Farage previously called the triple lock unaffordable (Image: Getty)

Speaking to the Daily Express Mr Farage said that “everything is unaffordable, we are running a massive deficit, there is no item of expenditure today that is affordable – we’re skint!” He explained that was why Reform would be taking an axe to the benefits system, which Reform said would put “alarm clock Britain” first, whilst protecting pensioners and those approaching pension age who “have actually worked and paid into the system.”

The Conservative Party declined to comment on their position on maintaining the triple lock, first introduced by David Cameron, when approached by the Daily Express. Hailing the change, Dennis Reed of the campaigning organisation Silver Voices said Reform was the “first party to commit to the Triple Lock for the next Parliament and now we are looking for Labour and the Conservatives to follow suit.”

“It’s incredibly important that people who have worked their whole lives, paid into the system, have that certainty in the last decades of their life, and it would be completely wrong for a Government to pull the rug from underneath people who are on fixed incomes at a time when bills are rising and life for many people is very tough.”

He revealed that Mr Farage had given him and his team the time they needed to lay out how Reform could reform public finances to ensure that they were on a more sustainable footing, and back pensioners.

Jenrick: ‘We won’t let pensioners down’ (Image: Getty)

More details on the parties plan for reforming the welfare state is expected in the coming weeks, but Mr Jenrick told the Express they planned to “get rid of benefits for recent arrivals to the country, scrap foreign aid for rich countries, get rid of the Net-zero subsidies and reduce the welfare bill for people who are choosing not to work.”

He added: “By doing those things we can make the savings unnecessary to deliver this and to ensure that we put the public finances on a more sustainable footing than they are today now.”

The Daily Express has long campaigned to protect the triple lock, and the announcement from Reform marks a major victory for readers of this paper.

Mr Jenrick revealed that Nigel Farage had been “worried” about committing to the policy as “the public finances are a mess.” This is due to “successive governments”, including Labour Mr Jenrick’s former party the Conservatives, having “mismanaged the economy and have left us with a massive national debt.”

He confirmed that Reforms previous reluctance to outright commit to the triple lock came from Mr Farage not wanting to “make a very big financial commitment, unless he could look pensioners in the eye and say, with absolute certainty, that we would do this and that we wouldn’t let them down.”

He added: “No major party is willing to be honest with voters about the cost of Britain’s growing pension obligations. The triple lock is one of the most expensive commitments in British public policy, it is an electoral bribe with a compound interest rate.”

Joanna Marchong, of the Adam Smith Institute, said: “Reform’s commitment to the triple lock will come as a surprise to the many voters who listened to them tout how unsustainable and unaffordable it is.”

She warned that forthcoming plans by Reform to slash welfare would “not be sufficient to fund the growing pension bill that costs hundreds of billions of pounds every year.”

Nigel Farage issues state pension pledge as Reform UK vows to keep the ‘triple lock’

Nigel Farage has sought to reassure pensioners by confirming that a Reform UK government would retain the State Pension triple lock, placing the policy at the centre of the party’s wider argument about welfare, public spending and the future of Britain’s social security system.

The pledge is significant because Farage had previously been reluctant to guarantee the triple lock, warning that the existing arrangement raised difficult questions about affordability. In April 2026, however, he confirmed that Reform would keep the policy, with the party saying the cost would be met through substantial reductions in other areas of welfare spending.

The commitment has since become an important part of Reform’s attempt to define its position on the welfare state. While the party has proposed major changes to benefits for working-age people, it has repeatedly stressed that pensioners would be protected.

The issue is particularly important because the triple lock affects millions of people. Under the system, the basic and new State Pension are increased each year by whichever is highest of average earnings growth, inflation or 2.5 per cent.

That mechanism means pensioners are protected when prices rise sharply or earnings increase faster than expected. But it also means government spending can rise considerably over time, particularly when economic conditions produce large increases in wages or inflation.

The current government has also committed to retaining the triple lock for the duration of this Parliament. In April, the Department for Work and Pensions confirmed that more than 12 million pensioners would receive an increase of up to £575, following a 4.8 per cent rise in the State Pension from April 2026.

That means Reform’s position is not simply a contrast with Labour. Both parties have committed themselves to maintaining the system during the current political period. The more significant difference concerns what would happen alongside the triple lock and how its long-term cost would be managed.

What exactly is the triple lock?

The triple lock was introduced in 2011 and is designed to prevent the State Pension from losing its value relative to wages or prices.

Each year, three measures are considered: inflation, average earnings growth and a minimum increase of 2.5 per cent. Whichever produces the largest increase becomes the basis for the annual uprating.

The policy has contributed to a substantial rise in the value of the State Pension over the past 15 years.

According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the full new State Pension is currently worth approximately £241.30 a week, or around £12,500 a year. Based on the latest earnings figures, the IFS estimates that it could rise to about £250.70 a week, or approximately £13,000 a year, in April 2027.

The increase expected next year is likely to be determined by average earnings growth, which was estimated at 3.9 per cent for May to July 2026.

For pensioners, the significance is straightforward: maintaining the triple lock provides a degree of protection against the possibility that the State Pension falls behind wages or inflation.

For governments, however, the calculation is more complicated.

The growing cost to the Treasury

The IFS estimates that government spending on the State Pension will be around £154 billion in 2026-27.

That makes it by far the largest individual benefit expenditure in Britain.

The think tank estimates that State Pension spending is now around £16 billion a year higher than it would have been if flat-rate pensions had instead been uprated in line with average earnings since 2010. The IFS stresses that the triple lock is not responsible for all of the increase in pension spending, but says it has been an important factor.

The long-term cost is particularly uncertain.

If economic growth remains relatively stable and earnings usually rise faster than inflation, the additional cost of the triple lock could be relatively limited. But periods of high inflation or unusually strong earnings growth can cause pension payments to rise more quickly.

The IFS estimates that maintaining the triple lock until 2050 could cost around £20 billion a year in today’s money, although the eventual figure could reasonably fall anywhere between £5 billion and £40 billion depending on future economic conditions.

This uncertainty explains why the policy continues to generate debate across British politics.

Farage’s change of position

Farage’s pledge is also notable because it represents a change from his earlier position.

In the months before Reform formally committed itself to the policy, the party leader had indicated that the economics of the triple lock would need to be considered before the next general election. The Independent reported that Farage had previously described the existing system as unaffordable at national level.

The April announcement therefore represented a clearer commitment to pensioners.

Reform said it would fund the triple lock through major reductions in the benefits bill. The party has subsequently presented its welfare programme as an attempt to distinguish between pensioners and working-age claimants who are considered capable of working.

In August, Reform said children, pensioners and people with severe disabilities would not be affected by its proposed welfare changes and would retain their cash awards. It also proposed reforms affecting working-age welfare recipients, including requirements for some long-term claimants who are able to work to undertake community work.

The party has argued that savings from welfare reform could help protect other parts of the welfare state.

Whether those savings would ultimately be sufficient is a matter for economic and political debate rather than something established by the pledge itself.

Questions inside Reform

There is also evidence of disagreement within Reform UK about the long-term future of pension policy.

In August, Reform’s new economic adviser Mitchell Palmer was reported to have previously argued that the triple lock should be abolished, describing it as expensive and unsustainable. The Guardian reported that Palmer had disagreed with Robert Jenrick’s decision to support the policy.

That creates an important distinction between Reform’s current political commitment and the wider range of economic arguments associated with people advising the party.

A party can make a formal pledge while individual advisers continue to argue for different approaches. For voters, the practical question is therefore what policy would ultimately appear in a future election manifesto and how it would be financed.

The debate has become even more complicated in September, when a think tank linked to Reform was reported to have published a much more radical proposal calling for the abolition of the State Pension itself. The report does not represent a formal Reform UK policy commitment, but its publication has added another layer to the discussion about the direction of the party’s economic thinking.

That distinction matters. A proposal from an associated think tank is not automatically a party policy, just as an adviser’s previous opinion does not necessarily override the position publicly announced by the party leadership.

Labour’s position

It would also be misleading to portray the triple lock as a policy that only Reform UK supports.

The Labour government has explicitly committed to maintaining the triple lock for the duration of the current Parliament. In a parliamentary answer in April, the Department for Work and Pensions confirmed that the State Pension would continue to rise by the highest of earnings growth, price inflation or 2.5 per cent.

The government’s April 2026 increase was 4.8 per cent.

That increase means the political argument is not currently about whether pensioners will receive triple-lock protection under Labour or Reform. Both have made commitments in that direction.

Instead, the debate is increasingly about the wider fiscal framework surrounding pensions.

Can governments afford to maintain the policy as Britain’s population ages? Should savings be found elsewhere in government spending? Should working-age welfare be reduced to protect pension spending? And should future governments eventually replace the triple lock with a different mechanism?

These questions have no simple answer.

A bigger political issue

For Farage, protecting the triple lock allows Reform UK to present itself as a party that wants to reduce government spending without placing the same burden on pensioners.

The party’s welfare programme focuses heavily on reducing payments or changing requirements for working-age claimants, while its public statements have sought to reassure pensioners that their State Pension will remain protected.

For critics of the policy, however, the problem is that pension spending is already one of the largest items in the welfare budget. Maintaining generous increases today can therefore create additional spending commitments for governments in future decades.

The House of Lords Library’s September assessment of the UK’s fiscal outlook also highlighted the broader pressure created by an ageing population. It noted that public finances remain constrained by high debt, borrowing costs and rising spending pressures, including those associated with demographic change.

The triple lock consequently sits at the intersection of two competing objectives: protecting retirement incomes and maintaining sustainable public finances.

What pensioners can take from the pledge

For pensioners, Farage’s announcement provides a clear political commitment: Reform UK says a future government led by the party would retain the triple lock.

But the pledge should be understood alongside the party’s wider economic programme.

The policy does not exist in isolation. Maintaining it requires government spending, and Reform has said it would look elsewhere in the welfare budget and the public sector for savings.

At the same time, Labour has also committed to the triple lock, meaning pensioners are not currently choosing between one party that protects the policy and another that has abandoned it.

The more fundamental question is what happens beyond the immediate parliamentary cycle.

The IFS has warned that the triple lock creates costs that accumulate over time and that its long-term expense is highly uncertain.

For now, however, Farage’s message is unambiguous. Reform UK intends to protect the State Pension triple lock, even as it proposes significant changes elsewhere in the welfare system.

Whether that promise can be maintained alongside Reform’s other spending commitments will ultimately depend on the party’s detailed manifesto, its revenue assumptions, the scale of the savings it identifies and the economic conditions of any future government.

For Britain’s pensioners, the immediate message is therefore one of continued political protection. For the Treasury, the longer-term question remains how that protection can be financed as the cost of an ageing population continues to place pressure on public finances.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.