Indeed, it's been shown more than once and in more than one place that access to opportunities, education etc are factors that bring birth rates down.

One could argue that the welfare state was actually a factor that helped to reduce family sizes. Certainly, if we include the NHS within that, then free contraception has made a massive difference – combined with education and many more opportunities for women.

Just to point out, recent work by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation could find no evidence of this great claim by Cameron.

rlMore here.rl

Isn't the whole point of technological advancement to make sure we don't have to work (as much) anyway? Where's my robot butler, goddammit?

I'm sure that was what we told back in the 1970s, at any rate.

The Rowntree Foundation are hardly unbiased Minty.

Hmmmmm, who to believe?

A tory spin-doctor turned prime minister or a charitable trust set up by a truly philanthropic Quaker.

I can see where someone would get confused

Yeah, with their ridiculous bias against poverty. Laughable that they even bother.

Have you ever worked directly with them. I have, agenda driven idealists.

I'd love to see any claims made by the JRF ranked alongside any from the incumbent government.

I already know whose would stand scrutiny best

We do seem to be in an era where politicians can stand up and claim to have knowledge of some outrageous FACT without ever having to show where the FACT came from or who has checked its provenance, which wouldn't be so bad if they didn't then base their policies and law-making on that FACT that is unproven.

The sad thing is that many of the public are eager to lap up these FACTS as gospel truth without question and to turn against this weeks vilified sector of society (whoever's turn it is).

But hey, it worked for the Nazi Party in the 1930s.

In days gone by the rate of attrition for children was quite high - so that would also have to be considered. Regarding larger families if the welfare didn't exist as it does you would have significantly lower numbers of families with 6+ kids and I bet the numbers of young girls choosing single parenthood as a career would also fall significantly

You can't expect Cod'ed to be clever enough to understand that!! These lefty idealists are pure as driven snow.

rlThe Huffington Postrl - just get the media to run with it

Most genealogists come across large families in their tree very quickly.
My own paternal grandfather was one of eleven children who made it to adulthood (a further one died in infancy).
His father's brothers all had large families with a low-ish infant mortality.
By the next generation, birthrates dropped to three or four kids per family.

Granted, the infant mortality rate was higher in cities but families of 6 or 7 kids achieving adulthood were still commonplace until incomes and standards rose.


Already countered by global studies.
The better the income and standard of living, the lower the reproductive rate.
What needs to change is the income and the standard of living ... upwards.


How significant is it?
I don't mean just anecdotaly, like Cameron's pronouncemnts, but how many really?