Andy Burnham has been warned the state pension triple lock “has to go” to fund an uplift in defence spending. The Prime Minister is under growing pressure to cut the welfare bill in order to boost the military budget amid rising tensions with Russia.

The triple lock, introduced in 2011 by the Tory–Lib Dem coalition. sees the state pension rise every year by whichever is the highest out of earnings growth, inflation or 2.5%. Most of the major parties, including Labour and the Conservatives, are in favour of keeping it. However, commentators and some organisations have voiced concern as its costs continue to soar.

David Blair, The Telegraph‘s chief foreign affairs commentator, said he believes the triple lock should be axed to give more cash to the Ministry of Defence.

In an op ed, he wrote: “If, like me, you constantly urge the British state to invest more in defence, then you have even more of a moral responsibility to show where the money comes from. So here goes. We need to abandon the “triple lock”.”

He added: “When they invented the triple lock, the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition assumed it would cause pensions to rise by only 0.2 per cent above average earnings, with a price tag of an extra £5.2bn by 2029, even accounting for an ageing population.

“In fact, real wages have grown by less than forecast, meaning that the additional cost of the triple lock reached £12bn this year and will climb to £15.5bn – three times the predicted sum – by 2029, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).”

The commentator said the bill is “only going to go up”.

Official forecasts show the state pension is set to hit almost 9% of GDP by 2075.

Britain currently spends around 5% of its GDP on state pensions.

Defence spending is expected to account for 2.6% of the UK’s national income in 2026.

Many experts have warned current defence plans are insufficient amid the tensions with Russia.

The Conservatives are calling for defence spending to hit 3% by 2030, rather than in the next parliament as pledged by the Government.

Mr Blair said he would replace the triple lock from 2027, with the state pension instead rising by inflation only.

He concluded his piece by writing: “Cut welfare to fund defence. End the triple lock to ease the burden on future generations. Not easy – and there would be many losers – but it would be right.”

It comes days after Baroness Therese Coffey, Conservative work and pensions secretary between 2019 and 2022, said the triple lock should “probably” be replaced.

The British Chambers of Commerce has called on the Prime Minister to scrap the triple lock, claiming it would save more than £3 billion across two years.

Andy Burnham Given Huge State Pension Warning as ‘Benefit Has to Go’

Andy Burnham has been handed a major warning over the future of Britain’s state pension, with critics arguing that the controversial Triple Lock may have to be abandoned as the government faces mounting pressure over public spending.

The warning comes at a difficult moment for the new government, with rising defence costs, higher borrowing costs and increasing pressure on the Treasury creating a complicated fiscal picture.

The Triple Lock has become one of the most sensitive issues facing the government because it directly affects millions of pensioners while also carrying a substantial cost for the state.

Under the current system, the state pension increases each year by whichever is highest of average earnings growth, inflation or 2.5 per cent. The policy was introduced in 2011 under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition and was designed to prevent pensioners’ incomes from falling behind wages and prices.

However, critics increasingly argue that the mechanism is becoming too expensive to maintain.

Calls to scrap the Triple Lock

One of the strongest recent interventions came from David Blair, foreign affairs commentator at The Telegraph, who argued that the Triple Lock should be abandoned to help fund higher defence spending.

Blair argued that anyone demanding greater investment in national defence should also explain where the additional money would come from. In his assessment, ending the Triple Lock could provide one possible source of savings.

According to figures cited in the argument, the additional cost associated with the policy has been considerably higher than originally expected. The Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated that the extra cost could rise to around £15.5 billion by 2029.

The argument has therefore moved beyond the question of pension policy alone.

It has become part of a much wider debate about Britain’s priorities: how much should be spent on defence, welfare, healthcare and other public services, and who should bear the cost of the government’s spending commitments?

For Burnham, this creates a particularly difficult political problem.

Why the pension bill is rising

The fundamental issue is Britain’s ageing population.

As the number of pensioners increases relative to the working-age population, the government must spend more on state pensions. The Triple Lock can increase the pressure further because pension payments are automatically linked to whichever of three measures produces the largest increase.

The mechanism was originally introduced partly because pensioner incomes had fallen relative to earnings over previous decades.

Supporters of the policy argue that pensioners should not be left behind when wages or prices rise. They also point out that older people face significant expenses, including energy bills, food costs, housing costs and healthcare-related spending.

Critics, however, argue that the policy can create a structural advantage for pensioners over younger working-age taxpayers.

The Financial Times recently described Britain’s pension system as increasingly difficult to sustain, particularly because income-tax thresholds are frozen while pension payments continue to increase. It reported that state pension spending could reach around £154 billion a year.

That debate has intensified because the state pension is approaching a significant tax threshold.

State pension set to pass £13,000

Recent earnings figures have created another complication.

According to reporting in The Times, average wages increased by 3.9 per cent. Because earnings growth is currently the relevant measure under the Triple Lock, the full new state pension is expected to rise by approximately the same percentage.

That would take the annual payment above £13,000.

The current personal allowance is £12,570, meaning that the pension could technically exceed the income-tax threshold.

The government has indicated that people whose only income is the state pension will not be forced to pay income tax simply because the pension rises above the threshold.

Nevertheless, the situation highlights a structural problem.

If the pension rises while the personal allowance remains frozen, more pensioners with additional sources of income could potentially find themselves paying tax.

That has created additional political pressure on Burnham’s government.

Advisers have already raised concerns

The warning about the Triple Lock is not entirely new.

Earlier in 2026, reports emerged that several economists associated with Burnham were open to abandoning the current system.

Among those linked to Burnham’s economic team are Lord Jim O’Neill, former Bank of England chief economist Andy Haldane and former Office for Budget Responsibility chairman Richard Hughes.

The Independent reported in June that some of Burnham’s economic advisers regarded scrapping the Triple Lock as a potentially necessary measure given the pressure on public finances.

That does not mean that Burnham has announced a policy to abolish the Triple Lock.

It does, however, demonstrate that the issue is being discussed within the wider economic debate surrounding his government.

The distinction is important.

An adviser supporting a policy change does not automatically mean that the prime minister has adopted it. Any major alteration to the state pension system would require a political decision and would likely generate substantial opposition.

The defence spending dilemma

Defence has become another important part of the argument.

Britain faces pressure to increase military spending amid heightened international tensions and demands for greater European defence capabilities.

The government has therefore been confronted with a basic budgetary question: if defence spending rises, where should the additional money come from?

One possible answer is higher taxation.

Another is borrowing, although higher borrowing can increase debt-interest costs.

A third is reducing spending in other areas.

That is where the Triple Lock enters the debate.

Those calling for its abolition argue that pension spending represents a large and growing commitment and therefore cannot be ignored when the government is searching for savings.

The opposing argument is that state pensioners should not be treated simply as a source of savings because many depend heavily on the pension for their living costs.

Pensioners warn against weakening the guarantee

Campaign groups have strongly challenged calls to abandon the Triple Lock.

Dennis Reed, director of the pensioner organisation Silver Voices, argued that many older people continue to face serious financial pressure despite increases in the state pension.

He pointed out that people receiving the older basic state pension would receive a considerably smaller cash increase than those receiving the full new state pension. Campaigners have also warned that rising energy and food costs could erode much of the benefit of the annual increase.

This is at the heart of the political dispute.

Supporters of the Triple Lock see it as a protection against pensioner poverty.

Critics see it as an expensive mechanism that increasingly transfers resources towards an ageing population while younger workers face high taxes and housing costs.

Both sides therefore approach the issue from fundamentally different perspectives.

Burnham faces a difficult political choice

For Burnham, the pension debate is particularly sensitive because Labour traditionally seeks to protect social security while also promising responsible management of public finances.

Abandoning the Triple Lock could produce significant savings over time, but it would also represent a major political change.

Keeping it would provide pensioners with continued protection against inflation and wage growth, but it would leave the Treasury facing a larger long-term spending commitment.

The choice becomes even more complicated when combined with the government’s other commitments.

Burnham has promised action on public services and the cost of living, while the government is simultaneously under pressure to increase defence spending.

At the same time, the Treasury is facing a deteriorating fiscal outlook.

The Times reported in September that the government could face the need for approximately £10 billion in tax increases or spending reductions in the upcoming Budget. The report also highlighted the growing cost of the pension system under the Triple Lock.

Could the system be changed rather than abolished?

Scrapping the Triple Lock is not the only possible reform.

One alternative would be to replace the current three-part guarantee with a different formula.

For example, pensions could be linked primarily to earnings, while additional support could be provided to pensioners facing severe financial hardship.

Another option would be to retain some form of inflation protection while removing the 2.5 per cent minimum.

Such proposals would attempt to reduce the long-term cost without completely removing protection against rising prices.

However, every alternative has consequences.

A system linked only to earnings could leave pensioners vulnerable if inflation rises faster than wages. A system linked only to inflation could cause pensioners’ incomes to fall relative to workers during periods of strong wage growth.

The existing Triple Lock was designed precisely because policymakers wanted to avoid those situations.

The wider generational debate

The pension argument is ultimately part of a broader debate about intergenerational fairness.

Older generations have benefited from decades of rising house prices and, in many cases, generous occupational pensions. Younger workers face different economic circumstances, including high housing costs, student debt and pressure on household incomes.

Critics of the Triple Lock argue that the government should consider these differences when allocating public resources.

Supporters respond that today’s pensioners should not be blamed for structural problems in the housing market or the wider economy.

The debate is therefore unlikely to disappear even if the government decides not to change the system immediately.

What happens next?

For now, there is no confirmed announcement that Burnham’s government will abolish the Triple Lock.

Instead, the policy is facing increasingly visible criticism from economists, commentators and some political figures.

The upcoming Budget will be an important moment because it will reveal how the government intends to balance pension spending, defence, public services, taxation and borrowing.

The central question for Burnham is not simply whether the Triple Lock is popular or unpopular.

It is whether the government can continue funding the policy at its current cost while meeting its other commitments.

If the Triple Lock remains unchanged, pension spending will continue to place pressure on future budgets.

If it is abolished or significantly reformed, millions of pensioners could see a different pattern of increases in the years ahead.

For Burnham, either route carries significant consequences.

The phrase that the “benefit has to go” represents the view of critics calling for the policy to be scrapped, not an established government decision. The confirmed picture is that the Triple Lock is under growing scrutiny as the government confronts difficult choices over public spending.

The coming months will show whether Burnham chooses to defend the existing guarantee, modify it or open the door to a fundamental reform of Britain’s state pension system.