It does make me think the the Daily Mail is now the Tories chief policy advisor.

That's not to say I disagree on this particular matter

I think it should be staggered, the first child cost more than the second or third for several reasons - set-up cost of the home, stopping work and earning less money, by the time you get to the second and third you will still have the equipment and probably not yet gone back to full time work so the 'cost' is less. More than three children and you should be 'on yer own' if you can afford more then pay for them.

UK spending on family benefits as a percentage of GDP is the third highest of all major economies, and I see no reason why people should assume that they can keep on producing children, even if they can't afford to support them, secure in the knowledge that the State will provide them with more money.

Of course there would be problems if this policy was introduced, and of course there will be the 'child poverty' argument, but that doesn't mean it couldn't work. It means that there should be lots of consultation, and a great deal of careful planning, but that's what governments are for, isn't it?

I agree with wiz-king and Nontek. Not only on the grounds that "Why should others expect me , via tax,to pay them to have children they cannot afford", but also because the world population is already too high and if anything we should pay to reduce it (Except for the problem of too few youngsters to pay for too many oldies, some of whom have not been able to accumulate a pension on top of the "state" one.)