Were you offended?

That's because we have too many children and grandchildren,Maggie, not because there are too many migrants.

An average of 1.92 per family? That doesn't quite replace their parents.

Where did you get your information from, Maggie?
In 2014 we were well behind Belgium and the Netherlands. Can't find anything more uptodate than that.

That's what it is now, Elegran. What was it when we were having our children? Note I said children and grandchildren.
If it was more than two, then our generation overpopulated the country.

It is too late to get us to change it now. At that time it was not the issue it is now, so let's not get into the hackneyed "it is all the fault of the baby-boomers" blame game.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/2967374/England-is-most-crowded-country-in-Europe.html

This is England though, not the UK.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2530125/This-worryingly-crowded-isle-England-officially-Europes-densely-packed-country.html

And more recently from the dreaded Daily Mail.

Scotland will just have to take more, as it's only 40 there.

But that's what population is all about, Elegran, us taking responsibility for the growth ourselves rather than blaming others. We are not overcrowded because of immigration.

'Scotland will just have to take more'

There's democracy in action dj style!

I made the point of having one child to replace each of us. They in turn have done the same. It was a conscious decision and given that the Pill was and is available I get very annoyed when I see the expression "fallen " pregnant. I'm the baby boomer generation of every child a wanted child. So we are overcrowded because of immigration in my view and more than one child in this country is irresponsible.

Someone told me recently that 70% of the population of France live in the big cities, Paris and Marseilles. There is loads of space in the French countryside, but I suppose you couldn't just dump immigrants in out of the way places and make them stay there. Same in this country too. Doubt if many would want to live on the North Yorks Moors.

I certainly wouldn't.

DJ I took you to mean that that we "owned" too many children and grandchildren (who were born long ago) for the space there is now and that the fault was in our profligacy in having them back in the 60s and 70s.

My reply was that when we - by which I mean our generation - had our children, the country was not overcrowded. Or if it was, we were not all aware of it.

Do you mean that the generation who are having children now are producing too many of them? How many each is the ideal? If they are having an average of less than two, they are not quite replacing themselves, so they are not adding to the net total. Are you advocating a one-child policy?

The other factor is that immigrants in general tend to be young people starting off on what they hope is a new and better life, who are likely to come from places where more children are the norm that in more developed countries.

There is no defined point at which a country is over populated. I expect even in the 50's there were some people saying there were too many children being born.

Trisher's (I think) recent link on the subject of population dispelled quite a lot of myths. The birth rate across the world is falling quite fast but people are generally living longer - though not necessarily more healthily.

Contraception isn't a simple matter for everybody. I was unable to take the pill and had an IUD fitted, which caused me many years of discomfort until I finally decided to get sterilised.

Anya, Scotland has just voted to remain part of the UK, so to actually split up England from the rest of the UK is wrong in my opinion. "Democracy in action dj style" is meaningless. It's not my party which is forcing people out of London and many big cities by putting caps on benefits. You should accuse the right people of gerrymandering.

According to the ONS statistics, there are 16% of families in the UK which have 3 or more children. I'd quite like to see that broken down by class.
Like Stansgran, we decided in the 60s just to have two children. As I could not tolerate the pill my husband had a vasectomy in his 20s.
Even then, babyboomers could take responsibility for the size of their families.

We had three children (oh my god!) - but my brother-in-law and wife had only one, and my brother and wife none. My parents and my inlaws (4 of that generation) are represented by 3 grandchildren, altogether. - three-quarters

The one child of my brother -in-law has two children, but his sister-in-law has none, so the descendants of those four grandparents are two grandchildren. - Halved

My three children have three children altogether with their partners, you so if you include the children of their partners' siblings (another 5) the descendents of their four pairs of grandparents (8 of that generation) are 8 grandchildren - equal numbers

So you can count me out of the guilt trip, DJ. The fact that the size of all those families was dictated by what we could afford rather than by ideology about population control doesn't alter the result - and in reality what makes people limit their families is not ideology, it is having the optimum number for raising them well in the circumstances you are in. The bith rate always falls when fewer children need to be born for the parents' to raise them successfully, and particularly when women have education and more say in it (and in everything)

Except, of course, in totalitarian regimes where family size is dictated from above, and draconian measures taken against those who transgress.

What a sensible post Elegran, and we did exactly the same as you.Who the heck does different ?Makes you wonder sometimes.I can't imagine limiting your family for ideological reasons.

Elegran Yours is an explanation that is true in many families. Among my grandparents there was one family of 13 and another of 7 but quite a few of those children did not live to adulthood and many died at what we would see to be a comparatively early age.

My parents had two children. My brother and I each had two children - a total of 4. Of those four children only one has birth children and he has had two - two children from 4 adults. We are certainly not replacing ourselves. This is why we should be glad to see young people from other countries coming here.

Even though our birth-rate has dropped dramatically Germany's is worse. Young women get reviled - called "Rabenmutter" or Raven Mother, if they choose not to have children. In my family it is my son who has children and three girls who have not. Every time I hear people attacking sexual equality I hear a gong marking another drop in the birth-rate.

Taking responsibility for the size of your family is not necessarily doing it for ideological reasons. We had two children for the same reasons as most; it was what we could afford. We did not want to have more children and not be able to afford to feed and clothe them.
My mother was an only child, my father the eldest of ten. I have a brother and two sisters, my husband had two brothers.
I wasn't guilt tripping anyone, but do feel free to carry on insulting me if it makes you feel better.
I agree with Gracesgran, that we should be pleased to have young people from other countries come here, to boost the population of young workers. Otherwise who will pay the tax for our pensions?

I was one child of two, my father was one of six, my grandmother one of ten, her father one of twelve and her grandfather one of seventeen. Each generation has had fewer children, and that is generally true throughout the country.

Contraception has become possible, acceptable and reliable, infant and child mortality has improved, better nutrition and health care has meant fewer early deaths, safety at work fewer accidents and work-related illnesses, advances in medical knowledge and practice mean that people live longer and more healthily. EDucation and work opportunities for women means they have an alternative to mindless housework and annual childbearing.

It has become gradually less necessary to have a large family to ensure that you have descendants to look after you when you are ill or feeble, and to carry on your name.

People already living here have mostly adapted to the smaller norm, and incomers do sooner or later. This is not an instant process for everyone, but it is the average family size that dictates the overall birth rate.

No insult intended, DJ but your post did seem like a criticism and implication of guilt on my and my children's generation for wantonly filling the country with babies. Your tone was most disapproving.

"We have too many children and grandchildren" "If it was more than two, then our generation overpopulated the country." and " taking responsibility for the growth ourselves rather than blaming others. We are not overcrowded because of immigration."

There was an increase in the birth rate after each war, and during the economic boom of the 60s - of course there was, the possibility of successfully raising children is higher at these times, and the subconscious mind is aware of that, even if the there is no conscious decision.

I have googled family size and found this -

^Socio-demographic comparison between those UK families with
up to two children and those with three or more
Susanne Whiting^ www.populationmatters.org/documents/family_sizes.pdf

"Births to non-UK born mothers accounted for 25.1 % per cent of all live births in 2010 (Figure 8). “This is the highest proportion of births to mothers born outside the UK since the collection of parents’ country of birth was introduced at birth registration in 1969. This proportion has increased every year since 1990, when it was just under 12 %, with a marked rise over the last decade.“ so immigration contributes to a rise in the birth rate, whatever its influence on actual population numbers.

There is a lot about birth rates and social class, which you wanted to know about, in my link.

Two of my grandchildren were born to a non-UK mother but that was before 2010. However, their father was born in the UK. One of them has a UK passport, the other one hasn't. Where do they fit in with immigration numbers and the population matters figures? They must be in the "marked rise over the last decade" bit.
When people talk about immigrants, they do not necessarily mean my grandchildren. However, their mother gets increasingly uncomfortable when listening to conversations about immigration. I listened to a conversation about immigrants on Monday, at the home where my mother in law is. To my shame, I did not say that's my family you are talking about.

Thanks, Elegran. Quite interesting to see that a greater percentage of managerial families have 3+ children than those families who have never worked. You wouldn't get that impression from the general media.

The poor residents of Calais have been putting up with problems caused by the large numbers of migrants for years. They did have the Red Cross camp at Sangatte and theUK govt insisted it was closed and knocked down. These new camps were gradually set up to counteract that. The Gendarmes have NOT been given all the necessary extra manpower to deal with their problems and because it has taken all available manpower it is the poor residents who have been left with no police force to deal with any of the problems they may have. Recently the exhausted Gendarmes did stage a protest and so did some of the residents.
As you can imagine there has been stealing and other things going on in the town and these people are still needing to go to work and leave their properties. We moved our border to mainland Europe so it is only fair that we deal with a lot if the problem.
It is about time that the EU started to take some notice and send help to assist with the plight of these people. If they are able to claim asylum in UK they are likely to be able to claim it in mainland Europe. If they have no rights to be in EU they can go home or wherever from there and save themselves being exposed to the dangers facing them of somehow crossing the Channel.
The whole situation though is not just one of these migrants and UK taking their share - we have taken the largest number of EU unemployed youngsters from Europe - mainly Italy - into UK to be given training positions at the expense of UK young people and also much of our problems are not these African migrants but the huge numbers of EU citizens who legally reside in UK and are eleiglbe for the same benefits as UK citizens. The whole situation needs to be addressed as a complete scenario and not just blame and criticism given to UK or maybe France too.