Cameron’s plans cut retirement by 17% in Glasgow

Male life expectancy at birth in UK cities ranges from 70.8 years in Glasgow City to 83.7 years in Kensington and Chelsea. The results show that Conservative plans to raise the pensionable age to 66 from 2016 will have a different impact on retirement plans in different parts of the country.

The table below taken from the Office for National Statistics shows life expectancy at birth for seven local authorities (the highest, lowest, and five in between). Left Foot Forward has calculated the percentage of projected retirement that will be lost by raising the retirement age from 65 to 66.

In the London borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the average worker will lose 5.3 per cent of their retired life. This compares to 17.4 per cent in Glasgow City. In David Cameron’s constituency of Witney, in West Oxfordshire, people will lose 6.8 per cent of their retired life.

It should be noted that the figures are indicative. Those aged 65 are likely to live beyond their life expectancy at birth.

The Government originally planned to raise the retirement age in 2026. The Conservative plans are reported to save £13 billion per year but no savings will be realised in this parliament or the next. Speaking on BBC News this morning, Kevin Maguire of the Mirror described the move as “macho politics.”

UPDATE 12.19

The basic state pension is £95.25 for an individual. This means that the average male will lose £4,953 from raising the retirement age by one year to 66.

For those already aged 65 the spread of retirement lost is smaller. Using ONS figures, life expectancy at 65 in Glasgow is 78.8 and in Kensington & Chelsea is 87.7 (a spread of 8.9 years compared to 12.9 years at birth). Raising the age to 66 therefore means that someone who is 65 today will lose 7.2% of their retirement in Glasgow City but just 4.4% in Kensington & Chelsea.

UPDATE 16.30 (Oct 7th)

DWP are reporting that “Initial estimates suggest that raising the State Pension Age only for men to 66 in 2016 would only save £1.8bn in pension payments and £0.7bn in taxes and NICs, i.e. a total saving of approximately £2.5bn. (This doesn’t take account of Pension Credit which would reduce the savings further).”

As you’re here, we have something to ask you. What we do here to deliver real news is more important than ever. But there’s a problem: we need readers like you to chip in to help us survive. We deliver progressive, independent media, that challenges the right’s hateful rhetoric. Together we can find the stories that get lost.

We’re not bankrolled by billionaire donors, but rely on readers chipping in whatever they can afford to protect our independence. What we do isn’t free, and we run on a shoestring. Can you help by chipping in as little as £1 a week to help us survive? Whatever you can donate, we’re so grateful - and we will ensure your money goes as far as possible to deliver hard-hitting news.

34 Responses to “Cameron’s plans cut retirement by 17% in Glasgow”

  1. hmmm

    I agree entirely.

    It’s time for pensions to be devolved to local councils and away from Whitehall.

    Rich people who are retiring will move to poor areas before they retire to get their pension quicker. This will decrease inequality.

  2. DevonChap

    You are only looking at male life expectency. You should be clearer with your figures unless you want a reputation like Gordon Brown.

    In Glasgow women live on average 6.3 years longer than men, in Kensington that difference is only 4 years. The national average is that women live 4.2 years longer than men so equalising their pension ages sooner is hardly unfair.

    Perhaps you should look to why men in Labour run Glasgow live such short lives.

  3. Charlie

    From a fairness point of view this is a very strong point. The irony is that raising the retirement age in a place like Glasgow may lead to people living longer there as people will have a sense of purpose for longer built round work and all the socialisation associated with it. The reason why people in K&C live longer is they have a more purposeful retirement and their networks and social capital is stronger as well as better access to health. Their accrued wealth gives them more to live for, whereas in poorer communities the loss of a lot of socialisation associated with work may lead to previously more self-destructive behaviour (ie smoking obesity etc) killing them earlier. In other words we need more research to examine the impact of retirement on various communities and the inequalities that arise out of loss of socialisation

  4. Anon

    See also Steve Webb’s (LD work and pensions spokesman) criticisms here – he reckons the sums don’t add up:

  5. Dan W

    An interesting article, but unfortunately complete nonsense. The figures used are not indicative there wrong. Life expectancy at birth and life expectancy at retirement are completely different concepts. The variations in life expectancy at birth between different areas are mainly due to differences in child mortality rates, deaths due to car accidents and violence in early adulthood and deaths related to life style choices in middle age. The differences in life expectancy at retirement would be much smaller between areas. Indeed they may disappear com pletly. People would not lose significantly more of thier retirement in poor compared to rich areas. You article deliberately misuses statistics. I challenge you to rewrite the article using life expectancy at retirement figures.

Comments are closed.