The NI system wasn’t predicated on all contributors eventually redeeming the full amount due to an individual – it wouldn’t be able to afford it. If it’s reasonable for you, Simon, to ask if oldies should move into central locations, so should it be to ask if NHS treatment or benefits or whatever should be freely available to recent arrivals to this country; and have not paid NI contributions or taxes.

The post-1945 welfare state emerged out of a sense of common experience, and in a largely ethnically homogeneous population. Scandinavian systems, often held up as perfect examples, are under strain as these socially conservative populations deal with the experience of large-scale immigration.

The increase in the number of rural older people is largely driven by the flight of wealthy and comparatively healthy people from the Cities. This is driven by the perception of a lack of safety and a belief that there is an ideal society within villages that people can retire to.

This then causes a disproportionate number of less wealthy and much less healthy people left in the Cities. This is one of the fundamental causes of low life expectancy in cities.

The experience of many people who retire to villages is often very different to what they expect. The lack of coherent family and community structures often leave people marooned once they become dependant on care.

Equally as we see less older people in Cities there is a knock on effect from a lack of community cohesion.

The consequence of the flight of wealth has a major impact on the ability of a city to provide care and support for older people. A larger number of people, with a larger ability to meet the cost of their own care creates a economy of scale in provision. Without a wealthy subset of older people a city can be swamped by the cost of social care.

We need to make urban environments a much more attractive place to retire to before we end up killing both the city and the countryside.

That’s what I think.