.png)
A Whole Nation Approach to Supporting Families
- Miranda Jupp
- Jun 12, 2025
- 5 min read
Co-founder of Whole Nation Conservatives Miranda Jupp is a longstanding North East Conservative activist and former council candidate. Prior to the 2024 General Election she was Chief of Staff to Sir Simon Clarke.
The harsh reality we must face as a country is that an aging population and tumbling birth rates are making the post-war social contract increasingly unsustainable. In an excellent wide-ranging recent piece (1), Neil O’Brien highlights the enormity of the fiscal implications of this demographic change:
“If you go back 20 years and apply today’s spending and tax rates to the demographics of 2004 - changing nothing else, that would give the Chancellor an extra £84 billion a year to play with, enough to cut the basic rate of tax by about 13p in the pound. Roll forward 20 years and we will see the same, but in reverse - creating a huge hole to fill.”
As such, providing effective support to couples who wish to grow their family responsibly is not only a laudable social goal but a matter of significant economic significance. Whilst cultural changes seen across the developed world mean financial incentives alone are unlikely to raise birth rates as far as the replacement rate, there is ample evidence that many couples are having fewer children than they would like to have - Oxford University research suggests a ‘fertility gap’ of around 0.3 children per woman (2), meaning for every 3 children wanted, only 2 are born. Reasons for this gap vary between different different demographic groups, with university educated women tending to start families much later undoubtedly a contributor, though reasons cited for delaying starting, or expanding, a family also include factors such as childcare costs, and the desire to live in a family friendly neighbourhood, therefore financial concerns also play a role.
With attempts to use mass migration as a sticking plaster for demographic issues not only lacking public consent, but also proving fiscally negative in many cases (3), parties across the political spectrum are right to explore policy levers which could allow or encourage couples to have more children.
In recent weeks, this has seen the unlikely emergence of a common cause between Reform and the Labour left, with the Government facing pressure on both flanks to scrap the two child benefit cap for recipients of Universal Credit, introduced by the Conservative Government in 2017. Farage has explicitly stated his desire to scrap the cap to make it easier for people to have children (4).
This policy has (rightly) been opposed by Conservatives. Increasing the tax burden on those who work hard to provide for their families (and as such may make a decision not to have more children if they feel unable to provide for them), in order to further subsidise those who are reliant on the state to cover their basic costs of living is fundamentally unfair. Coupled with the obscene marginal rates at the various pinch points within our overly complex tax system, this sort of policy disincentivises doing the right thing.
However, there are many steps which could be taken to support families which are fairer to hardworking taxpayers. Farage and Reform have also advocated transferable tax allowances for married couples. As highlighted in the excellent 2023 Centre for Policy Studies paper on family friendly taxation (5), families with the same aggregate income pay wildly different levels of tax depending on the proportion of household income earned by each individual: single earner households face a much higher tax bill than households where the same income is split equally between two earners. The UK is somewhat of an international outlier in terms of the very limited recognition of marriage in our tax system, and revising this approach to recognise the societal benefit of those who take caring responsibility for children (or indeed older generations) is a very conservative principle, recognising the value of family, as well as the freedom of choice for couples to choose the right approach for their own family. The Conservative party should invest time in exploring options in this area, as was floated by various candidates during the 2022 leadership contest.
Our party should also be stronger in defending our record in Government in terms of expanding access to funded childcare. Whilst the approach taken was a ‘big state’ option, and one which also aligned with the establishment tendency to devalue the decision to take a career break to raise a family, it has undoubtedly been helpful to many parents wishing (or needing) to return to work whilst raising children of pre-school age. We therefore should own the progress made in this area, rather than allowing our opponents to rewrite the record.
As with many aspects of our politics, one of the most important elements of breaking down barriers to raising a family is tackling the acute housing crisis in the UK. Responsible parents are unlikely to feel able to raise a family if they are unable to get a foot on the housing ladder in a property of adequate size. The changes in the UK housing market in recent decades provide a clue to why the decline in birth rates is so stark, even compared to other developed countries. Just 28% of 25-34 year olds are home owners, compared to 51% in 1989. Property prices have risen 173% in real terms since 1997 (These statistics come from the excellent CPS ‘Justice for the Young’ booklet, which is highly recommended further reading on this topic(6)). Improving housing availability and affordability would undoubtedly be a huge help to prospective parents: the way to deliver this is by getting serious about building the millions of homes the UK needs, including addressing the uncertainty in our discretionary planning system which adds costs and delays to every new home. A compelling Conservative offer for all generations is central to Whole Nation Conservatism, and enabling today’s young adults to benefit from the dream of a property owning democracy which was so much more accessible in the 1980s and 1990s than is currently the case is a central pillar of any such offer.
In conclusion, we should absolutely do more to support families as we seek to address strong demographic headwinds. But we should make the case for doing so in a Conservative way: backing couples who work hard and do the right thing, ensuring the tax system allows them to make their own choices about how to raise a family without risking harsh financial penalties and delivering at scale the family homes which will provide a stable environment for children to grow up in.
References
Comments