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

We are below 2 now I think.

I think it's 1.5.

I wonder if the education secretary has flagged it because schools which are already underfunded are suffering due to falling rolls. It's not just closures and mergers but funding is based on head counts.

"Total pupil numbers in state-funded primary and secondary schools are projected to fall from a peak of 7.57 million in 2022-23, and then decrease at an average rate of 1.0 per cent each year until they reach 7.14 million in 2028-29.

This means that even under a scenario where per pupil funding is increased by 0.5 per cent per year, overall funding would still fall by £1 billion by 2029-2030."

We have 2 DCs, relatively close together, to minimise the hit on my career. I would have loved to have more but just not feasible.

“You can literally see the cogs moving when she speaks.”
😂

Screw women over and, given a choice, many won't have children.

We're only one of many countries presently finding that out.

I think it's either in Korea or Japan where they sell more adult nappies than baby ones.

I can't help but think anyone who has children for a cash incentive isn't doing it for the right reasons 😬 it's different if you're not having more kids due to finances, but money motivating you to have children is a very different scenario and stupid policies don't usually think that through

This is even more evidence that the housing problem is the everything problem that ruins all aspects of society.

We did try to warn them 15 years ago, but hey, why introduce a policy that might decrease their own value of their home.

The homes largely built in my area are two bedroom flats with little parking and no communal outside area. They are also very expensive compared to local wages. Why would you have more than one child and risk having to find a 3 bedroom at a huge expense? That's on top of nursery fees and everything else. Expensive housing does not work for your average worker, just those that rent them out.

My area is even worse 4 or 5 very small bedrooms with just as many bathrooms as bedrooms. Zero outdoor space. I don't even know who these are meant to cater for

This is typical of government thinking the world over. We can't stick to the status quo. If per pupil funding means funding is falling for schools, change the funding system. Fewer children in schools after decades of waiting lists and overcrowding will hopefully mean more money per child. But instead everything gets worse because no one wants to change the system.
Also birthrate is now 1.4!

Agree. That’s an easy one and state schools could have smaller classes with higher pp funding.

That's what we have here, although six bedrooms are now starting to crop up!

I mentioned upthread that Sweden with its relatively progressive childcare policies is still experiencing a lowering birth rate.

So it's not about facilities as such even when they're in place women don't want more children.

I was actually thinking about this tonight while it was my child's bedtime. I think the problem now is we want to have our time too. I put my DC to bed early because I value my own adult time, I do things that make my life harder so I have adult time with my friends and DH. My parents were very different, we were with them 24/7, they never had time without us. The way we parent and the expectations we want for ourselves are very much focus on us and not our children in some ways. I agree with you that it's more intense but for different reasons

This is typical of government thinking the world over. We can't stick to the status quo. If per pupil funding means funding is falling for schools, change the funding system. Fewer children in schools after decades of waiting lists and overcrowding will hopefully mean more money per child. But instead everything gets worse because no one wants to change the system.

Yep! I have seen parents on here saying "should I chose this school because it's not full so dc should get more attention". Unfortunately it doesn't work like that.

How about people who encourage migration for economic reasons, is that fine?

My parents were very different, we were with them 24/7, they never had time without us. The way we parent and the expectations we want for ourselves are very much focus on us and not our children in some way

I think my parents and relatives had more time away from us. I remember playing most of the holidays with friends & there were less family things to do eg we didn't go out to eat often as that restaurants weren't really set up for it.

I wonder who's building the two bedroom starter homes for young people and older people and those without kids. There are none I assume because these 5 bedroom monstrosities give developers more profit. Zero thought to the future

Everyone focuses on the money side, but what about time?

If technology delivered the reduced workload it was supposed to, people would have more time to spend with their children and less time running around earning money.

A 30h standard working week would do wonders for the birthrate.

This is even more evidence that the housing problem is the everything problem that ruins all aspects of society.

I agree that housing and making it a key economic driver has fucked so much up.

We never ate out either, but life revolved around us. If people came over we were there too. If I gave friends over then I want to have adult conversation with the kids in a different area. I feel the whole culture around kids has changed from when I was one.

I don't think my parent's lives revolved around us. I think there is way more involvement today personally.

@NeedZzzzzssss My local council does insist on flats and starter homes within big developments. Quite a lot of them. A HA that specialises in rural HA homes is only building 2 bed ones in a village near me. Not sure what tenants are meant to do with a boy and girl in their teens but….. There are homes of all sizes being built but insufficient to rent. That’s because HAs don’t have the funds to build them or the land. In rural areas the land price is agricultural prices only. Getting land is a big problem in areas of outstanding natural beauty for example. Essentially neighbours like big houses. They don’t like terraced small houses. It’s not just developers! Take a look at any expanded town and see the rows of tiny houses with tiny gardens!

Affordable housing, significantly smaller nursery fees, more sensible school times and less fuss around schooling, more annual leave, increased paternity leave and parental leave, children being independent socially acceptable again. Once these are sorted, I'll pop out a few.

wonder who's building the two bedroom starter homes for young people and older people and those without kids

I touched on this upthread but we have nowhere near enough suitable housing to cater for the ageing population. This then leads to more pressure on the NHS and social care.

Agree with nursery fees, but only to somr extent. Young children should really be with their parents so that is where I'd want money focused on, parents working to outsource parenting doesn't really make any sense

Surely the only reason migration has ever been encouraged is for economic reasons?