Robert Jenrick says the reasons given for cutting the triple lock are a ‘load of rubbish’ (Image: Getty)
It’s what Express readers rightly feared. Andy Burnham wants to cut your pension. Why on earth does he think pensioners should be the first to make sacrifices?
We didn’t hear a peep from Andy Burnham on cutting the ballooning benefits bill, cutting foreign aid to rich countries or stopping mad net zero subsidies. Instead, he’s decided to pick on pensioners on the state pension. People in receipt of £240 a week are apparently bankrupting the country. What a load of rubbish. It’s everything that’s wrong with Westminster. They just don’t get it.
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.
I hate to break it to you, but I fear it’s going to get worse.
Burnham says this is necessary to fund a new social care system. But even Paul Johnson, the anti-triple lock former head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said this was “for the birds”.
Hitting pensioners will only get the Prime Minister 20% of what he needs.
To make his numbers add up, he’ll need £17billion more in taxes. Those went entirely unmentioned. Hardly the honesty he promised.
Coincidentally, £17billion is roughly the same amount as would be raised by a 10% death tax on every single person who dies. That would be a double whammy on pensioners.
Needless to say, Reform have the backs of Express readers and will fight this all the way. We would make different choices.
We save £80billion every single year by cutting waste – 13 times as much as abolishing the triple lock saves.
We would use some of the savings to keep the triple lock and increase the tax-free Personal Allowance to £15,000. That helps almost everyone in Britain – workers and pensioners alike. It would also keep the state pension out of income tax altogether.
No one is denying that difficult choices must be made. And no one, least of all me, is satisfied with the present state of the social care system.
But Britain’s state pension is still one of the lowest in the developed world, even after 15 years of the triple lock. £240 a week is their reward for a lifetime of hard work and contributions to society.
It does not fund a luxurious existence. Why on earth would this meagre payment be the first place Andy Burnham chooses to look for savings?
Reform will do the opposite of Andy Burnham and make the choices that put the British people first. We’ll be on your side instead.
Andy Burnham Just Cut Your Pension – But It’s About to Get a Whole Lot Worse
Andy Burnham has thrown Britain’s pension system into a major political row after announcing plans to change the state pension triple lock from April 2030.
The headline claim that Burnham has “just cut your pension” is stronger than the policy’s immediate effect. The existing triple lock remains in place for the rest of the current Parliament. But the prime minister has confirmed that the mechanism will be adjusted from 2030, potentially changing how quickly state pensions rise in the years that follow.
That distinction has not stopped opposition parties and campaigners from warning about the consequences.
Burnham’s government says the reform is necessary to help finance a new National Care Service. Critics argue that pensioners should not be asked to sacrifice part of a long-standing income guarantee to fund another public service.
The dispute is therefore about much more than one formula.
It is about how Britain intends to support older people, how much taxpayers should contribute, and whether the triple lock can remain financially sustainable for decades to come.
The triple lock is not being removed immediately
The first fact to establish is the timing.
Under the existing system, the basic State Pension and new State Pension rise each year by whichever is highest among average earnings growth, inflation or 2.5 per cent.
The government has promised to maintain that arrangement until April 2030. That means pensioners should continue to receive increases under the existing triple lock during the remainder of the current Parliament.
Burnham announced the future change during his Labour Party conference speech.
From April 2030, the pension will continue to rise every year by at least inflation or 2.5 per cent. However, the automatic link that currently allows earnings growth to determine the increase when it is the highest of the three measures will be replaced by a different mechanism designed to preserve the pension’s value relative to earnings over time.
That means the reform is not the same thing as freezing pensions or reducing their cash value.
Instead, it changes the way future increases are calculated.
Why the government wants the change
Burnham has linked the reform directly to social care.
His government plans to establish a National Care Service in England, providing free personal care based on need rather than ability to pay.
The government says the service will be introduced during the next Parliament and will not impose personal care charges on the basic state pension.
Burnham presented the proposal as a new settlement for older people.
His argument is that pensioners should receive a state pension that continues to rise while also having greater protection from potentially large personal care bills.
In his Labour conference speech, he acknowledged that changing the triple lock could carry a political cost.
He nevertheless argued that the government had to make difficult long-term decisions rather than leaving the social-care problem unresolved.
The government’s case therefore rests on a trade-off.
Future pension increases would be calculated differently, while older people would potentially receive a significant new benefit through a National Care Service.
The scale of the projected savings
The financial figures explain why the issue has attracted so much attention.
The government’s Department for Work and Pensions estimates that the adjusted triple lock could produce annual savings of approximately £15 billion by 2039–40 and £50 billion by 2049–50 in nominal terms, compared with continuing the existing triple lock. In 2025–26 prices, the corresponding figures are approximately £11 billion and £30 billion.
These are long-term modelled estimates rather than guaranteed savings.
The DWP itself stresses that the projections depend on assumptions about future earnings, inflation, population changes, pension entitlement, employment and other economic factors. It also warns that uncertainty becomes greater further into the projection period.
That qualification is important.
A projection for 2050 cannot be treated as though it were a confirmed future Treasury saving.
Economic conditions can change dramatically over two decades.
Nevertheless, the numbers demonstrate the scale of the government’s ambition.
Why critics say pensioners could lose out
The central criticism is straightforward.
Under the current triple lock, pensioners benefit whenever earnings growth exceeds both inflation and 2.5 per cent.
That feature has helped the State Pension increase relative to prices and earnings over certain periods.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies describes the existing system as creating a “ratchet” effect, because the pension can rise by more than both prices and earnings in some circumstances and does not automatically fall back when those measures subsequently grow more slowly.
Burnham’s reform is designed to remove that ratchet.
For some future economic scenarios, that means pensioners could receive smaller increases than they would have received under an unchanged triple lock.
That is the key reason opponents describe the proposal as a pension cut.
But the effect is conditional.
If inflation is high, the proposed system would still require the pension to rise by at least inflation or 2.5 per cent. The government also says the new mechanism will preserve its value relative to earnings over time.
So the impact on an individual pensioner cannot be expressed as one fixed amount today.
It depends on what happens to wages, inflation and the economy after 2030.
The political battle begins now
The reform has already produced opposition from parties that support retaining the existing triple lock.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has said his party would maintain it, while the Conservatives have also reaffirmed support for the current policy.
That gives the issue a clear political dimension.
Labour can present its proposal as a long-term attempt to make the pension system sustainable while funding social care.
Its opponents can present the same proposal as a decision to weaken a guarantee that protects pensioners.
Both descriptions focus on different aspects of the same policy.
For voters, the important question is therefore not simply whether the word “triple lock” survives.
It is what the replacement mechanism actually delivers under different economic circumstances.
The social-care argument
Britain’s social-care system has faced longstanding concerns over cost, access and the financial burden placed on individuals.
Burnham’s proposed National Care Service is intended to address some of those problems.
The government says older people currently receiving only the state pension can nevertheless face care charges that consume a significant portion of their income. Under its proposed system, personal care would not be charged in the same way.
That creates an unusual political calculation.
A future pensioner could receive a lower state pension than they would have received under an unchanged triple lock, but simultaneously avoid potentially substantial care costs.
Whether that represents a financial advantage depends on an individual’s circumstances.
Someone who never requires significant social care could view the pension change very differently from someone who would otherwise face substantial care charges.
This is why the government’s proposal cannot sensibly be assessed only through the pension formula.
The value of the wider social-care settlement also matters.
What the IFS says about the reform
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has analysed the proposed mechanism and says the central change is the removal of the ratchet created by the existing triple lock.
That does not mean the IFS is predicting that pensioners will suddenly become poorer.
Rather, the organisation’s analysis highlights how the new mechanism changes the long-term relationship between pension increases and economic growth.
The distinction is significant.
The political argument often uses the language of “cutting pensions”, but the policy is actually about changing the rate at which pension entitlements increase over time.
For an individual pensioner, the difference could eventually become meaningful because small differences in annual uprating can compound over many years.
Why 2030 matters
The fact that the reform does not begin until 2030 gives the issue an unusual political dimension.
The current triple lock will remain in place for several years.
The future arrangement will therefore depend on legislation and the political decisions made before the proposed implementation date.
That means the policy announced by Burnham is not necessarily the final word on Britain’s pension system.
Future governments could amend it.
Parliament could scrutinise the legislation.
Opposition parties could campaign to reverse it.
Economic conditions could also change the calculations behind the policy.
The 2030 date should therefore be understood as the proposed starting point, rather than an irreversible event already imposed on today’s pensioners.
The real question for Britain’s pensioners
The controversy ultimately comes down to a difficult question.
Should Britain continue guaranteeing that state pensions rise according to whichever is highest of earnings, inflation or 2.5 per cent, even if that becomes increasingly expensive?
Or should the country adopt a different system that still protects pensions from inflation while allowing government spending to be redirected towards social care?
Burnham has chosen the second approach.
His government says the pension will continue to rise and will retain its value relative to earnings, while the savings generated by reform will help establish a National Care Service.
Critics see a different calculation: a reduction in the generosity of a highly visible pension guarantee in exchange for a promise of better social care.
The eventual outcome will depend on the details of the legislation, future economic conditions and the way the National Care Service is implemented.
A change that could shape the next generation
The most important point is that Burnham has not cut today’s State Pension overnight.
The current triple lock remains in force until April 2030.
But he has announced a structural change that could affect pension increases for decades afterwards.
That is why the political reaction has been so strong.
The immediate financial effect may not be visible in a pensioner’s bank account today. The long-term difference, however, could become substantial if the existing triple lock would otherwise have produced consistently higher increases.
At the same time, the government argues that pensioners will gain something significant in return: a National Care Service intended to remove personal care charges and provide greater security in later life.
Whether that trade-off represents good value is ultimately a political and economic question.
What is not in dispute is that Britain’s pension settlement is entering a new phase.
The triple lock that has protected state pension increases since 2011 is set to change from 2030 if Burnham’s plans are implemented.
For today’s pensioners, that means no immediate cut.
For future pensioners, however, the difference could become increasingly important.
And that is why the argument over Burnham’s pension reform is only beginning.