Why don't we save? Because we don't have the money

The biggest reason for a failure to contribute to pension plans is not having the money to do so.

Aviva, the insurance firm, has released its second Working Lives report, analysing the sort of benefits businesses give their employees. One particular passage jumped out at me:

Almost half (45%) of employees who do not contribute to a scheme they are offered say they simply cannot afford it, 19% are repaying debts and 17% are saving for other things. Of interest, the number of workers who say they cannot afford to pay into a scheme has dropped 10 percentage points from 55% (Q2 2012) which suggests that while general finances remain tight, retirement saving is becoming more of a consideration.

The problem that Britons don't save for retirement plagues public policy, and novel solutions are forever being proposed. For instance, one of the responses to this report, from ILC-UK, called for Government and the pensions industry to "work together to develop and promote a savings rule of thumb similar to the ‘5-a-day’ healthy eating message."

But if Government needs to do one thing to boost the number of Brits saving for retirement, it's pretty clear that that one thing ought to be aiming to increase the incomes — or at least, the disposable income — of the poorest 45 per cent of the country. It's not a lack of responsibility that prevents them saving, it's a simple lack of funds.

(It's similarly not a lack of responsibility that a 19 per cent of employees decide to pay off debts rather than save in a pension; saving when you have interest-bearing debts is, as a rule of thumb, a stupid thing to do)

Those figures also only count for employees with a workplace pension scheme, an increasingly rare situation to be in. Such schemes typically involve employer matching of contributions, which makes it even more critical that employees feel they can afford to actually take the employer up on the offer. As with other in-kind compensation like healthcare or company cars, such benefits are usually a way for an employer to "top up" an otherwise-low salary. If it is disproportionately poorer employees aren't making the most of them, that hurts them twice over.

Of course, whether employees think they can afford to contribute into pensions is different from whether they can actually afford to. It may be that if the urgency of saving for retirement were properly impressed upon employees, they would be able to make savings in their daily lives elsewhere. But that's a very different proposition from merely reminding people that they ought to be saving more.

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.