To disagree with Phillipson's Have More Children advice

[JustASmallBear]

In various newspapers.

Bridget Phillipson is urging young people to have more children in order to try and reverse the inevitable population shrinkage from a falling birth rate.

AIBU to think at best this is short termism at its finest?

Apart from anything else, young people struggle to buy a home, let alone can afford the expense of having more kids.

I think Phillipson is deluded in believing anyone wants more children when it'll make their lives more financially difficult.

What are the incentives that will make this irresistible?

www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jun/30/falling-birthrate-bridget-phillipson-education-secretary-labour?CMP=share_btn_url

I thought you might. Good idea.

You have not answered anything or explained why more old people is a good thing. I'm sure it's just as boring for everyone else on the thread.

Can I ask your age? Because I do think some older people are blinkered to the realties & would rather not acknowledge the issue.

Oh that's interesting. Do you have the link to it? I'd like to read it. 😊👍

Boris Johnson wrote a piece talking about the real dangers of excessive population, then had ? 12 children himself..
But given worsening climate change, excess pollution, water shortages, stress in infrastructure it’s irresponsible to have large families now

We don't need to increase the birth rate as we don't have enough resources now so a decline will be good.

You selectively quoted the post where I said why falling rate is good.

Yes there are economic repercussions which is why most countries have perused the opposite for a long time. On every thread these will be brought up, it’s still a decision up or down from here.

The increasing downsides now tip the balance. They are lack of resources globally meaning increasing volatility (you have noticed that?) and AI which I’m sure you’re aware of.

Can you see why they might be factors?

One of my biggest fears is that our next government will be Reform. We are already seeing the financial impact on our economy re the ageing population and not investing in young people.
But so many want to believe the snake oil that Reform are selling eg we can have low tax & better services! It's scary how people prefer lies if it's the more palatable story.

You selectively quoted the post where I said why falling rate is good.

You have not said why falling but more older is good?! Or is that bit irrelevant to you?

On every thread these will be brought up, it’s still a decision up or down from here.

It's not just about up or down. This is what I mean about nuance!!! Or are you saying the government is going to stop economic migration?

Here you say a falling population is a good thing.

So what’s the issue? There are downsides as recognised but you still want it.

So do I. This is about birthrate.

If you’re arguing for immigration to counter that’s separate to birthrate which you’ve agreed you want to fall.

So you are shifting to immigration. That still means a falling birthrate which is the question in this thread.

I'm loathe to admit it was the Daily Mail article linked on a Facebook post. I'd ordinarily take the DM with a pinch of salt but they quote ONS figures so.....

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10456215/More-half-babies-born-middle-class-mothers-figures.html

I stopped at 1 because quite frankly COL would have been a struggle with 2. £1450 mortgage and moderate salaries. Right now we can afford a holiday once a year, days out and live comfortably, with 2 we would be really scraping and probably getting into debt during the nursery years.

Nursery was crippling even with "free" hours (we still had to pay £22 a day on "free" days for consumables and £86 on normal days, only got 2 "free" days a week even with 30 hrs allowance) This is in the North West. (Also think it's £93 a day now and due to rise to £100+, even though we qualify for the tax free hours and child benefit but that doesn't go far)

I'm 42 and DC is 5. So a bit late now but noones going to have more kids just on some talking heads say so. If they really want people to have more kids childcare really does have to be subsidised better and COL needs to significantly reduce.

I hope that Bridget Phillipson has very deep pockets. (Best to ensure that you bank her cheque, before advancing on her plan unfinanced.)
Many prospective parents would have loved to have started a family/had a further child but were financially forced to abandon the idea.
Some spokespeople don’t live in the real world, while the rest of us don’t have the choice not to!

So you are shifting to immigration.

No it's not a shift to immigration, it's acknowledging that immigration is the population driver over the next few decades. I don't make the bloody forecasts!

That still means a falling birthrate which is the question in this thread.

The birth rate is falling & has been for years. I am not disagreeing. Because of this is why immigration will be the population driver....

Here you say a falling population is a good thing.

I said a falling population is a good thing. Did you miss the bit where I said a falling but old population wasn't?

If you’re arguing for immigration to counter that’s separate to birthrate which you’ve agreed you want to fall.

Where have I said I want the UKs birth rate to fall or fall further? I haven't said that at all...

Again acknowledging immigration is the population driver is not arguing for it. I'm just stating a fact 🤦🏻‍♀️

It’s a hell of a nerve for politicians to spend so much on utter bollocks like war, and so little on citizens and their lives, then ask us to procreate more.

I can't work out if you're being deliberately contrary and accusing me of saying things I haven't said or if you are just lacking basic comprehension & understanding.

@JustASmallBear “have more children in order to try and reverse the inevitable population shrinkage from a falling birth rate.
AIBU to think at best this is short termism at its finest?
Apart from anything else, young people struggle to buy a home, let alone can afford the expense of having more kids”

How can it possibly be short-termism? She’s the one looking to the long-term, and you’re the one giving short-term reasons why it cannot be so.

Has this place always been like this? Give an opinion and then just say any old crap as if it justifies it.

Thanks @Willyoujustbequiet

I laughed at this bit:

Economists are worried about the long-term impact of this fall, because fewer babies now means fewer taxpaying workers in the future to fund the needs of an ageing population.

Of course, they don't give a stuff about us as actual people, just economic units of production.

Those in routine or manual work or with no occupation, who make up about a quarter of working-age women, accounted for nearly half the drop in national fertility – having almost 40,000 fewer babies in 2019 than in 2011.

That is really interesting!

It's certainly not just nursery fees that are the blocker for people having children younger. If you want to work part time, it will torpedo your future earning prospects. I dropped to 4 days a week after mat leave, so have zero chance of being promoted. If I had done that in a entry level job at a younger age, I would have been stuck around minimum wage forever. No chance of saving a property deposit, or contributing properly to a pension. I am still not a higher earner, but have security, which means a lot.

Ditto.

You are unclear though. What you seem to want is falling birth rate as you said. But worried about ageing population so would like immigration to counter. Yes?

Or if not just say clearly what it is you’re arguing to get.

Three shifts if you’re also responsible for helping parents/grandparents which is much more common now people live longer and have babies later.

I wanted to have it all so I worked really hard to have a good career. I still do the majority of the housework, mental load, etc and we help our older relatives too. If we had 4 kids, something would have to give and it would inevitably be my career so we’re having 1, possibly 2 if I change my mind.

@rrrrrreatt Where has 4 dc come from? The average was between 2-3 children. We are below 2 now I think. Who says you should have 4? They don’t even fit in a standard car!

Ditto

I don't understand what is wrong with you? I have not accused you of saying things you haven't said, unlike you...

What you seem to want is falling birth rate as you said. But worried about ageing population so would like immigration to counter. Yes?

Again, where did I say I want to reduce birth rates further? Falling birth rates are not the same as falling populations!!!

Where have I said I want immigration to increase? I simply acknowledged that governments utilise immigration for economy growth.

Or if not just say clearly what it is you’re arguing to get.

I can't say things anymore clearly because you are either deliberately misconstruing what I am saying or simply don't understand.

If you're bored and looking for an argument to occupy your time then surely there are better things to do but please don't spoil an interesting debate by accusing me of saying things I haven't said.

Those in routine or manual work or with no occupation, who make up about a quarter of working-age women, accounted for nearly half the drop in national fertility – having almost 40,000 fewer babies in 2019 than in 2011.

I think i read poorer males are the least likely to have dc now.

You really are unclear. I’ve asked for what you’re after and still not putting it down.