We're becoming a nation of only children: do you agree? And have a butcher's at our guest blog, too

It would be nice if someone at MNHQ had actually looked at the underlying report rather than just relying on the Telegraph. It's easily available here and it shows that the proportion of families with one dependent child has changed from 42% in 1996 to 47% in 2012. So it's not an especially big trend, and it overcounts because it excludes families with adult children and families with children living elsewhere, and obviously also can't account for the fact that families may have more kids later on.

Froth and nonsense.

So what?
What business is it of anyone else to judge/ comment on how many children you have?

If its the government concerned about population replacement then clearly they need state funded nursery care.

Otherwise- bog off!

I have three and my two best friends have three each too, other friend has 4, therefore if I was a Telegraph hack I would conclude that families are getting bigger and go off to write a load of drivel based on my huge sample size. That's how it works isn't it?

I only know three only children. One of those hass a single mum because her father was an irresponsible sod who mucked around then went and had a child with someone else, then left them, then.... The other two are children of single mums, too.

I know far more people with 2 kids, like us and a lot of people with 3 or more.

By definition, a lot of children are going to be an only child, anyhow, even if it's because the younger sibling hasn't come along yet.

I have one dd. Absolutely not my choice, but because of fertility issues. I know 4 other people who have a single child, 1 due to fertility issues, one as a choice (don't know about the other 2)

I'd be suprised if the figure isn't more like 20% of families are one child in the long term - certainly looking at my sons class and our friends.

I have one child, partly by choice, partly not - I had multiple miscarriages before we had ds, a bad pg and a premature birth - so its more that we never had felt that we wanted another enough to risk all that heartbreak again.

I hardly know any only children these days. I am an only child and there seemed to be more around then. But there were quite a lot of bigger families then too.

I only have one DS, I would love to give him a sibling but unfortunately I can't for health reasons.

Most families we know have more than one.

In DD's class:

2 - only children (inc DD)
6 - family of 2 children
1 - family of 3 children
2 - family of 4 children

Only one of our friends have an only child.
Most families we know there are 2 children.

I agree with RockandRoll, it is an obnoxious article:

1. the emperors and empresses line
2. Sexism: "the mixed message sent by last week?s Budget, which proposed to make childcare more affordable for women who go out to work but did nothing for mothers who want to raise more children in the home." Parents. Childcare more affordable for PARENTS.
3. And more sexism " ?superwomen? ? the bankers and lawyers whose salaries enable them to pay for the childcare to support multiple children;" when 2 parents work childcare is for BOTH of them, and the father's salary also goes towards childcare.
4. Sexist and obnoxiously prejudiced: "should we worry about British mothers turning out a generation of spoilt singletons?" Fathers never turn out a child of any character, and are irrelevant?

And Sue Palmer's book is not one I will be buying, as she seems to either state the obvious or talk shit say things I don't agree with.

Now frothing with rage at "should we worry about British mothers turning out a generation of spoilt singletons?"

Hmm - I guess from here - quite a number of important disclaimers about older siblings living elsewhere, and of course the vital point that all families were families with one child at one point (except families with multiples)

Any idea what this new research is and who did it? Must say that doesn't chime with my experience at all - I only know a handful of families with only children.

Tell a lie - just remembered another one in her class!

It certainly doesn't reflect DD's class at school. She's the only only out of 31 as far as I'm aware. I did always want more but lost 4 before I got her and doctors down on bended knee begging me never to do it again she kind of got it out of my system. After that it was financial though I'd have done it if I was sure she would be harmed if I didn't. A friend pointed out to me that he and his DB hardly spoke, so the playing together thing doesn't always happen anyway.

I'm surprised too. I'm in the minority in my group of friends by only having two DCs. Most of them have three or four (or more!). I don't know anyone that's only had one child and isn't planning more.

(I do imagine more Telegraph readers to have only children though...)

I have an only and I am the only person I know to have one.

I don't believe those stats at all at all at all.

I have got an only, and finance was a major part in my decision to only have one, but also other circumstances (I was single for years) contributed. I also never really had any desire whatsoever to have another, apart from a few mad moments of broodiness.

About 1/8th of the families I know have one child. Most are because of secondary infertility, some financial.

I have one child. I wanted more but exh was abusive and refused.
He wanted dd to have everything he had and if we had more dc he said he wouldn't pay for schooling etc.
I wish dd had a sibling but looking back, it was easier too leave with just her (I left while he was out). Fiance was never a issue.
I wish dd had siblings but I am happy that I have even 1 child. I treat her like I would if she had a sibling. She isn't spoilt and she has lots of friends round and goes away with them/they come away with us.

We might not have a second, we haven't decided yet. But we met in our 30s and I will be at least 37 before we could have another, realistically much closer to 40.
It's nothing to do with finances. We feel that we're probably sociable enough to have an only.. two does seem the 'default' but we'd have to be really sure not just do it because society feels 2 is better.

I have a sibling I have almost no relationship with (don't dislike him at all, just nothing in common) and my DH has a sister we get on great with now but they didn't enjoy each others' company growing up at all.

I've got an only, but I'm the only one out of ten at my ante natal group not to have a second - and I hear vague murmurings of thirds!

Money and age is only part of the reason. Yes, I'm ancient, and yes, childcare is like having a second mortgage. But its also just preferring a small family. I'm not a 'super mum' type at all and I'd rather just concentrate our resources on pfb DS.

I love being a family of three, but I can't see it becoming a big trend. Most women do want more, ime.

I often wonder why it is the sole purpose of the press to heap nothing but misery and doom on us. Surely there's some good news?

For example, today I had a fried egg sandwich for lunch and when I squeezed my ketchup on I made a smiley face