Andy Burnham is gaslighting state pensioners – axeing triple lock is based on a huge lie

Whatever your view about the state pension uplift mechanism, and at the Daily Express we will defend it to the death, any debate about its future has to be based on facts, not fantasy. In his speech on Tuesday, Burnham veered to the latter. His announcement that Labour will go to the next election on a platform to scrap the triple lock was described as brave, as it will stir up fury among millions of pensioners. It was also worrying vague and in come areas, borderline dishonest.

The biggest sleight of hand was to present this as a way of resolving the UK’s social care crisis. Yet they are entirely different issues. And the sums simply don’t add up. Burnham’s proposed “adjustment” to the triple lock will not generate the money required to fund his National Care Service for many years, if ever. And he must surely know it. We’ll get the pension cut, but it won’t fund his social care revolution.

His proposed universal social care system is estimated to cost at least £18billion a year, while the government says adjusting the triple lock could save £15billion a year by the end of the 2030s. Yet the Institute for Fiscal Studies points out that nobody really knows. It said the triple axe might save £4billion by 2034, but that’s obviously not enough. And in practice, it might save nothing at all, depending on how inflation and earnings move. The IFS makes it clear: “Savings from triple lock reform could be large but will not be able to fund social care.” Burnham wasn’t clear.

Also, Government spending is not held in neat little pots. Burnham could equally have raided any other government budget. Basically, he’s using social care as cover to go for the triple lock, and keep pensioners quiet. We may also have to pay new taxes on top of losing the triple lock, to plug the social care funding gap. Again, Burnham didn’t say.

Today, the triple lock increases the state pension each year by earnings, inflation or 2.5%, whichever is highest. Burnham proposes changing this so that it rises by either inflation or 2.5% from 2030. What he didn’t tell us, but pensions campaigner Ros Altmann did, is that “dropping the earnings link removes most important part of the triple lock”. It’s what stops pensioners falling behind the living standards of working people over time.

If he had to scrap the triple lock he should have kept that and axed the other two elements. So he’s ditching the best bit. Ultimately, it’s how the state pension is funded: from earnings.

Weirdly, Burnham then said he will add a new mechanism to keep pace with earnings over time, which makes you wonder why he’s bothering in the first place. But there’s the thing. He didn’t say how it will work. Basically, it will leave future state pension increases in the hand of future politicians, and we know how much they can be relied upon.

Then there is social care. Burnham says his plan will provide older people with free personal care at the point of need, including help with eating, dressing and bathing. That sounds generous, but it does not mean care homes will suddenly become free.

Bed and board will not be covered, meaning people in residential care will still have to pay massive accommodation costs and existing means-tested contributions will remain. Families could still pay tens of thousands a year for until the estates fall below £14,250, something Burnham didn’t make clear in his speech. And we’re losing the cast-iron triple lock guarantee for that fudge?

Altmann said Burnham’s plan “cannot possibly pay for what is being promised” and is therefore a classic case of political doublespeak. His social care plan will be funded by making future pensioners poorer, and the PM is hoping we won’t notice until it’s too late.

Pensioners are clearly being gaslighted here. The Express will continue to campaign for the triple lock. It has lifted millions out of poverty. The new mechanism could reverse that, without solving the social care nightmare. So it’s lose-lose.