To tell you that if a UK woman has not had her first child by 28, there is a 50% probability she will never have children.

@anon666 I don't think you need to apologise. We should be able to acknowledge and agree on basic facts.

The question about what to DO about birthrates or immigration rates (which includes the possible answers "do nothing" or "keep going even faster") is separate from the question of what they currently ARE!

Ugh, in the current climate I now feel like I have to make an excessively obsequious apology in case I've genuinely upset my fellow Londoners of other ethnicities. My intentions aren't to hurt feelings, they're to present the somewhat dramatic reality.

I'm in two minds on this. I really don't want to add fuel to the far right narrative. On the other hand, I've done loads of analysis out of my own curiosity, because the change in population has accelerated in the time I've lived in London (30 years), and even more in the past 4 years since the 2021 census. And I was genuinely curious because of what I see in my children's schools, and at the other school gates. I find the left wing narrative so out of date. They're still talking as if we're taking in the world's poor huddled masses, 🙄 when in fact we seem to be taking in the world's most incredibly wealthy, talented, educated hardworking individuals. Because I'm living in this reality in a relatively affluent suburb of London, it can be invigorating rather than threatening, as long as you can accept that we're moving into a new reality that bears little resemblance to the past.

Equally I can see that the disjoint between London and the rest of the UK is reaching worrying proportions. And increasingly, London just isn't recognisable from any of the cultural artefacts being produced like TV shows, print media, even social media. It's left the building.

From the underlying demographic change suggested on this thread, I'm considering that we're incredibly lucky we've been able to attract such a rich mix of people from abroad? London was in terminal decline 40 years ago in the 80's. Look at it now! The rocketing house prices since then are a reflection of the booming economy and population growth.

I find this topic endlessly fascinating. As others have pointed out above, it is the speed at which the fertility rates have dropped, combined with the dramatic increase in life expectancy on the other end of the spectrum that lead us to this political/social pickle. It is an economic problem where old age pension systems set up with 10 workers to one retiree now have 3 workers to one retiree, and that ratio is moving in the wrong direction. Countries like Japan got there first, but the rest of the developed world is close behind with a shrinking population outside of migration and more old than young.

How do we support a bunch of old people when there aren’t a bunch of young?

How do we shift our economy to something else after centuries of a continuous growth model?

I don’t have answers, but these are problems for politicians and economists. This is not a problem for women to solve. It is not our problem, and we are not the solution.

It is time to accept that we need to build a different system than the one we have had up until now.

Falling population sure, but falling how fast? Is there an amount that would be too fast for you? X% drop per year/decade/generation

There are positives of falling population though. Personally, I think the positives out weigh the negatives. And yes, I do understand about nobody around to pay for or look after the elderly. I will be one of those elderly.

Youre determined to pick a fight over this one, by splitting hairs. The main point wasn't about London or white British people or even non-white British people. It was about a visible impact of the low birth rate in London.

I wasn't making any point about London other than that it would be a ghost town if left to the birth rate of the white British population.

And FYI I live in London, quite happily, alongside people of all ethnic origins, and all countries of birth. We're clearly building something new here, an affluent global city, out of the legacy of the white British people that originally inhabited this city.

But they are no longer in any way a majority of the growing population, and, like it or lump it, that's a fact, not a far right lie. 🙄 Its not changing, its never changing. The far right are living in a terrifying cloud cuckoo land.

@SuffolkSun ignoring anon's specific claims about 90%, do you deny that the white British population in London is falling rapidly, and that this is particularly visible in primary schools and younger age groups?

The conversation about whether or not people have naturalised or were born here to parents who aren't white British is not relevant to answering this very specific question.

@anon666

Had I called you a racist you would be right to be disturbed. But I didn't - I asked why you chose to parrot a far-right lie, something else entirely. The myth of the "extinction" of white British people being one of the more prominent lies favoured by the far right. So, why did you?

You claimed that 90% of London primary school children have mothers born abroad. You haven't subsequently posted a link that proves your claim, because it's a statistic that doesn't exist. Your claim is factually incorrect.

The link you posted doesn't back up your subsequent assertion that the age profile (of white British) in London is "massively skewed" to older cohorts. The link you posted doesn't look at age. If you wish to assert this as being factually correct, you're going to have to do the research and find the statistics that prove it.

Neither does your link tell us anything about what proportion of London's population is British nationals, born in the UK. It's rather odd to implicitly assert, as you did in your OP ("if it weren't for this ability to attractpeople from overseas, the capital would be a ghost town"), that the 63.4% of London residents who don't define as "White British" are all non-British recent migrants, don't you think?

You know what actually disturbs me is how confidently you've both called me both a racist and factually incorrect, spouting a far roght lie.

I'm not far right and I've made every effort to do detailed research on this topic, to ensure im not spouting lies.

Regional ethnic diversity - GOV.UK Ethnicity facts and figures https://share.google/jFcbqvfZnwSj81gaw

This shows that the proportion of white British people in London is 36.6%. But of those, the age profile is massively skewed to the older population, because inward migration has mainly been the past 30 years.

The liars are the ones in the far right promising some kind of reversal is possible. That ship sailed long ago. Im afraid the population has changed whether they like it or not. 🤣

Why is that necessarily racist? I guess with the current climate it was a bit provocative but it is backed up by the stats.

It was a neutral statement - there was no value attached to it - white British people are less than 10% of the primary school population. At the current rate of change, they are going to be extinct in London within a generation.

Do your own research if you like.

I think the simple explanation is, as always, all about the money. When money flowed up the generations, women had lots of children. It used to be customary for kids to grow up, get a job young, and give their mum some money each week, regardless of whether they lived with her or not. Now money flows down the generations and every kid you have costs an absolute fortune with no financial return for the parents.
This also explains why birth rates are still high in Sub Saharan Africa. This presure on young people to provide financially for parents drives migration to Europe as well.

Isn't excessively young? Becoming a mother at 18 is a teenage pregnancy and one year out of childhood! You could still be in the upper sixth form at 18.

I'm with you. From a WC background and my parents both tried to escape poverty from teenage pregnancy, from more children than they could afford to take care of and nurture to their full potential. They wanted to learn and be the first in their families to go to university and break the mold. And my mum did not want grandchildren in her thirties. She did not and does not want to really raise any more children. She wanted so much for us including being stretched academically and not struggling so much financially. Like children are one aspect of life (if you want them) but not the only aspect.

Saying all that I do think if people find love young it can be a great thing but I think children are/should be a gift. They should be had because people really want them; to love them and raise them (both parents at least), and when you pick a father for your child it should be because you think he would be a good father.

Maybe Men as a class need to stop being utter shits to women. A significant reduction in rape, femicide, domestic violence, coercive control and a corresponding change in attitudes to the legal system and police opinions of women might make it slightly less unappealing to have a child to add to the situation. Maybe improving housing and not making it hopelessly unaffordable and inherently insecure would help. Maybe not having women - particularly those of other ethnicities - dying due to systemic neglect and racism in healthcare would make it slightly less terrifying or repellent to become pregnant.

After all, it wasn't solely women who pushed for the benefits cap. It wasn't solely women who ran the political parties that push for the shrinking of the welfare state. It's not solely women who seek to restrict the opportunities for employment or refuse to employ women of childbearing age and it's not solely women who make the prospect of being additionally vulnerable - financially, physically and emotionally - through pregnancy, childbirth and parenting quite so unappealing.

I think the depressing bit is focusing on your children's lives and not YOUR life? like what are you modelling with this - so your kids grow up and have kids as soon as they are adults, what life are they having of their own?

I come from a WC background and now cannot say I'm WC but my mum wanted better for me than her and her four siblings had. I don't see aspiration of any kind in what you have set out tbh as a childfree woman. And I'm not talking making loads of money or travelling loads or anything material, but just having something outside of being a parent. What is the point, is it just a pyramid scheme to prop up the pensions system? That doesn't sound very fulfilling to me.

I see women of my mum's generation (1960s) and they are so strong but they put up with a lot of shit and they taught us not to. Now we have high standards for partners and goals and there's all this birth rate panic. Sorry, but maybe the birth rate in western civilisation is going to decline and we will have to adjust. Not put young women back in their box, grandmas at 30 and great grans at 50.

Why is it inherently depressing to see more of your children's lives than if you had them at 35? To be young enough to be active with your grandchildren and support your children properly with their young family. To meet your great-grandchildren and have a relationship with them?

Are they a net drain? Really? The people I know who live this way do have jobs, mainly in hospitality , retail and factories. They're just not well paid jobs, but they are jobs people are required to do. If you are working, but your job doesn't pay well enough to raise a family without claiming universal credit for the few short years when your children are small, does that mean you and your children are worthless to society?

ROFL - that was a trivial example of one thing among many.

He didn't run the hoover round, or ever do a school run, rarely cooked, didn't get up with the kids, never put the kids to bed without being asked, didn't organise insurance or bill payments or holidays, didn't buy toilet roll or toothpaste or cat litter, didn't organise dentist appointments (even his own) or car servicing or mow the lawn or decorate or buy school uniform or school books or label them.

Oh, and then he had violent sex with a young woman who sent pictures of her bruises to his work phone where I saw them and finally having some evidence of what I suspected, ended it immediately.

Which I could, because I did everything above and held down a c-level job - which is my point I think. Women don't have to put up even with trivial stuff anymore (although many of us do) because we're able to look after ourselves.

I've heard plenty of men who think they want trad wives complain that a woman isn't cooking/looking after him so he won't commit.

So you think more people who are nothing but a net drain on the economy is the solution?

How depressing

If there are 18yos who went into full-time jobs and can support themselves I'm all for it. I don't think they are by definition too young. If they need state support to do it then I have a problem, although tbf it is not really because of their age.

I think more people should go directly into jobs and things like apprenticeships where you learn on the job and get paid slowly more and more. It's not just uni I'm thinking about for those couple of years.

I'm not opposed to state support in principle for children but I think it should be distributed differently - we currently have middle-income earners (both working & middle class) feeling squeezed to the point of not having that 2nd/3rd kid while paying for others to have several more, so obviously the balance is not right.

Why shouldn't tax payers pay for people's kids? They are the future. Everyone who accesses state schooling has tax payers paying for their children to a certain extent. Many, many people work full time and get UC top-ups, what is wrong with that from a personal morals point of view?

You can say yes it's wrong that businesses don't pay a living wage, but today's young parents can't do anything about that, they just work within the system that is there.

And not everyone is suited to higher education and getting a "good" job (and those jobs are less available than ever currently). So if you're never going to have that lifestyle, why wait to have kids if you have a supportive family? What are you waiting for?

And you're just demonstrating there why the birth rate is so low. If a person waits to get qualifications, a well paid job and a house before even thinking about children, many people under the current cost of living will be too old for children. Maybe we should rethink this.

Yeah I think there is a difference between advocating for 18yos to have children supported primarily by either their parents or the state (read: taxpayers paying for someone else's kids)

And advocating for say, normalising 22-25yos (or, say, a 22yo woman and a 26yo man) having children, having got a job either out of school or university to support themselves and their children

Tbh, one of the issues is that it's hard to have a society where peers are doing things at different times. If all your friends out of school had had kids at 22-25, so therefore all of you wanted child-friendly holidays at that age, or child-friendly soft play catch-ups etc - would you feel as constricted/lame as women do now when they have kids "early"?

I also wonder how many 18 year old first time mothers stop there? Or wait until a better more secure time in their lives for the next one?