Andy Burnham is trying to trick pensioners into accepting triple lock axe (Image: Getty)
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.
Get personal finance news, money saving tips and advice plus selcted offers and competitions
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
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.
Andy Burnham Is Gaslighting State Pensioners – Is the Case for Axing the Triple Lock Built on a Huge Lie?
The debate over Britain’s state pension has become one of the most contentious political arguments of 2026. Prime Minister Andy Burnham says reforming the triple lock is necessary to help finance a new National Care Service and protect older people from potentially devastating care costs. Critics, however, argue that the government is asking pensioners to surrender an important financial guarantee while presenting the change as a solution to a crisis that pension savings alone may not be able to resolve.
At the heart of the controversy is a difficult question: is the government offering pensioners a fair and sustainable settlement, or is it asking one group to make sacrifices on the strength of promises that have not yet been fully explained?
What Is Really Changing?
Under the existing triple lock, the state pension rises each year by whichever is highest: inflation, average earnings growth or 2.5 per cent. The system was introduced to help prevent pension incomes from losing ground over time and has become one of the most politically sensitive commitments in British public life.
Burnham has promised to retain the existing system until April 2030. After that, his proposed adjusted mechanism would increase pensions by at least inflation or 2.5 per cent, while including a further safeguard designed to maintain the pension’s value relative to average earnings over time.
The government insists that pension payments will continue to rise every year and that older people will retain protection against rising prices. But critics argue that this is not the same as preserving the existing triple lock. Under the current arrangement, earnings growth can directly trigger an increase when it exceeds inflation and 2.5 per cent. Under the proposed system, pension increases would be designed to prevent the state pension from consistently growing faster than wages over the long term.
That difference matters. Pensioners do not judge their financial security solely by whether their payments increase in cash terms. They also need to know whether their income will keep pace with the living standards of the wider population, particularly when food, energy, housing and other essential costs remain difficult to manage.
Is the Government Using Social Care as a Justification?
Burnham’s central argument is that reforming the triple lock will help fund a National Care Service in England. His proposal promises personal care based on need rather than ability to pay, potentially easing the financial pressure on older people and their families.
The objective is significant. Many families face difficult choices when a relative needs help with washing, dressing, eating or other everyday activities. Care charges can place enormous pressure on household budgets, and the fear of future care costs can undermine the security that people expected retirement to bring.
However, critics argue that a worthwhile objective does not automatically make every proposed funding mechanism fair or effective.
The government estimates that adjusting the triple lock could save around £15 billion a year by the end of the 2030s, with the projected annual savings rising substantially by 2050. Yet the final amount depends on how inflation, wages and pension increases develop over time. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has also warned that savings from reform may be insufficient to pay for the entire care service.
This creates a serious question for ministers. If the reform does not generate enough money to cover the promised services, where will the remaining funding come from? Will the government raise taxes, reduce other spending, narrow the care service’s scope or revise its promises?
Pensioners deserve clear answers before being asked to accept a fundamental change to their retirement income arrangements.
Why Critics Say the Argument Is Misleading
The accusation that Burnham is “gaslighting” pensioners is a political charge, not an established fact. Nevertheless, it reflects genuine concerns about the way the policy is being presented.
One concern is the suggestion that pensioners can be reassured simply because their payments will continue to rise. An annual increase does not necessarily mean that pensioners will be as well off as they would have been under the existing rules. The difference between two uprating formulas can accumulate over many years, even when both produce increases every April.
A second concern is the claim that pension reform will provide the financial foundation for a major new care service. The government has set out its estimated savings, but those projections are not a guarantee that every element of the service will be fully funded. The final cost will depend on eligibility rules, the number of people receiving support, staffing, local provision and the precise definition of free personal care.
A third concern involves the distinction between personal care and residential accommodation. Promises to remove charges for personal care do not automatically mean that care homes, accommodation and every related expense will become free. Families will need a clear explanation of what is covered and what they may still have to pay.
These are legitimate questions. They do not, by themselves, prove that the entire policy is based on a lie. They do show why the government must explain the details rather than relying on broad assurances.
The Real Issue: What Happens to Pensioners’ Living Standards?
For millions of older people, the state pension is not an abstract line in a government budget. It is the foundation of their monthly income. Some have private pensions or savings, but others depend heavily on the state pension to cover ordinary expenses.
The triple lock has helped raise pension payments over time. Supporters argue that it provides a vital safeguard against older people falling behind workers as the economy grows. They also point out that pensioners have limited opportunities to increase their income through employment, particularly when illness, disability or caring responsibilities restrict their options.
The government’s counterargument is that the existing mechanism can cause pension spending to grow faster than average earnings over extended periods. That can place increasing pressure on public finances and leave future governments with difficult choices about taxation and public services.
Both concerns deserve to be taken seriously. An ageing population creates real financial challenges, but those challenges should not be used to dismiss the insecurity experienced by people who have spent decades working and paying taxes.
The crucial test is whether the adjusted system provides a credible long-term guarantee. Pensioners need to know how the earnings safeguard will operate, how frequently it will be reviewed and whether future governments could weaken it. Without transparent rules, a promise to maintain pension values may sound reassuring while leaving important questions unresolved.
Who Pays the Price if the Numbers Do Not Add Up?
The political risk for Burnham is that pensioners may conclude they are being asked to accept a definite change today in exchange for uncertain benefits tomorrow.
The government’s plan links two major policy areas: retirement income and social care. Both are important, but combining them makes the funding argument harder to assess. If pension savings are presented as the main source of money for a new service, ministers must demonstrate how much revenue the change is expected to raise and how that compares with the service’s projected costs.
They must also explain what happens in less favourable economic conditions. If wage growth, inflation or other assumptions differ from forecasts, the savings could be different from those expected. A responsible policy should acknowledge that uncertainty rather than presenting a long-term projection as if it were guaranteed income.
There are alternatives that could be debated, including changes to taxation, different funding arrangements for social care, or a combination of measures. Each would involve trade-offs. Tax increases can affect working households and businesses; borrowing can shift costs into the future; and spending reductions can put other public services under pressure. None is painless.
But that is precisely why the debate should be open. Pensioners should not be told that there is only one possible route without a transparent comparison of the alternatives.
A Political Promise That Requires More Than Reassuring Words
Burnham has committed to preserving the existing triple lock until April 2030 and introducing an adjusted arrangement afterwards. He argues that this approach will preserve pensioners’ gains while making the system more sustainable and helping fund personal care.
His critics believe that the new formula risks weakening a popular guarantee and that the link to social care has not been sufficiently justified. Their strongest argument is not simply that pension payments must rise forever at any cost. It is that any change must be supported by clear evidence, credible funding estimates and enforceable protections.
The government should publish detailed projections comparing pension outcomes under the existing and proposed systems. It should show how different inflation and wage scenarios would affect payments, set out the expected cost of the National Care Service, and explain which care costs would remain the responsibility of individuals and families.
It should also make clear whether the new earnings safeguard is automatic or depends on future political decisions. These details are essential if pensioners are expected to trust the plan.
Conclusion: Pensioners Deserve Facts, Not Political Spin
The controversy over the triple lock is about more than a technical adjustment to pension calculations. It concerns trust, fairness and the security people can reasonably expect after a lifetime of work.
Calling the policy a “huge lie” goes further than the available evidence can establish. The government has published a proposed mechanism and estimates of potential savings, but significant questions remain about the amount of funding available, the cost of the care service and the practical operation of the future earnings safeguard.
Burnham’s government therefore faces a demanding test. If the reform is genuinely designed to protect older people while creating a sustainable care system, ministers must demonstrate that the numbers work and explain the consequences honestly.
Pensioners should not have to choose between a secure retirement income and access to dignified care without knowing exactly what each promise means. Before asking them to accept a change to the triple lock, the government owes them a clear explanation of the costs, the safeguards and the alternatives.
The central question is not whether pension reform is politically uncomfortable. It is whether the proposed settlement will deliver what older people are being promised. Until that question is answered with transparent evidence, scepticism from pensioners and taxpayers is entirely understandable.