Fertility rates are collapsing – and it’s not ‘backward’ to be concerned

Kissing babies is a tried-and-tested campaign strategy for politicians. But it is far less acceptable to talk about babies, and particularly to express the view that we need more of them.

Politics works on the basis that society will go on and on into the future. The intense focus on climate change – for good or ill – takes for granted that there will be many future generations whose welfare is threatened by damage to the environment. But can we really be so sure that there will be future generations to benefit from our endeavours – or even to look after us in our old age?

The short answer is no: the evidence suggests that the very existence of future society hangs in the balance. The current UK fertility rate – the average number of children per woman – stands at 1.6. This is significantly below the “replacement rate” of 2.1, and continues to fall.

This means that, absent migration, in only two generations’ time we would have 40 per cent fewer births than we do today. And over the next 20 years, the ratio of working age people to each pensioner will drop from four to three. The Left complain that public services are currently underfunded and the Right think taxes are too high. But both sides are unprepared for what is coming down the line unless we recognise the serious – and imminent – economic consequences of population decline.

The only serious and sustainable remedy to this catastrophe is to increase the birth rate. But as soon as politicians start to highlight the problem of low fertility rates – and suggest potential solutions – we face accusations of being “backward” or regressive. The implication of these criticisms is that the “burden” of producing more children is carried disproportionately by women and impacts female participation in the workplace.

It shouldn’t be the role of politicians to tell any individual what to do in their personal lives, and certainly not in the sensitive area of having babies.

But it is the role of government to create the conditions that make it possible – even attractive – for individuals to make positive choices that benefit society as a whole. We incentivise the purchase of solar panels and use tax breaks to encourage businesses to invest. But somehow we believe that the state should remain neutral when it comes to matters of family and fertility. This is a fantasy – our policies either do or don’t encourage family formation and, when women are currently having fewer children than they want, we know that our political, social and economic conditions are unfavourable to family formation.

So we should not be afraid of speaking frankly about birth rates or having an open discussion about how we can reform our tax system, our housing policy and the way we value children to improve the conditions for family formation. The challenge for liberals is to start telling the truth about what gives meaning to people’s lives – career and money and individual freedom are not the only route to personal fulfilment. And on the Right, we must stop pretending that having children is a “lifestyle choice”, one that should not attract any support or recognition from the state.

Nothing could be more forward-looking than seeking to ensure the long-term survival – and flourishing – of our nation. Sure, we face challenges in the short term, but what’s the point of solving them if there is no one to enjoy the fruit of our labours?