It was a manifesto pledge, but calls to abandon the triple lock on state pensions are growing ahead of chancellor John Healey's first Budget on 28 October. As fiscal pressure intensifies, will public opinion on state pension uplifts change? 

The British Chambers of Commerce has proposed cutting national insurance for under-25s to tackle the youth unemployment crisis and funding the shortfall partly by replacing the so-called 'triple lock', the mechanism that means state pensions are uprated in line with the highest of earnings, inflation or 2.5%. Healey was asked about the proposal by GB News after a speech he gave on Monday but dodged the question, only expressing support for tackling worklessness among young people. 

The triple lock has lifted many pensioners out of poverty, to the extent that state pensioners are least likely to be poor of any age group, and is held onto by silver voters as a measure of how committed any government is to their concerns. 

The cost of the benefit is, however, a growing concern and has been flagged by the Office for Budget Responsibility, which said the policy will cost £15.5bn a year in 2029-30, three times as much as the £5.2bn originally projected because of higher inflation and earnings volatility. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that by 2050, keeping the triple lock would cost around £20bn a year in today’s terms – and emphasises the high uncertainty built into the mechanism, which means its cost could range from £5bn to £40bn a year. This year, taxpayers are expected to spend about £154bn on the state pension, with the triple lock having increased this by about £16bn compared with earnings increases since 2010, according to the IFS. 

Despite consensus among thinktanks from the OECD to the Resolution Foundation and the Tony Blair Institute that the triple lock policy is financially unsustainable, the leaders of most political parties have told the public they will keep it; only the Greens have said they would move to a double lock of inflation and earnings.

Between businesses and silver voters, the government sits between a rock and a hard place. The question ultimately may be, on which side will the media come down?

While politicians have so far shied away from talk of scrapping the triple lock, the BCC's proposals have prompted commentators into action. Merryn Somerset Webb wrote on Bloomberg that the policy must go, and the iPaper ran a column titled, 'The triple lock is morally indefensible'. The Times had reported Jim O’Neill’s view that action on the triple lock would calm nervous bond markets, and the Guardian had a column in May calling for an end to the policy. The New Statesman said the triple lock has gone too far, but does not believe it will be abandoned, saying it will not raise much in the short term at a high political cost. 

Yet while a growing number seem to feel the triple lock is giving too much to people who, on the whole, do not need it at a time when finances are tight, those voices face strong opposition. The architect of the policy, former pensions minister Sir Steve Webb, defended it in the Telegraph on Tuesday, claiming that a narrative of well-off pensioners was misplaced.  The Daily Express wrote that any change to the triple lock would strike fear in the hearts of pensioners, while the Mirror focused on the projected increase in pensioner poverty from scrapping the mechanism. 

The Sun has apparently dodged the question by simply running an explainer of how the triple lock works. Meanwhile, the Daily Mail ran a column by new shadow chancellor Andrew Griffith. Griffith focused on saying that Healey must avoid further tax rises in the Budget. The former City minister only hinted at how this could be funded, with words such as "reform welfare" – leaving it open whether this includes the state pension. Possibly not – the Conservatives have been staunch supporters of a policy close to the heart of its largely older voter base and helped to bring it in under the Coalition government.  

Many people have come to perceive the state pension to be an immutable right or entitlement, rather than a taxpayer-funded benefit. The only way out of the dilemma of how to change a, arguably overly generous, giveaway for loss-averse pensioners that also happen to be key voters is through cross-party consensus. Will MPs and ministers overcome the temptation to score some points and increase state pensions in a way that is fairer to everyone?
   

     

   

 

Where do you stand on the triple lock – is its demise overdue, or does it represent a way to keep pensioners out of poverty?