The Heartwarming Result of Our Recent Cold Winters? Baby Boom Pushes Birth Rates to Highest for 40 Years

Steve Doughty, Daily Mail (London), November 10, 2011

When the weather gets cold and the nights draw in, there isn’t always a great deal to do beyond getting an early night.

This may be the factor behind claims that recent colder winters have contributed to a boom in the birthrate.

‘Some believe that the fertility rate was highest in September, October and November in 2010 because people were staying in more due to the bad weather the previous winter,’ a spokesman for the Office for National Statistics said.

Their figures show a winter baby boom has pushed up birth rates to levels not seen for nearly 40 years.

The number of women giving birth during the late months of the year has shot up by a fifth in a decade–faster than the increase during the summer.

Autumn births have been particularly high over the past two years, according to the analysis.

The months in 2010 with the highest fertility rates–the number of children for every woman of childbearing age–were September, at 2.11; October, at 2.09; and November, at 2.03. The lowest fertility rates were in April and May, with 1.92 and 1.93 for each woman.

The fertility rate is a figure that expresses how many children the average woman is likely to have over her lifetime.

It is worked out by dividing the birth rate in a particular period by the number of women of childbearing age.

This means that a spike in births will raise the rate for a particular month.

In October, the month last year with the greatest number of births, there were 64,542 newborns, an increase of nearly 27 per cent over the same month in 2000.

By contrast, the 54,551 children born in the month with the lowest births figure in 2010, February, was a 16 per cent rise over the same month in 2000.

Babies born during the autumn of last year were conceived during one of the coldest winters for years and January 2009 was the coldest since 1997.

Birth rates are now higher than at any point since the early 1970s and, as a result, the average woman can now expect to have at least two children.

Reasons for the baby boom so far advanced by state statisticians include childbearing by large numbers of women in their 30s and 40s having children late, and immigration, which has brought three million into the country since 1997.

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Stiv

    Just a guess, but:

    Immigrants like Pakistanis, Indians, West ‘Indians’, and Muslims of every stripe are number 1 in fertility. The next highest group of immigrants being Polish and other Eastern Europeans. The very last group would be native Anglo-Saxon English.

  • Anonymous

    Birthrates, like everything else in nature, are cyclical.

    Nature abhors a vaccuum. Renewal surely follows a decline.

  • Justin

    Again, let’s not celebrate this news prematurely. Probably non-Whites are contributing a disproportionate amount to the baby boom. Having spent time in the UK, I’d say most White British women have 0,1 or 2 children while the Blacks/Pakistanis usually have 2, 3, 4 kids.

  • ATBOTL

    This is soley due to births among non-ethnically Bristish mothers.

    A shockingly large % of children born in the UK are to immigrant mothers, and those figures don’t even include children born to native non-white mothers or the large number of children born to British mothers and non-British fathers.

  • Kenelm Digby

    What an absolute rubbish article.

    There is one reason and one reason only birth rates have rocketed in Britain lately – it is wholly and solely due to the immigration wave unleashed by the Labour Party.

  • white is right, black is whack

    Are the births coming from white couples, or nonwhites and interracial couples? Let’s find out before we break open the champagne, my friends.

  • Anonymous

    It’s completely a foreign baby boom. In Britain, more babies means more government handouts.

  • Jason Robertson

    RACE replacement levels.

    And the white children of white mothers are all too often without responsible fathers.

  • Anonymous

    The magazine ‘Scientific American’ recently published a story concerning research into the birthrates of pioneers.

    “The analysis found that families living on the edges of expansions had 20 percent more children than families living at the settlement’s core.”

    http://goo.gl/bNmE8

    To some degree, comparisons may be made with foreign races like Arabs, Africans, or Hispanics who colonize white countries. Their fecundity may in part be explained by the fact they are pioneers, establishing outposts extraterritorially from their geographic homelands.

    This also explains their zeal to plant cultural monuments like mosques, statues and community centers, and displaying flags and distinctive ethnic adornments, which they would have little interest in doing if they were not ‘pioneering’.

  • Englishman

    Re #9.

    The black and Muslim birthrates in Britain are like those in south Asia, Arab and black Africa, and the Caribbean. The pioneer theory may partly explain why they haven’t acculturated (as once expected by some immigrationists) to native white norms, but they now have their own cultural colonies here and fit in with their alien-origin but established folkways. There are religious pressures also – against marrying out (Asian brides are imported or wed overseas) and against abortion. In the black case there seems to be greater biological predisposition to irresponsible promiscuity (without contraception) despite the Christian tradition. Single white mums with white or mixed race babies are not an unfamiliar sight, but also black men and white partners with several mixed race children, and older couples (grandparents?) looking after mixed race children, possibly adopted in a few instances. Large Asian family groups are common, and primary school registers tell their own tale. Not long ago I was in the now excessively homosexual seaside resort of Brighton, where you see white gays or lesbians together in the streets; the only family group playing with kids on a fairly deserted beach was black!) Anecdotal I admit, but the available statistics in the homeland of the Anglo-Saxons – of Chaucer and Chatham, Shakespeare and Shackleton, Newton and Nelson – make grim reading, but also perhaps a call to back-against-the wall national-survival action, as we took 70 years ago, though of a different and less straightforward kind.

  • Anonymous

    I agree with the statements on here.

    This “baby boom” is entirely foreign and not at all from the

    native population. Make no mistake however that Eastern Europeans such as the Polish and Lithuanians will be included in this which isn’t entirely a bad thing. But the majority of the boom will be coming from Muslims, Africans and non-white migrants.

    I recall speaking to someone once at a college. We were surveying the college cafeteria. We were discussing immigration and this person pointed out to me all the white British faces in the cafeteria: “Within 20 years this cafeteria will look entirely different.” I can say that person is probably correct with these birth rates. Within 20 years, just 2 Decades from now, small towns in the UK will start to resemble inner city areas that are majority non-white.

    Don’t think it can happen? Well the original native British inhabitants of London in the 50s and 60s didn’t think it could happen either. Neither did the inhabitants of Leicester. But it ultimately did happen and now once traditionally white British areas look like little Pakistan’s. All done within 2-3 decades.

    I’m hoping we get an economic collapse that will cause the ruling powers to fall from power, just like what happened with the Communist leadership during the fall of the USSR.

  • David Ashton

    Extracts from respected author/journalist Peter Hitchens in UK weekly newspaper The Mail on Sunday, November 13, 2011:-

    “If anyone had ever asked us, we would have said that we did not want millions of people from Asia, the Balkans or the dead Soviet Empire migrating to this country… We rightly complain that young people cannot get work. So why import foreigners to do that work, while paying our own children to take to crime and sit at home smoking dope?… Nobody wants it, and it is damaging – but it keeps going on…. The elite wish to pretend that they sympathise…. But secretly they want to change the country for ever, and see mass immigration as the best way of doing this.

    “Those figures showing that most illegal immigrants who arrive here are allowed to stay, or that foreign criminals are not deported, or that passport checks were skimped, are not evidence of government failure. Nothing much will be done about them…. They are evidence that the real policy is and always has been to act against our wishes and interests. Everything else is a pretence.”

  • Anonymous

    Well, increase in births is visible in many European countries including those with low level of immigrants of any kind. This increase is the largest in north west of the continent. Things are changing with this regard around the world. Europe is no longer an area with lowest birth rate. Very white country like Norway (non europeans are less than 2%) has 2.0 fertility rate while many muslim states like Iran, Algieria or Tunisia have less than 1.8 kids per female. Outside of Europe; almost 100% white Argentina has 2.2 while only 48% white Brazil has under 1.8. USA and Mexico have the same 2.1 and while US birth rate is very stable already for many years, Mexican shows sharp downward trend. It used to be much higher. Area with lowest birth rate is right now asian far east. Hong Kong and Singapore may soon drop below 1.0 total fertility rate. This would be unknown in recorded history. Even poor far east place like Vietnam has reached 2.0 TFR.

    We are used to assume that whites in the west have low fertility relative to third world, because this has been a case for many, many years and it largely still is. According to many sources from around the world this is changing.

    Subsaharan Arfica has very high TRF but this is balanced by very high newborn mortality and very short avarage lifespan as well as high HIV related deaths. Population of Africa is not growing nearly as fast as their TRF rate suggests. Demographic trends are changing generally very slowly but later it may take very long time to change again. It’s like trying to turn around an oil tanker.

  • Data_Man

    “Immigrants like Pakistanis, Indians, West ‘Indians’, and Muslims of every stripe are number 1 in fertility. The next highest group of immigrants being Polish and other Eastern Europeans. The very last group would be native Anglo-Saxon English.”

    Bad guess.

    http://goo.gl/twjsY

    “The TFR of the Indian ethnic group has decreased below that of the White British group. This appears to be especially due to a very low fertility rate for the UK-born mothers of the Indian ethnic group (estimated 1.44 over 2001-2006). This may reflect an increase in the educational and socio-economic status of Indian women, especially from the second and higher generations in the UK. ”

    Indians do pretty well when it comes to education/crime/fertility and everything that separates the civilized from the barbaric.

    Keep the below British-Whites fertility of Indians in mind and don’t confuse Pakistanis for Indians or vice versa.