Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

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

647 replies

jellysandwich · 04/09/2013 10:27

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).

OP posts:
Birdsgottafly · 04/09/2013 17:35

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 · 04/09/2013 17:42

I agree with Wellwobbly.

filee777 · 04/09/2013 17:45

This is no just about cb.

alemci · 04/09/2013 17:47

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 · 04/09/2013 17:49

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 · 04/09/2013 17:53

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 · 04/09/2013 17:55

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 · 04/09/2013 17:56

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 · 04/09/2013 17:57

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 · 04/09/2013 18:10

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 · 04/09/2013 18:22

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 · 04/09/2013 18:23

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

LynetteScavo · 04/09/2013 18:29

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 · 04/09/2013 18:33

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

Dobbiesmum · 04/09/2013 18:34

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

HappyMummyOfOne · 04/09/2013 18:35

"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 · 04/09/2013 19:18

This reply has been deleted

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

HorryIsUpduffed · 04/09/2013 19:19

Taxpayers have children.
Benefits claimants breed.

Apparently.

dysfunctionallynormal · 04/09/2013 19:28

@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 · 04/09/2013 19:30

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

dysfunctionallynormal · 04/09/2013 19:31

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

dysfunctionallynormal · 04/09/2013 19:35

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 · 04/09/2013 19:38

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 · 04/09/2013 19:38

Right.

Good luck with that.

ubik · 04/09/2013 19:43

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

Swipe left for the next trending thread