Being born in the north of England can take a decade off your life expectancy

Blackpool, sickest town in England. Image: Getty.

In spite of being one of the richest nations in Europe, England has some of the worst health inequalities. And within England, some of the very lowest life expectancies can be found in the north.

Analysis published yesterday by IPPR North shows us that, if you’re from the north, you can expect to spend a larger proportion at the end of your life in poor health. In all three of the northern regions, healthy life expectancy – the age at which, on average, people see the end of good health – is lower than the state pension age. This means that northerners, on average, don't even begin to collect their state pension until their health has begun to deteriorate.

At its lowest, healthy life expectancy can be over in the 40s. And neighborhoods where healthy life expectancy is lowest are disproportionately concentrated in the north. Shockingly, in one Salford neighbourhood it's 46, compared to the English average of 63.

Click to expand.

Life expectancy too, in addition to healthy life expectancy, is unacceptably low in parts of the north. In one neighbourhood in Blackpool, the average male life expectancy at birth is 68, compared to the English average of 79.

This pattern, of a north disproportionately affected by health inequalities, can be seen too in specific diseases. Lung cancer is more prevalent in the north’s cities, and liver cancer is strikingly prevalent in Merseyside, Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Northumberland and Tyne & Wear.

Of course, a number of complex factors affect poor health. One of these is air pollution – a big concern for many of the North’s major cities.

Take Greater Manchester, for example. The city region has the highest rate of emergency admissions for asthma in the whole country, and recent research by IPPR North shows that the poor air quality in Greater Manchester alone will cost 1.6 million life years in the coming century and £1bn each year to the economy.

Click to expand.

These stark findings should lead policymakers to ask this key question: is the economy of the North actually detrimental to the health and well-being of its people?

As part of the answer to this question, it’s important to consider the quality of northerners’ jobs. Not only is there an association between whether someone is in work and their health, but the nature of employment is also a determining factor. And it’s important to note that employment-related health problems disproportionately affect people with disabilities, ethnic minorities, and those from disadvantaged socioeconomic groups.

Poor working conditions, lack of job security, long hours, shift work, low pay: situations often seen in the ‘everyday economy sectors’ including health and social care, retail and hospitality, and routine manual occupations – all contribute to poor job quality. Change is needed.

In order to allow more people to enjoy their retirement in good health, we need to work to increase healthy life expectancy. The disparity between the north and south in healthy life expectancy may be significant, but it’s not insurmountable.


One answer? Policymakers should make improving the health and well-being of people a strategic goal of economic policy across the UK, especially in the north.

To achieve this, improving the quality of work in the north is essential. Yes, we need growth to happen – but not for its own sake. Instead we need growth that enables all people to see its benefits.

Inclusive growth is already an aim of many northern areas, and some mayors are in the process of creating employment charters to improve job quality in collaboration with business. However, in order to deliver positive outcomes for the north in general, this needs a radical up-scaling. Northern leaders aren’t currently equipped with the tools and budgets that they need. However, even without greater resources, small steps can and should be made.

Businesses must invest in their workforces and local areas, and aim to deliver high quality work – creating better places to live, and delivering better livelihoods for people.

Most importantly, for people to benefit from economic growth, the Northern Powerhouse agenda should focus on delivering economic justice. Economic policy is a powerful tool that can be used to improve health, well-being, and the quality of work. To do so, central government must support inclusive growth at the regional level, considering the health inputs and outcomes of local economies and embedding a ‘health in all policies’ approach into decisions made within the next phase of the Northern Powerhouse.

Leah Millward is a co-author of State of the North 2018. She tweets @LeahMillward.

 
 
 
 

In New Zealand, climate change is driving an eco-nationalist revival

The green and pleasant land of the South Island. Image: Getty.

“Ten years ago I would have called them settler f*****g land squatters,” Mike Smith, Maori-dom’s most tenacious activist, said last November as he reflected on the agriculture industry’s central role in driving climate change. “Now I have to try and get these people on board.”

Smith is infamous for taking a chainsaw to Auckland’s most prominent tree on a damp October night in 1994 in protest of the “Pākehā” – or white European –dominated government’s fiscal envelope restraining treaty settlements. Now he’s turned his hand to another cause close-to-home for the Maori, New Zealand’s indigenous population: the environment.

“We’re super vulnerable, like we are to anything,” Smith says. “When it comes to climate change it’s like the poorest people in the world are going to be hit the hardest first, and that’s a lot of us.”

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern appears, at least rhetorically, the most sympathetic leader to his cause in a decade. In her campaign launch speech late last year, she made the future government’s position clear: “Climate change is my generation’s nuclear free moment.”

This message should resonate with followers of her Labour party: the NZ left has long nurtured an environment-orientated “culture-of-protest”. So Ardern’s call to arms was bound to gain her loyal support among children of the 1960s and ‘70s, who led the march against nuclear ship visits, spurring on the government of the time to wriggle out from the US nuclear umbrella, and place a ban on foreign nuclear ship visits.

Now, it is to the tycoons of deep sea oil exploration they aim to close NZ’s ports.

In this, Smith is not short of support locally, with marches run by grassroots organisations and international animal welfare funds beginning to gain traction with every day New Zealanders. In this, Ardern’s prediction is correct: the Coal Action Network Aotearoa (CANA), is reminiscent of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), an earlier cluster of left-wing pacifists and nature lovers who drove the creation of the nuclear free zone.  

In December, 15,000 passionate protesters marched through the capital. And with the government’s recent ban of offshore oil exploration projects, Jeanette Fitzsimons, former Green party co-leader and the head of CANA, is optimistic about similar change to the energy and farming sectors.

The Labour-NZ First-Green party coalition seems focused on setting a new global precedent, weaning NZ away from a United States which has jettisoned the Paris Agreement. The move replicates another 20 years ago, when New Zealand’s anti-nuclear movement was central to an upsurge in New Zealand nationalism. Now, the same sense of going it alone on foreign policy is apparent both locally and in Parliament.

Dr. Gradon Diprose, a senior lecturer at Massey University, argues that this echoes an older expression of colonial nationalism, that saw “New Zealand as a land of natural abundance”. This: “eco-nationalism” is centered on “protecting certain visions of picturesque landscapes and unspoiled natural beauty”. The slogan “Clean, green New Zealand” is prevalent in popular culture and tourism marketing. The public seems to have latched onto it too, and ranked keeping NZ’s waterways “clean and green” top of a recent survey of of kiwis’ top concerns.

Three decades ago, it was the 10 July 1985 sinking of the Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior that thrust local activists’ fears into the public eye, resulting in an almost nation-wide expression of climate-protectionism.


The bombing, a French intelligence operation sparked by Greenpeace’s calls for an end to foreign nuclear testing in the Pacific, galvanised a great deal of change to New Zealand’s overseas defence policies. A lack of censure from New Zealand’s Western allies drove Wellington to distance itself from the United States, while the shock of seeing a friendly nation violate NZ’s sovereignty left many at home seething.

Thirty years on, the foreign policy split throughout the Anglosphere, regarding Russian-Western relations, globalism, and the old international rules-based order, is becoming wider. Climate change is just the tip of the iceberg.

Most Kiwis you talk to will shake their heads in disapproval at US president Donald Trump’s scandalous outing last year in Helsinki. But US defiance of internationally brokered climate resolutions is something they can see clearly reflected in rural communities across the country.

The country saw records broken at both ends of the extreme weather spectrum last year. As 2018 kicked off, Kiwis sweltered through the hottest summer on record, while in Golden Bay, a small inlet near the northern tip of the South Island, residents endured the largest flood in 150 years. So, when President Trump tweets “So much for Global Warming”, the majority of New Zealanders look back fondly on NZ’s 1985 decision to boycott the “ANZUS” treaty, putting New Zealand at odds with its war-time ally America on defence legislation.

Public calls to take the same track on environmental regulation have become louder in the wake of Donald Trump’s election. The former US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, received a frosty “unwelcome” while on a flyby to the capital in 2017, with the New York Times’ Washington correspondent, Gardiner Harris remarking: “I’ve never seen so many people flip the bird at an American motorcade as I saw today”. Protests against President Trump’s stance on climate change are beginning to gain greater traction further still, with the hundred-strong “march for science” setting the tone for the new government later that year.

New Zealand certainly isn’t afraid of radicalism, and its activists are persistent. It’s already banned single use plastics in supermarkets. Plenty more is to come, Smith says.

And yes, reform is going to inhibit sometimes vital industries: “It doesn’t matter which way you spin the dice on this, whatever’s being done is going to hurt. People who are looking for a painless way of mitigating climate change, [but] I don’t think there is one.”

But among Smith’s troupe of climate agitators, the feeling is that, without drastic change, “the land”, the heart of the Maori ethos, is going to be hurt far more.

Back in Auckland, NZ’s financial hub, an electric scooter craze is gripping the city. This, too, has gained the support of local environmentalists. In New Zealand, a national sense of pride is always coupled with a certain eccentricity. In a country this size, change always starts small.