THE leader of Reform UK, Nigel Farage, wants people to breed for Britain. He would like the nation to begin to reverse the declining birth rates that seem to be the fate of countries in Europe and the global North.
Fertility rates are plummeting globally. Numbers in more than half of all countries are below replacement level, according to a study by The Lancet. In 2021, the study predicted that only six countries in the world — Samoa, Somalia, Tonga, Niger, Chad, and Tajikistan — would have a total fertility rate above 2.1 — typically believed to be the rate at which a nation can ensure a broadly stable population. In Western Europe, that rate is currently at 1.53, and is predicted to fall to 1.44 by 2050.
But what are governments to do to address the decline? In a speech last month, Mr Farage said that, if in power, his party would introduce policies and incentives to make it easier for people to have children. Measures would include introducing more tax breaks for married couples, and getting rid of the two-child benefit limit. He made similar comments at the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference in London, in February (Analysis, 7 March). Interviewed by Dr Jordan Peterson at the Christian-adjacent conference, Mr Farage said that “family, community, and country” were core for him.
He is one of a number of political leaders on the Right who are drawing on pro-natalist rhetoric. These declining birth rates are a problem for Western governments, who look ahead to the consequences if there are fewer children: a smaller workforce and the subsequent implications for the economy. We have long heard that, as we see advances in health care, people live longer. As a result, Western countries are top-heavy, with ageing populations and lower birth rates.
TO SURVIVE in the future, Western nations will probably need to have more open borders, welcoming immigrants into the workforce to be able to compete economically. Such a turnaround in political messaging seems almost impossible to imagine, given the anti-immigrant sentiment that most political parties — including the current Government — are espousing in the hopes of winning votes in a future election.
For the UK not to be reliant on immigration in the future, the fertility-rate decline would need to be reversed. But will tax breaks be enough to entice would-be parents into having children, or, indeed, current parents into making the decision to increase their families? For Mr Farage, it is simply a matter of lying back and thinking positively for England. As he said in his speech, “We’re not going to get higher birth rates in this country until we can get some sense of optimism. And we need a complete 180 shift in attitudes.”
He is right that the attitudes to parenthood are not entirely positive among younger people. A study by YouGov earlier this year suggests that nearly one third (28 per cent) of child-free adults below the age of 40 definitely do not want to have children. Fewer than half, 45 per cent, say that they definitely do, and a further 27 per cent have not made their minds up either way.
Of those who do not want children, the most commonly given reason not to was that children were “too expensive”. Most will have heard about the eye-watering costs of childcare, and the fact that some would have to give up work when the childcare cost exceeded their salaries. In Scandinavian countries that have generous paid-leave policies, however, fertility rates are still declining.
For 16 per cent of those who do not want to be parents in the future, it is the state of the world that influences them. Climate change has often been described as a reason not to have children — both because of the practical question of adding to the world another human being and consumer, but also the bleak fear of bringing a child into a world that supposedly has little future.
Beyond that, a further 11 per cent say that they do not want to sacrifice their independence and existing lifestyle; a similar number just “don’t want to” have children; and nine per cent do not like children. Fair enough.
About four per cent of the respondents cannot have children owing to a medical issue, they say; and the sad reality is that some of those open to having children — or, indeed, some who desperately want them — will have fertility issues and face the agony of miscarriage, baby loss, and stillbirth. Some suggest that leaving it later to have children — as many of us do — increases the difficulty in having them.
WHILE studies will pour over the reasons for the declining fertility rates (decline in religiosity, climate change, cost, prioritising fun), Anastasia Berg and Rachel Wiseman, authors of What Are Children For?, exploring Generation Z and Millennials’ supposed aversion to parenthood, the answer is, at its heart, simple: choice.
People can choose to have children and choose not to. Having children is no longer simply what adults do. The shift in attitudes to parenthood is due to changes in society. Wealth and riches are not now tied to having enough children to work the land, for example; and most women are in the labour market and not expected to be at home.
Not having children is possible in a way that it was not centuries ago, or even a few generations ago. As the cultural historian Joanna Wolfarth puts it: “Our choices — when we are lucky enough to be able to make them — are never made in isolation. . . Our choices have always been historically dependent, influenced by societal trends and prevailing ideas of parenthood.”
I do wonder whether the prevailing narratives in culture today, and the avalanche of books in recent years about maternal ambivalence and the challenges of motherhood in particular — including my own latest book, Unmaking Mary (Books, 16 May) — have given the impression that the negatives of having children outweigh the positives.
It is entirely un-British to talk about how much we love our children, and about the wonder and the beauty and the transcendence of raising another human being. The fact is, though, that, for all the uncertainty about whether to have children, very few parents regret it if they do. Some 91 per cent of parents surveyed by YouGov said that they had no regrets at all about having children, and just three per cent said that they had even had a moderate amount of regret.
Solving the climate crisis, reorganising societal structures to make childcare more manageable, and decreasing the cost of childcare may be long-term aspirations. But, in the mean time, those who can might consider speaking more positively about parenting.
Chine McDonald is director of Theos. Listen to an interview with the authors of What are children for? in an forthcoming edition of the podcast Reading Our Times: theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/podcasts