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

[jellysandwich]

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).

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...

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.

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

Nope, it's based on money and sense.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

No I'm not the OP!

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?

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.

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

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.

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