commentator warned the state pension bill is ‘only going to go up’ due to the triple lock.
Prime Minister Andy Burnham (Image: Getty)
Andy Burnham has been warned the state pension triple lock “has to go” to fund an uplift in defence spending. The Prime Minister is under growing pressure to cut the welfare bill in order to boost the military budget amid rising tensions with Russia.
The triple lock, introduced in 2011 by the Tory–Lib Dem coalition. sees the state pension rise every year by whichever is the highest out of earnings growth, inflation or 2.5%. Most of the major parties, including Labour and the Conservatives, are in favour of keeping it. However, commentators and some organisations have voiced concern as its costs continue to soar.
There are growing calls for defence spending to be ramped up (Image: Getty)
David Blair, The Telegraph‘s chief foreign affairs commentator, said he believes the triple lock should be axed to give more cash to the Ministry of Defence.
In an op ed, he wrote: “If, like me, you constantly urge the British state to invest more in defence, then you have even more of a moral responsibility to show where the money comes from. So here goes. We need to abandon the “triple lock”.”
He added: “When they invented the triple lock, the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition assumed it would cause pensions to rise by only 0.2 per cent above average earnings, with a price tag of an extra £5.2bn by 2029, even accounting for an ageing population.
“In fact, real wages have grown by less than forecast, meaning that the additional cost of the triple lock reached £12bn this year and will climb to £15.5bn – three times the predicted sum – by 2029, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).”
The commentator said the bill is “only going to go up”.
Official forecasts show the state pension is set to hit almost 9% of GDP by 2075.
Britain currently spends around 5% of its GDP on state pensions.
Defence spending is expected to account for 2.6% of the UK’s national income in 2026.
Many experts have warned current defence plans are insufficient amid the tensions with Russia.
The Conservatives are calling for defence spending to hit 3% by 2030, rather than in the next parliament as pledged by the Government.
Mr Blair said he would replace the triple lock from 2027, with the state pension instead rising by inflation only.
He concluded his piece by writing: “Cut welfare to fund defence. End the triple lock to ease the burden on future generations. Not easy – and there would be many losers – but it would be right.”
It comes days after Baroness Therese Coffey, Conservative work and pensions secretary between 2019 and 2022, said the triple lock should “probably” be replaced.
The British Chambers of Commerce has called on the Prime Minister to scrap the triple lock, claiming it would save more than £3 billion across two years.
Harry and Meghan just failed Charles’ first test – and now they’re trapped in a giant hole
Express reporter Adam Toms says, as usual, the Sussexes have got the wrong end of the stick.
King says Meghan and Harry not working royals despite UK return
Harry and Meghan’s return to the UK has not begun in what you might call an auspicious manner. Buckingham Palace’s devastating letter published earlier this week reiterated that the couple are “private citizens”, in what could be viewed as the King laying down the gauntlet — his first test. It was seemingly to pre-empt engagements the Sussexes are expected to carry out in the coming months, which could be judged by observers to be quasi-royal.
Harry and Meghan clearly want the attention and clout of working royals
Andy Burnham Faces Huge State Pension Warning as Critics Say the Triple Lock ‘Has to Go’
Andy Burnham is facing a major political row over the future of the state pension after announcing plans to change the controversial triple lock and use the resulting savings to help fund a new National Care Service.
The proposal has sparked concern among pensioners, unions and political opponents, with critics warning that changes to the guarantee could leave older people facing greater financial uncertainty at a time when household bills remain a major concern.
Burnham insists that pensioners will continue to receive annual increases and that the reforms are designed to protect older people from potentially devastating care costs.
However, the announcement has reignited a difficult question for the government: can Britain afford to maintain its current pension guarantees while also paying for expanding public services, including social care and defence?
The debate is particularly sensitive because the triple lock has become one of the most important promises made to pensioners by successive governments.
For millions of older people, it provides reassurance that their state pension will not remain frozen while prices and wages rise.
Yet critics argue that the policy has become increasingly expensive and that ministers must consider whether the current system can be sustained indefinitely.
What Is the State Pension Triple Lock?
The triple lock was introduced in 2011 to help protect pensioners’ incomes.
Under the existing system, the state pension increases each year by whichever is highest: inflation, average earnings growth or 2.5 per cent.
The intention is to prevent pensioners from falling behind working-age people as the cost of living rises and wages increase.
When inflation is high, the pension can rise accordingly. When earnings growth is stronger, pensioners can benefit from that instead. The 2.5 per cent minimum provides an additional safeguard when both inflation and wage growth are relatively weak.
Supporters say this arrangement has helped protect older people from losing purchasing power over time.
But the system also creates financial uncertainty for the government. If earnings rise sharply, pension spending can increase significantly, placing additional pressure on public finances.
That is why some commentators have called for the triple lock to be replaced with a simpler arrangement.
One prominent argument is that pensions should rise in line with inflation, allowing the government to control spending more predictably while directing additional resources towards other priorities.
Such a change, however, could mean smaller pension increases in years when earnings grow faster than prices.
Burnham’s Plan to Change the Rules
Burnham announced his proposed reforms at the Labour Party conference in September 2026.
Under the plan, the existing triple lock will remain in place until April 2030. After that, the government intends to adjust the formula so that the state pension rises by at least inflation or 2.5 per cent, while maintaining its value relative to average earnings over a longer period.
Ministers say the adjustment will generate savings that can be used to build a new National Care Service in England.
The government estimates that the change could reduce state pension spending by £15 billion a year by the end of the 2030s, potentially rising to £50 billion annually by 2050. Those figures are government projections, and the eventual savings will depend on how the economy and wages develop. <Cite refs={[“turn821225search2″,”turn821225search5”]} />
The proposed National Care Service is intended to provide free personal care for older people based on need rather than their ability to pay.
At present, some people who require long-term care can face substantial charges, potentially forcing them to use savings or other assets to meet the cost.
Burnham argues that the country needs a more reliable system that allows older people to receive care without fear of facing unaffordable bills.
His argument is that pension increases and social care should not be considered separately. Both affect the financial security of older people, and the government believes that adjusting the pension formula could help finance a wider package of support.
However, critics question whether pensioners should bear the consequences of funding a new public service through changes to a guarantee that many have come to rely on.
Why Critics Say the Triple Lock Must Change
Those calling for reform argue that the cost of maintaining the triple lock has risen beyond earlier expectations.
David Blair, a foreign affairs commentator writing in The Telegraph, argued in September that the guarantee should be abandoned to help fund higher defence spending.
His argument was that the government must identify how additional military expenditure will be financed rather than relying on increased borrowing or leaving other spending commitments untouched.
Other commentators have raised similar concerns about the long-term cost of pension increases as the UK population ages.
The state pension already represents a substantial commitment for the public finances, and the number of people reaching retirement age will continue to influence future spending requirements.
However, replacing the triple lock would involve difficult choices.
A system based solely on inflation could provide less generous increases during periods when wages rise more quickly than prices. Over time, that could affect the relative position of pensioners compared with working households.
Burnham’s proposed adjustment attempts to address this problem by retaining a mechanism to protect the pension’s value relative to earnings over a longer period.
The government says this would make spending more sustainable without allowing pensioners’ incomes to fall behind permanently.
Critics, however, will want to know precisely how the revised system would operate and whether its protections would be sufficient during periods of economic instability.
Pensioners Fear Losing Financial Security
For pensioners living primarily on the state pension, even modest changes to annual increases can matter.
Many older households have limited opportunities to increase their income through employment. Their budgets may already be committed to housing, energy, food, transport and other essential costs.
An increase in the state pension can therefore make a meaningful difference, particularly when prices rise faster than expected.
The concern is not necessarily that the pension would be cut outright. Under Burnham’s proposal, the government says payments would continue to rise every year.
Instead, the debate concerns the size of future increases and whether pensioners could lose out compared with the existing formula.
Some older people may also have private or workplace pensions, while others rely almost entirely on state support. The effects of a change would therefore differ considerably between households.
A reform that appears manageable for someone with substantial retirement savings could have a greater impact on a person whose state pension covers most of their living expenses.
That is why pensioner organisations and campaigners are likely to examine the details carefully before deciding whether the proposed protections are adequate.
The Political Risk for Labour
The triple lock has strong political significance because it is associated with a promise to protect pensioners’ living standards.
Burnham has acknowledged that his plans will involve difficult decisions, but insists that the existing guarantee will remain unchanged throughout the current Parliament.
The government has also said that legislation to implement the adjustment will be introduced before the next general election, meaning MPs will have to consider the proposed changes during this Parliament. <Cite refs={[“turn821225search5″,”turn821225search8”]} />
That timetable could make pensions a major issue in the next election campaign.
Opposition parties will be able to argue for retaining the current system, proposing a different formula or identifying alternative ways to finance social care.
The government, meanwhile, will need to explain why its preferred approach offers a better balance between pension security and the need to fund care for an ageing population.
There is also a broader question about trust. Voters who were promised that the triple lock would remain unchanged may want reassurance that the revised arrangement will provide genuine long-term protection.
Burnham says the aim is not to abandon pensioners but to create a system that can support them throughout retirement, including when they require personal care.
Whether that explanation persuades the public will depend partly on the detail of the legislation and how clearly the government communicates the consequences.
Could the Money Be Found Elsewhere?
Opponents of the proposed changes may argue that the government should look for savings elsewhere before adjusting pension guarantees.
Possible areas of debate include public-sector efficiency, taxation, defence procurement and the allocation of existing welfare spending.
However, each alternative has limitations. Cutting other services may create different problems, while increasing taxes could affect workers, businesses or households already facing financial pressure.
The government’s argument is that the cost of social care must be addressed through a sustainable funding plan rather than allowing families to continue facing potentially severe financial burdens.
The debate is therefore not simply about whether pensioners deserve protection. It is about how the government should distribute limited public resources between retirement income, health services, social care, defence and other priorities.
Any assessment of the proposed changes should consider both the potential savings and the consequences for different groups of pensioners.
The government’s estimates provide an indication of the sums involved, but independent analysis and the eventual economic conditions will be important in determining how much the reform actually saves.
What Happens Next?
The existing triple lock is scheduled to remain in place until April 2030 under Burnham’s announcement. The government intends to legislate for the adjustment before the next general election, leaving Parliament to debate the details.
In the meantime, pensioners will be watching for further information about how the new formula will work, how the National Care Service will be introduced and what protections will apply to people with the lowest incomes.
The central question is whether the government can create a more sustainable pension system without undermining confidence among older people who depend on it.
For supporters of reform, changing the triple lock is a way to finance better care and protect future generations from an increasingly expensive system.
For critics, the proposal risks weakening a guarantee that has provided an important source of financial security for millions of pensioners.
The phrase that the triple lock “has to go” reflects the view of those who believe the current arrangement is too costly to maintain indefinitely. It is not, however, the government’s stated policy to abolish annual pension increases altogether.
Burnham says the state pension will continue to rise, with additional protections intended to preserve its value over time.
The real test will be whether the revised system delivers those promises while generating enough money to improve social care.
Until the legislation and detailed rules are fully examined, pensioners should distinguish between changes to the way annual increases are calculated and an outright cut to the state pension.
Both the financial implications and the impact on older people will remain at the centre of the debate as the government prepares to turn its proposal into law.