Rochelle Blakeman is a public affairs professional, a writer and Conservative supporter.
In 2023, the global fertility rate (GFR) fell to 2.2 children per woman, below the replacement rate of 2.3. In England and Wales that same year, the TRF was at the lowest value on record – 1.44 children per woman.
In contrast to 20th century scaremongering about there being “too many people” on the planet, demographers are now concerned about a population implosion. Whilst politicians of all colours are grappling with this, the populist-right has been particularly broody.
Notably, The Independent recently unearthed a 2023 Substack article by Reform’s Matt Goodwin in which he explored ideas influenced by demographer Paul Morland on how to solve Britain’s falling birth rates. These included a “negative child benefit tax” on “those without offspring”, removing personal income tax for women with two or more children and establishing a “pro-family culture” by having a national day to celebrate families and parenthood. The paper later spotlighted a YouTube video in which Matt Goodwin said that “many women in Britain are having children far too late in life” and called on young women to be given a “biological reality check.”
Social conservatives may agree with Matt Goodwin’s sentiment, but I believe that the Conservative Party must resist the temptation to emulate a top-down, state-knows-best approach to fertility in the UK. This impulse would not only be ineffective at increasing historically low birthrates, but at odds with everything the Conservative party should stand for. Whilst the ideas in Goodwin’s Substack piece are not official Reform policy, the ideas should be challenged for the sake of argument to reiterate the importance of limiting state involvement in anyone’s personal business.
Kemi Badenoch has been effective in highlighting the Labour Government’s overreach and overspend, and so too should Conservatives be wary of the overreach and economic fantasy flirted with by Goodwin.
The prospect of a tax on the childless and scrapping income tax for those with two or more children would be inherently unfair, as the childless already contribute more to the public purse than they take out. In addition to not claiming child benefits, childless households have fewer members to use public services such as the NHS and state education. The working childless do, however, pay taxes, thereby supporting the public services that those with children likely utilise to a greater extent.
Far from creating a “pro-family culture” in Britain, Goodwin’s proposals would breed justified resentment among those with the misfortune to have such a tax imposed on them. Hard working people would be less able to enjoy their childfree years, with less disposable income to spend on holidays, hobbies or whatever else they pleased. And those aspiring to have children would have less to save up to achieve this goal, whilst watching their hard-earned money enable people who happen to already be parents reap the benefits of a disproportionate tax cut.
Aside from indulging in economic fantasy, pro-natalist populists make moralistic assumptions about having offspring which have no bearing in the messy, unpredictable real world. They imply that having or not having a child is a “choice”, as if akin to deciding which route to take on a morning walk.
It may be convenient to caricature the childless as having made a series of deliberate “choices” that enable them to live a “carefree” life. But many singletons have not consciously “chosen” to be without a partner. Many young professionals have not “chosen” to be trapped in high-pressured corporate careers with limited work life balance. People are not “choosing” to struggle to get on the housing ladder. Most poignantly, nobody “chooses” to be afflicted with a medical condition or fertility problems which may prevent them from having children.
And conversely, common knowledge reminds us that many people with children will not necessarily have planned to become parents at all.
These complex and deeply human factors highlight how flawed a reward-and-punishment approach to encouraging more births would be. It reveals the clumsiness of the populist tendency to blame low birthrates on lifestyle “choices” – usually gunning for women’s “choices” – disregarding the sheer element of luck that is involved in the panning out of anyone’s personal, romantic or family life.
The state has no place in the most personal and visceral aspects of our lives. Whilst low fertility rates do pose social and demographic challenges, these problems are surmountable without dictating to the public how we should live, and without making moral judgements about anyone’s reproductive proclivity.
Indeed, an IEA paper by family economist Clara E. Piano presents research which indicates that government intervention through financial incentives makes little to no difference to birthrates. However, there is evidence to suggest, in the context of the United States, that in areas of lower regulatory burdens in labour and childcare markets, smaller “fertility gaps” exist (the gap between the number of children a woman has and the number she would like to have) implying that in more flexible market conditions, people are more likely to achieve their family goals. This may explain the cases of Italy and Japan – two countries with strictly regulated labour markets and historically low birthrates.
The cost of housing too is a significant factor pushing couples to have children later in life than would be ideal. The Conservative party has long been divided between liberalising the planning system and protecting our green and pleasant land. But if the party is serious about helping young people to gain more control over their aspirations, it needs to reject the populist-right’s impulse to deliver biology lectures and instead offer material solutions that would make acquiring a family home more achievable. Pledging to simplify the planning system and cut red tape would be a step in the right direction.
Anyone who believes in economic and personal freedom should be concerned with the growing populist obsession with childbearing. It demonstrates an instinct to lecture the public and entertain centralist measures that would significantly interfere in personal freedom.
Conservatives who still believe in a small state, in freedom under the law and in allowing for personal choice and aspiration should resist the populist approach; they should focus on improving economic outlooks and accept that overbearing political tools are often too blunt an instrument for the nuanced, sensitive matter of fertility, children and family life.
