu 05-Sep-13 15:16:06

Hello there

Please remember our Talk Guidelines, especially the bits about personal attacks.

Thanks.

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 15:16:31

Devere- you were asking where adoptees would come from if the UK 'ran out' of them. I gave you an answer. The same places they are currently being adopted from. I don't believe the UK will ever be short on adoptees.

It is laughable that you think i would 'punish' a child because of their parents decisions. As for not being aware of the reality-LMAO!

morethanpotatoprints Thu 05-Sep-13 15:21:00

dysfunctional

If you share the view that it is ok to disrespect and show no empathy towards a birth mother who is a drug addict/alcoholic or any other unsavoury personality you can add, then yes you would be punishing a child because of their parents, by definition.

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 15:23:27

Friggin-how patronising of you and Devere - i am under no illusions whatsoever. I am fully aware and prepared to meet those kind of challenges.

JaquelineHyde Thu 05-Sep-13 15:28:34

dysfunctional Could you please give me an example of what you consider a 'selfish adult'. Can you explain the circumstances surrounding this 'selfish adult' as I am slightly confused as to who you think is selfish.

morethanpotatoprints Thu 05-Sep-13 15:30:47

dysfunctional

I have no reason to dislike you I don't know you, but does the fact that you have upset several people not tell you that it may be your attitude that needs to change.
Please do look at your reasons for wanting to adopt or foster and please listen to those who are experienced in being an adoptive parent. Above all please open your mind and understand when you say you are prepared to meet challenges that begins now with your attitude and views.

Lilka Thu 05-Sep-13 15:40:53

you were asking where adoptees would come from if the UK 'ran out' of them. I gave you an answer. The same places they are currently being adopted from. I don't believe the UK will ever be short on adoptees

But the problem with that is that is that children from other countries should only be adopted into the UK if there is no adoptive home for them in their own country. Just saying 'oh we'll go get children from other countries if there aren't any here' is such an entitled attitude. It's also not considering the needs of the children. It's just treating the children as importable objects. Worldwide, we need to be working towards enabling every child to find an adoptive home in their own country. We need to be aiming for international adoptions to reach nearly 0 exept for relative adoptions because ALL the children have been found homes in their country.

International adoption is very rare in the UK, because it's hard, there are more steps to it, because it's expensive and because the system very much discourages it. There are less than 200 international adoptions a year, and maybe no more than 100 - compared to 5000 domestic adoptions. Children are barely being adopted from anywhere. Worldwide, the tend is that international adoption is dropping and dropping.

morethanpotatoprints Thu 05-Sep-13 15:56:22

I also think saying adopt from other countries doesn't really look at long term consequences either.
So all these other countries hear about how we will adopt their children which in turn could cause immoral adoptions. People having children to be paid, especially if they are from under developed countries.
Children are not objects to be used to solve the problems of the world.

Lilka Is so right and along with MrsDeVere the most level headed people talking about adoption on this thread. smile

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 15:57:15

Adoption on its own is hard in the uk, very few people get through the process and lots and lots of children spend their childhoods in less than adequate care homes.

We should be encouraging people to adopt, not discouraging.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 16:05:19

Care homes?

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 16:06:42

Yes, care homes for children, you know, like foster homes where they care for children. I used to work in one, a good one by comparison to some of them but still not anywhere near as good as a home environment would be.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 16:11:12

I encourage people to adopt.

But I encourage them to be realistic.
Because something like 1:3 adoptions breakdown in the early stages.

Painful for the parents and disastrous for the children.

My issue is not with people wanting to adopt, it is with people suggesting that it is an alternative to people having a birth child.

People should come to adoption willingly (albeit regretful that they have not been able to have a birth child due to fertility issues). They should not be told 'adopt instead'.
Because it does not work like that. It is not a straight swap.

International adoption is grueling and stressful. I am amazed by those who stick it out and are successful. The international adopters I know are bloody incredible (I could think of a few who would poke me in the eye for calling them that)

It is hardly a quick fix hmm

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 16:12:51

Most LAC are with foster carers, not in care homes though aren't they?

I don't think its helpful to perpetuate the myth of care homes busting with young children.

IME it is teenagers in small group homes and children with complex needs in residential settings.

In other words, those least likely to be adopted or be free for adoption.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 16:13:43

I don't think you have encouraged people to adopt on this thread, I think you have shunned people who don't do it for the same reasons as you and possibly made future, very good, adoptive parents think they shouldn't bother.

morethanpotatoprints Thu 05-Sep-13 16:16:56

filee777

I couldn't disagree more.
We should not discourage but certainly not encourage.
Yes there are children's homes that could be improved and yes there is a lot of red tape and bureaucracy that should be minimised.
The whole system of children in care could do with an over haul, but to suggest children should be with any parent rather than the system is ridiculous.
There is a reason it takes so long to be approved for adopting and imo it shouldn't be made any easier or rushed at all. My parents went through long agonising waits, 3 court appearances each for me and my adopted sisters, because our welfare was what mattered most.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 16:20:53

I have never said children should be with 'any parent' rather than in the system! Where have I said that??

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 16:21:42

morethanpotatoprints - at no point have i said that adoption should be used as a means of population control. please read my posts instead of relying on the comments of people like Devere who are seem to be enjoying twisting my words (when they are not making them up).

what i said was that i believe it is inherently selfish for people to keep having children and expecting the taxpayer to fund it-esp when other vital services are struggling due to a lack of funding. i believe that everyone should be allowed one child of their own and receive child benefit for that child but not for any additional children they choose to give birth to. That is it as far as population control goes.

what i have said about adoption is this - there are thousands of children in care and on the adoption registers who need loving homes. those who want more than one child should be encouraged to adopt after they've had their first. i also believe that child benefit should be paid for each adopted child. that way the parents desire for a larger family is fulfilled and the child gets loving parents and home. i also believe the whole red tape around adoptions need to be adjusted, the same checks and criteria for suitability can be done in a more efficient manner. the current process is too long winded and demoralizing and puts off more than it attracts. Devere seems to think i want to risk of the safety and welfare of the child by asking for this - she couldn't be more wrong.

Lilka Thu 05-Sep-13 16:22:22

To be fair, in my experience the vast majority of the prepared who've researched and are determined do make it through the adoption process

I've talked at two prep groups and talked quite a bit to the social workers who handle initial information calls (and info evenings etc). My council do turn a lot of people down from the first phone call, but these arent people you would want to adopt or they can't legally/practically adopt at this point in time - people who start by asking how much you get paid to adopt, they make it rudely clear that they only want a newborn baby with no problematic background issues at all, they are under 21, they want an older child but they have 2 small birth children, or they are currently undergoing fertility treatment and want to adopt whilst having IVF. Etc - that's all genuinely true. Those people will all either get turned down flat or advised that they can apply in future once xyz has happened

If you've actually researched the requirements and policies and what adoption entails and who the children are in the 21st century...then you are highly likely to get invited to an evening and to have an initial visit. More people drop out then, not because SS told them they couldn't but because they realised that they aren't ready to adopt yet - eg. they realise they need one more round of fertility treatment before they are emotionally ready to move on.

I know adopters who have had significant mental health issues in the past, who have conditions like cystic fibrosis, who are single or gay like me, who have past criminal records, who are middle class, working class, white, black, asian. All of them made it through because they were prepared and stable and ready to discuss it all through

Certainly some people are turned down when they shouldn't be, but at least where I live they really aren't finding excuses to turn people down. Can't speak for other councils or agencies

Also the process to approval is now supposed to be concluded in 6 months and most agencies have now implemented it from July 2013, so it's not too long now either. The wait will come when you are seeking a good match

Lilka Thu 05-Sep-13 16:25:21

Have implemented the new process i mean. At ALL the adoption agencies near me, the new process is 4-6 months from start to approval. That is not too long at all. It needs to remain very thorough

LtEveDallas Thu 05-Sep-13 16:33:25

what i said was that i believe it is inherently selfish for people to keep having children and expecting the taxpayer to fund it

I'll ask you again dysfunctionallynormal (look how easy it is to actually use a posters full name rather than using a PA abbreviation). Where are ALL these people that are selfishly having babies and expecting the taxpayer to fund them?

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation couldn't find them, can you?

twistyfeet Thu 05-Sep-13 16:35:13

There are loads of disabled children waiting in care homes and foster places to be adopted. Funnily enough people arent queueing up.
Or maybe dysfuntionally is?

Lilka Thu 05-Sep-13 16:41:34

those who want more than one child should be encouraged to adopt after they've had their first. i also believe that child benefit should be paid for each adopted child

I do agree that all adoptive parents should get child benefit for each child they've adopted - even if they've adopted 6+

However I disagree with the other sentence. Adoption is very very different from having a birth child. Because of that, whilst we should aim to raise adoption awareness, we shouldn't be encouraging or telling people to adopt in place of having a birth child.

Personally, I have never ever said to someone 'you should adopt' or 'it would be better to adopt' because that's, well, not true. Adoption is not a better route to parenthood than giving birth, it's a different one, crucially it requires a different mindset.

- To adopt, you need to be very comfortable with the idea of not sharing your genes with your child

- You need to be comfortable with having missed some of your childs life

- You need to be able to deal with your childs past, which might include a
anything from drugs exposure and domestic violence through to being raped and witnessing murder

- You need to understand that traumatised children need to be parented in a certain way, which might be very different to how you parent your secure birth children

- You need to be comfortable with the idea that your child is also somebody else's child, you usually need to be comfortable with having soke form of contact with the 'other mother' (or any other birth family)

A LOT of people who want more than one children just would not ever want to adopt, or can't deal with the reality of adoption. There's no point at all encouraging those people to adopt. Adoption will never fulfil their needs

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 16:42:39

I think more funding should be provided to help people who want to give a home to a disabled child. There should also be more focus on providing home like environments for disabled children. Unfortunately funding is being cut left right and centre. Personally I would rather reduce the tax credit and welfare budget by removing benefits for more than 2 children, and improve those services.

Dawndonnaagain Thu 05-Sep-13 16:48:42

So, you would not allow child benefit for a contraceptive accident, but you would for further adoption, eg:adopting a second or subsequent child. Bit daft really, there will be many contraceptive accidents put up for adoption and many more unsuitable prospective parents clogging the system.
I've been out most of the day, home now, and I've read the whole of the thread. Sorry, dysfunctional you're wrong, as well as being in the wrong, you seem unable to show empirical evidence for your facts. An alarming lack of self awareness is also demonstrated in your attacks on Mrs Devere somebody who has, unlike you, a greater experience of the system.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 16:55:45

filee do you know what 'shunned' means? confused

And I think it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest I have deterred anyone who is determined to adopt from doing so.

Anyone put off by any of my posts is hardly committed to adoption ffs.

btw wrt your early vile little post directed at LtEve, do you realise that the armed forces have their very own adoption agency?

Dawndonnaagain Thu 05-Sep-13 17:00:51

Personally I would rather reduce the tax credit and welfare budget by removing benefits for more than 2 children, and improve those services. So which of my three disabled children shouldn't be getting welfare benefits?

IneedAsockamnesty Thu 05-Sep-13 17:01:33

Ohhhh so are we only talking about over population and more than 1/2 children in lower income families?

That's good then I'm ok with my kids and can have even more of them because I'm not using nor have I ever used any income related benefits

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 17:03:33

This is weird.
Remove financial support from birth families potentially causing family breakdown and more children in care.
Give more money to people who want to have children to adopt instead.

How does that make sense?

Dawndonnaagain Thu 05-Sep-13 17:07:29

It doesn't MrsDeVere I said up there ^ tis bloody nonsense!

Lilka Thu 05-Sep-13 17:08:23

I don't think we should be removing support from birth families by the way! Sorry if I gave that impression

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 17:13:44

I know dawn I was responding to the original idea from another poster and it took me a while to formulate my response grin

lilka you didn't give that impression. I am just trying to work out how another poster's ideas will work in reality.

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 17:19:55

If people are getting offended it is because they are not actually understanding what it is that i have said and are instead relying on certain other people's twisted version of what i have said. certain posters seem to think it is ok for them to attack me and then report me when i reply to their attacks explaining what it is that i meant.

you can have any opinion you want of me, i don't care. none of you know me but you're quick to assume that i have no understanding of what it means to care for fostered or adopted children. well, my foster agency and social worker know me and know that i am right kind of person to be adopting/fostering.

yes, Devere, i am well aware the two are different. i am beginning with fostering and then hoping to adopt after 4-5 years. i will always continue to foster. this is what i have wanted to do since i was 14 years old. it is also why i made sure that i have always used appropriate contraception and have had no "accidental pregnancies". It is also why i have not only done my research but have also made sure that i am receiving the training and experience that i need to meet the challenges that i will be facing.

to reiterate: i have already given you an example of what i consider to be a selfish breeder - the kind of person who chooses to have more children because it allows them to stay at home and have their lifestyle paid for by others.

i have strong opinions and i am not afraid to voice them - even when people start ganging upon me!

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 17:25:13

Lilka - everything you have said in that post i am already aware of and have no issue with. i've had since the age of 14 to think about this and for me adopting is all about giving my love, nurturing and being a parent. plus i've already discussed all this and more thoroughly with my social worker. i am not blinkered in the slightest. what i am is very determined and prepared.

Dawndonnaagain Thu 05-Sep-13 17:26:21

Asking for empirical evidence of your assumptions is not ganging up on you, and yet you still haven't provided it.
I have strong opinions, if I place them on a public forum, I usually have facts to back my assertions, I'll make an allowance, I am not sure anyone who uses the term 'selfish breeders' should be allowed to foster or adopt. I'll make another assertion, I bet you've never used that term in front of your social worker.

Your ideas, by the way, are ill informed and unworkable.
You are not helping yourself by using the term Devere.
Anywhere that has a longstanding personality who has always posted in a relatively calm, even handed and well informed manner is going to gather to protect that poster from attack when they perceive a threat, eg. somebody being rude and actually, a little preposterous.

FrigginRexManningDay Thu 05-Sep-13 17:27:54

Dysfunction just don't get it MrsDeVere. My mother fostered children for years. Lots of people try and fail at fostering.

Lilka Thu 05-Sep-13 17:28:22

That's good - and I wasn't suggesting that you didn't know any of that. I was saying that a large majority of families with one birth child (who want more children) wouldn't be comfortable with what adoption means - therefore we shouldn't be telling families who want more than one child to adopt. It's too different from giving birth to a second child

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 17:29:48

Just for the record.
I certainly haven't reported anyone.

Why is it that those who make the nastiest posts are the ones that call bully the most often?

If you are strong enough to stand by your opinions you shouldn't need to resort to passive aggression to win an argument.

morethanpotatoprints Thu 05-Sep-13 17:36:05

I also haven't reported anybody and would have the courage to say if I had.
I also know that nobody said a child was better with any parent than in the system, but to suggest that because there are children to adopt we should be encouraging more parents to adopt imo suggests this.
Sometimes if the right parents can't be found a child is better off in the system.

FrigginRexManningDay Thu 05-Sep-13 17:36:57

No reporting from me.

Lilka Thu 05-Sep-13 17:37:45

I haven't reported anyone either

LtEveDallas Thu 05-Sep-13 17:41:46

to reiterate: i have already given you an example of what i consider to be a selfish breeder - the kind of person who chooses to have more children because it allows them to stay at home and have their lifestyle paid for by others

Good job in that case that there is only a miniscule amount of those "selfish breeders" actually in existence then isn't it - and actually, taking their benefits away would be a drop in the ocean, wouldn't make any difference to the welfare bill, and only the actual children would suffer. Good job.

Have you told your SW your views?