. They don’t stop, do they?
‘In the latest in our series about the role of the state in encouraging couples to have more children’…
Thus runs the intro to the Beeb’s latest in a blatantly calculated series about birth rates.
‘Now then, none of that Mark Steyn hysteria about the emptiness of modern western wombs’, says Auntie firmly- just as firmly as she ignores the actual news which instances just how skewed the typical state approach to birth really is.
Forget for a moment that the Beeb’s barely tempered optimism neglects the fact that, at 10.2 births per thousand, the Russian birth rate is below the UK’s, at 10.8, which in turn is below replacement rate.
When will the BBC acknowledge that in fact the highest birth rates are occurring in places where the government has no need to interfere to raise them: eg. Yemen, Egypt or Saudi Arabia?
I also notice the little things from this article, such as the statement that ‘From 8.7 births per 1,000 people in 2000, it has gone to 10.4 in 2004, state statistics show.’
Er, no need for the past tense then, I suppose (later in the article the writer acknowledges that the 2005 figure is lower, but this would blunt his story somewhat).
But of course what really grates is both the political assumptions behind this story (the state knows best), and the ‘set up’ quality of it, when one can find ample evidence in real news stories about economic and political events which demonstrates that in fact it is the western state apparatus above all that is killing birth rates through illiberal and ideological (especially economically moribund) policy. (see this article for instance. It’s quite simple: ‘the welfare state is an enormously costly luxury that has to be financed from taxes. High payroll-tax and social security contributions reduce the earning capacity of people in fertile age.’)
But, er, I bet we won’t be hearing that on the BBC- and it’s vital that we should.
Update: 7.50 02/04. This is a worthy addition to the above, thanks to Rick in the comments. I noticed the spin the link refers to about ‘le baby boom’ a couple of days ago, which in a way sparked my thoughts towards the current post. However, when the only issue involved is the proportion of muslim babies in the figures, I’m reluctant to focus on that alone; + I’m a nervous number cruncher :-).
Update to the update: well (on closer examination), a good point was made by the link, but it was made badly. But still, a good point is a good point.