EXCLUSIVE: The PM blasted for targeting ‘low-hanging fruit’ as Labour stands accused of short-changing pensioners.
Labour MP Neil Duncan-Jordan has taken aim at the PM’s state pension plans (Image: PA)
Andy Burnham’s dogmatic decision to axe the State Pension Triple Lock could be as disastrous as Labour’s move to scrap winter fuel payments, one of his own MPs said. The Prime Minister sparked anger after announcing he will stop the mechanism in its current form, partly to fund a national care service. But he now risks a backbench rebellion over plans that mean OAPs will be offered less generous terms at a time when the cost of living is rocketing.
Neil Duncan-Jordan said Labour’s Triple Lock gamble could be as “politically unpopular as Starmer’s winter fuel debacle” in what amounts to the first major red-on-red attack that has the potential to spark a full-scale revolt.
The outspoken backbencher, who was disciplined for leading criticism of proposals to means-test annual cold-weather payments, questioned how it could be justified. OAPs are forced to survive on less than £13,000 a year after a lifetime of hard graft.
He said: “Commentators across the political class often reach for what they think is such low-hanging fruit and decry the Triple Lock as some unnecessary, extravagant expenditure that simply props up wealthy pensioners who spend all their time on lavish cruises. The reality is somewhat different. The UK still has 1.9 million older people living in poverty.”
His incendiary comments will deeply embarrass the PM and embolden Kemi Badenoch at the start of the Conservative Party conference in Birmingham, where she vowed to protect the Triple Lock.
Currently, the State Pension increases each April by the highest of inflation, 2.5% or average earnings. Under Mr Burnham’s plans from 2030, it will rise either in line with prices, or 2.5% each year, whichever is higher – but not in line with earnings unless its value has fallen behind. In that case, it will be adjusted to keep pace.
The PM’s decision to axe the triple lock could be as disastrous as the Winter Fuel Payment fiasco. (Image: Andrew Stenning)
Labour called the policy on which it will fight the next General Election an “adjusted Triple Lock”, but critics claim it is proof the party sees pensioners, which collectively make up one fifth of the electorate, as politically expendable.
But there are suggestions that it could be implemented sooner, with a vote to scrap it during this Parliament. Mrs Badenoch pledged to save the Triple Lock and attacked the PM for “going after the elderly”.
She told the Express, keeping the income guarantee “is what we have promised”, adding: “There is nothing that has happened that has made me change my mind.”
The Tories claim Labour is “cutting pensions for millions of people rather than cutting benefits” and has launched a petition demanding the PM “cuts welfare, not the Triple Lock”.
A spokesman said: “Pensioners built this country. They worked hard, paid in and did the right thing. They live on fixed incomes. Most cannot work. That is why the Conservatives invented the Triple Lock. Because we recognise contribution.
“Any serious plan to reduce Government spending must start with working-age welfare, not with taking money from people who have already earned what they get. Andy Burnham needs to cut welfare and get Britain working again. Not punish those who spent a lifetime contributing.”
The Triple Lock was introduced in 2011 by the Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition Government to address rising pensioner poverty caused by linking state pensions only to prices.
In 1979, the State Pension was worth 26% of average earnings, but the link with wages was cut in 1980, and before the triple lock, it had plunged to 16% of average earnings.
The mechanism reversed the fall and the full new State Pension – £241.30 a week or £12,547.60 a year – is equal to roughly 30% of median full-time pay.
Sharon Graham, the general secretary of Unite, Labour’s largest union backer, said removing the pension triple lock would penalise the “poorest in society”.
She said: “Going to a group of people who are getting around £12,500 a year, in order to pay for it, to take their security from them, is wrong. I think it’s morally wrong.
“We need to look at other ways. And I can’t understand why we keep going to the well of the poorest in society as a Labour Government. Why are we doing that instead of taxing the rich in our society?”
Badenoch: Andy Burnham is wrong to target the triple lock
Former Pensions Minister Baroness Ros Altmann said: “The Triple Lock was introduced because the UK’s basic State Pension had fallen so far behind the rest of the economy, and pensioners were often in poverty. And the reason this happened was that, for many years, the State Pension only increased in line with prices and not earnings.
“It has helped restore the value of state pensions, lifting more pensioners above the poverty line. However, there are still millions of older people living on very little and struggling to make ends meet.
“Our basic State Pension is one of the lowest in the developed world. By suggesting he wants to only raise state pensions by CPI or 2.5%, older citizens who are living just on the State Pension will understandably fear going back to the bad old days, which the Triple Lock has helped move away from.”
In one of its first acts after winning the 2024 General Election, Labour axed the Winter Fuel Payment and said only those in receipt of Pension Credit would get it. It meant that instead of cash being automatically paid to 10.8million pensioners in England and Wales the number of recipients was slashed to 1.5million.
Despite an outcry the annual lump sum, introduced by former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown and given to all pensioners since 1997, was scrapped with only those passing a humiliating means-test able to qualify.
The move sparked national outrage – led by Mr Duncan-Jordan – but it was only after pressure from the Express that former Chancellor Rachel Reeves was forced into a U-turn.
The tax-free Government grant of £200 per household, or £300 per household where there is someone over 80, is now made automatically to around 9 million OAPs.
Caroline Abrahams, Charity Director at Age UK, said: “Pensioner poverty has not been vanquished and the last few years show how insidiously it can creep back if governments look away. Protecting those older people who are vulnerable, or on the lowest incomes, should be the ultimate test of this Government’s reforms – it can’t be social care or financial security, in a civilised society it must be both.”
Mr Duncan-Jordan said: “I want the Burnham Government to succeed, and the Triple Lock proposal could be as politically unpopular as Starmer’s winter fuel debacle. That’s why I’m urging the PM to think again. Let’s fund a better care system by asking all of us to pay for it – not just pensioners.”
* How will you be affected by Labour’s State Pension proposals? Email giles.sheldrick@reachplc.com
Are we really saying a state pension of less than £13,000 is too generous for a lifetime of paying National Insurance?
Andy Burnham was absolutely right to say he would fix our broken social care system, but he was wrong to argue that this should be funded by scrapping the state pension triple lock.
Commentators across the political class often reach for what they think is such low-hanging fruit and decry the triple lock as some unnecessary, extravagant expenditure that simply props up wealthy pensioners who spend all their time on lavish cruises. The reality is somewhat different.
The UK still has 1.9 million older people living in poverty. Means-testing doesn’t work because for decades, hundreds of thousands of pensioners eligible for pension credit have never received it, and millions more have incomes just above the poverty level.
Far from being job done, the triple lock is still a work in progress to address decades of struggle in retirement.
The public often doesn’t realise that we have two state pensions – the old and the new.
Anyone who retired after April 2016 is on the new pension, which increases with the triple lock every year.
But the majority of pensioners are not on this pension. That’s because they continue to receive an old basic state pension and a second state pension.
What people don’t realise is that the second state pension doesn’t go up with the triple lock, and as a result, the gap between the old and the new state pension is widening.
That’s why many older people don’t get anywhere near the level of pension income that is often trotted out. And let’s be honest – whichever state pension you receive, it still remains so low that it doesn’t reach the tax threshold.
Are we really saying that a state pension of less than £13,000 is too generous for a lifetime of paying National Insurance?
What’s more is that future generations are going to rely on the state pension even more than their parents and grandparents do.
We know that the high-water mark of good, final salary occupational pensions is long gone.
Auto-enrolled pensions do not provide anything close to a decent income in retirement because the contributions are so low.
Inevitably, a cut to the triple lock would need to be reversed when the number of older people in poverty begins to rise.
But most of all I want the Burnham Government to succeed, and the triple lock proposal could be as politically unpopular as Starmer’s winter fuel debacle.
That’s why I’m urging the PM to think again. Let’s fund a better care system by asking all of us to pay for it – not just pensioners.
Labour Civil War Erupts as Andy Burnham Savaged in Astonishing State Pension Attack
Andy Burnham is facing a growing revolt within Labour after his plans to reform the state pension triple lock provoked fierce criticism from one of his own MPs. The dispute has opened a new front in the party’s debate over public spending, retirement security and how to pay for a proposed National Care Service.
The Prime Minister has defended his plans as a difficult but necessary step towards transforming social care in England. However, critics argue that changing the pension system risks undermining a longstanding promise to older voters, many of whom depend on annual increases to meet the rising cost of everyday essentials.
The backlash became particularly significant after Labour MP Neil Duncan-Jordan questioned whether Burnham’s approach could prove as politically damaging as the previous controversy over winter fuel payments. His intervention suggested that opposition to the pension proposals was not confined to Conservative and Reform UK politicians.
For Labour, the problem is potentially serious. A policy intended to demonstrate long-term financial responsibility could instead reignite internal divisions and leave ministers defending a decision that many pensioners may struggle to understand or accept.
Labour MP challenges Burnham over pensions
Duncan-Jordan’s criticism has exposed an uncomfortable question for the government: why should pensioners face changes to their retirement income protections to help finance a new social care system?
The Labour backbencher has warned that changing the triple lock could generate a political backlash similar to the row over winter fuel payments. That earlier controversy demonstrated how quickly a policy affecting older people can become a major test of public trust.
The comparison is particularly damaging for Labour because the party has sought to present itself as a defender of working people and those who depend on public services. Critics argue that pensioners who have spent decades contributing to the economy should not be made to feel that their financial security is being sacrificed to meet other government priorities.
Duncan-Jordan’s intervention is also important because it comes from within Labour rather than from the opposition benches. A disagreement between Labour and the Conservatives is expected in Westminster, but criticism from Labour MPs can expose deeper concerns about a policy’s political and practical consequences.
The challenge for Burnham is to convince colleagues that the proposed reform is fair, that its financial benefits are credible and that the government can deliver the promised improvements to social care.
If Labour MPs believe the plan places an unnecessary burden on older voters, the dispute could develop into a broader argument about the party’s priorities.
What Burnham actually wants to change
The controversy centres on the state pension triple lock, which currently increases the state pension each year by whichever is highest of three measures: inflation, average earnings growth or 2.5 per cent.
The mechanism was introduced to protect pensioners’ purchasing power and ensure that retirement incomes did not fall behind workers’ earnings over time.
Burnham has promised to retain the existing arrangement until April 2030. After that, his government intends to adjust the formula so that annual increases will be at least inflation or 2.5 per cent, while a separate mechanism will seek to preserve the pension’s value relative to average earnings over the longer term.
The government insists that this would not mean freezing pensions or stopping annual increases. Instead, it argues that the revised arrangement would provide continuing protection against inflation while reducing the cost of unusually large increases when wage growth is particularly strong.
Nevertheless, removing the direct annual earnings link is a significant change.
Under the current system, pensioners can benefit when wages rise faster than inflation and 2.5 per cent. Under the proposed arrangement, that relationship would change, potentially reducing increases in some years compared with the existing formula.
The eventual financial effect will depend on future economic conditions and how the longer-term earnings safeguard operates. It is therefore important to distinguish between a pension that continues to rise in cash terms and one that rises as quickly as it would under the current triple lock.
That distinction lies at the heart of the political dispute.
The National Care Service is central to the argument
Burnham says the savings generated by pension reform would help fund a new National Care Service in England, providing personal care according to need rather than an individual’s ability to pay.
The proposal addresses a longstanding problem in British public policy. Older people can face substantial costs when they need help with washing, dressing, eating or other essential daily activities. Families may be forced to use savings, sell assets or provide extensive unpaid care when professional support is unavailable or unaffordable.
A more comprehensive care system could offer significant benefits. It could help older people remain independent for longer, ease pressure on relatives and reduce some of the difficulties faced by hospitals when patients are medically ready to leave but cannot secure suitable care arrangements.
Burnham argues that pensioners should be considered alongside the care services they may need in later life. In his view, a reliable pension combined with access to personal care could offer greater security than a pension system that consumes an increasing share of public spending while families continue to face substantial care costs.
The government has estimated that adjusting the triple lock could generate savings of around £15 billion annually by the late 2030s, potentially rising to £50 billion a year by 2050.
These are projections rather than guaranteed savings, and the eventual figures will depend on economic conditions and policy implementation. Independent analysts have also questioned whether the savings would be sufficient to fund the full ambitions of a universal care service.
That leaves Labour with two important tasks: demonstrating that the proposed pension changes are fair and showing that the money saved would deliver the promised improvements.
Why the winter fuel payment row still matters
The comparison with the winter fuel payment controversy carries particular political significance.
When the government previously sought to restrict eligibility for winter fuel support, the proposal provoked anger among pensioners and criticism from Labour supporters. The dispute illustrated the difficulties of changing benefits that households have come to regard as an important part of their financial planning.
The pension triple lock is arguably even more politically sensitive because it affects the long-term calculation of state pension increases.
Winter fuel assistance is a separate payment, while the triple lock influences the value of the state pension itself. A change to the formula can affect pensioners over many years, depending on how inflation and earnings develop.
Critics fear that older people may interpret the proposed reform as evidence that a longstanding protection is being weakened. The government’s assurances that pensions will continue to rise may not fully address concerns about how much they would have risen under the existing rules.
Labour will also need to explain why the reform is necessary and whether alternative ways of funding social care have been examined fairly.
Without a clear explanation, ministers risk turning a complicated policy debate into a straightforward question of trust: did the government make a promise to pensioners that it now intends to change?
Opposition parties seize on Labour’s divisions
Conservative and Reform UK politicians have criticised Burnham’s proposals, arguing that the government should retain the existing triple lock.
Their objections are partly about retirement security and partly about the political consequences of changing a policy that has enjoyed support across much of the political spectrum.
Opposition politicians can argue that Labour is asking pensioners to accept less generous annual increases while promising benefits from a care service that has yet to be fully established.
They can also press the government on the scale of the projected savings, the timetable for implementation and the precise protections that would apply to people on the lowest incomes.
However, opposition parties would face their own challenge if they were required to explain how they would finance social care while retaining the existing pension formula. Preserving one commitment does not remove the need to fund the other.
The debate therefore involves more than a dispute over which party supports pensioners. It concerns competing choices about taxation, public spending and the division of financial responsibility between individuals and the state.
For Burnham, the immediate danger is that internal Labour criticism gives opponents an opportunity to portray the proposal as both unfair and politically divisive.
Pensioners face a difficult financial reality
For millions of older people, the triple lock is not an abstract economic mechanism. It influences the money available for food, electricity, heating, transport and housing costs.
Some retirees have substantial private pensions and savings. Others rely almost entirely on the state pension and have little room to absorb unexpected expenses.
That means the consequences of any reform will not be distributed evenly.
A household with additional retirement income may be better placed to cope with smaller annual increases than someone whose entire budget depends on the state pension. Pensioners who live longer may also be affected differently from those who spend fewer years in retirement.
Labour has promised that low-income pensioners will not be dragged into paying income tax during the current Parliament. That commitment may provide reassurance, but income tax protection does not automatically resolve concerns about pension growth or the affordability of everyday living.
The government will need to provide clear illustrations of how the proposed formula would operate under different economic scenarios. Pensioners should be able to understand not only that their payments are expected to rise, but also how those increases could compare with the existing system over time.
Can Burnham contain the rebellion?
Burnham has presented himself as a leader willing to make difficult decisions rather than avoid long-term problems. His defence is that reforming pensions to help finance social care could provide greater security for older people as they become more vulnerable.
But that argument depends on the government delivering the promised service and convincing pensioners that the trade-off is worthwhile.
If the care system is slow to develop, difficult to access or unable to provide the promised protection against personal care costs, critics will question whether the pension changes were justified.
If the service does deliver meaningful improvements, some households could benefit substantially, particularly those facing high care costs. The political and financial assessment must therefore consider the whole package rather than the pension formula in isolation.
The internal Labour dispute may also grow if other MPs conclude that the policy risks alienating older voters in constituencies where retirement incomes are a major concern.
Duncan-Jordan’s criticism does not, by itself, establish that a large-scale rebellion is inevitable. It does show that the government cannot assume that its own MPs will automatically accept the proposal simply because it is presented as part of a wider reform programme.
A defining test for Labour
The row over the state pension triple lock has become a test of Labour’s ability to balance competing promises.
The party wants to improve social care, maintain financial stability and protect older people from poverty. Those goals are not inherently incompatible, but achieving them will require difficult decisions about how costs are shared.
Burnham must now explain why his proposed approach is preferable to alternatives, how the earnings safeguard will work and what protections will be available to pensioners with limited incomes.
Labour MPs, meanwhile, must decide whether the proposed reform represents a credible long-term settlement or creates risks that the government has underestimated.
The central question is not whether Britain needs better social care. The need is widely recognised. It is whether changing the triple lock is a fair and effective way to pay for it.
Until ministers can answer that question convincingly, the pension dispute will remain a source of tension within Labour and a major political issue for older voters.
For Burnham, the challenge is to prove that a promise of better care does not come at the expense of the retirement security that millions of people have been told they can depend on.