‘Insane’ state pension triple lock facing axe… after next election

It’s Westminster’s uneasy and unvoiced dilemma. MPs of all parties are increasingly aware the state pension triple lock is financially unsustainable; they just don’t want to be the first to say it out loud.

The pledge locks in higher spending year after year, putting pressure on the public finances. But scrapping it carries a risk of antagonising voters by abandoning a policy that guarantees pensioners a predictable income. Older voters remain one of the most engaged groups at the ballot box. The result is political paralysis.

New FeatureIn ShortQuick Stories. Same trusted journalism.

Labour ministers and MPs privately question whether the policy can last, but almost none are prepared to speak out. They would love for another party to give them the political cover to have a debate, but after being burnt over the U-turn on scrapping winter fuel payments, they won’t dare even raise the subject.

“Everyone knows the triple lock is insane, even the Tories,” one Labour frontbencher told The i Paper. “But they’re not going to get rid of it. That’s the problem, isn’t it?”

Even so, the status quo is showing signs of strain. The cost of the triple lock is ballooning, and with ongoing reviews of the state pension age and broader welfare spending expected to report over the coming year, some predict that wider conversations about its future may soon be unavoidable.

‘It’s neither sustainable nor affordable’

Labour has committed to maintaining the triple lock for the duration of this Parliament, framing it as a core protection against pensioner poverty. Sir Keir Starmer himself has mentioned the policy 20 times in the Commons since he became Prime Minister, insisting that his Government is “committed” to keeping it.

Now the question turns to whether the triple lock will last into the next Parliament, after a general election expected in 2029.

Some in Labour are having doubts. One MP said they and many of their colleagues “don’t think the triple lock is either sustainable or affordable” beyond the next election.

A No 10 source told The i Paper: “All other things being equal, we wouldn’t include it in the next manifesto. But we were so badly burnt on winter fuel, the appetite for going after pensioners again is zero.”

A Labour frontbencher echoed this, saying: “Everyone agrees it’s insane, but, no one’s prepared to do anything about it. I doubt we will put it in the manifesto next time.”

The risk is that, without cross-party consensus, any political leader who supports scrapping it risks losing votes. As one Tory shadow cabinet minister put it: “We would be insane to drop the triple lock from our next manifesto. These are the one remaining group who still votes for us.”

The reason is clear. The triple lock, introduced under the Conservatives in 2011, ensures that the state pension rises by the highest of inflation, average earnings growth, or 2.5 per cent. That guarantee, combined with record-high inflation and an ageing population, has made pensions one of the largest areas of public spending.

According to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the state pension is projected to cost up to £150bn next year, around 5 per cent of GDP. About £12bn of that total comes from the extra uplift provided by the triple lock, rather than simply linking increases to average earnings. By the end of the decade, the OBR predicts the triple lock alone will add an extra £15.5bn a year to the state pension bill.

Another Labour MP said cost was one reason he and many colleagues “want to avoid this whole conversation,” but admitted the issue still weighed on his mind.

“There’s a whole generation that’s getting far more than they ever put in,” he said. “I can’t imagine how galling it is for young people who’ve got no chance of paying off their student loan, also being asked to pay more for pensioners. And I think there needs to be a very real look at that.”

There is data to back up his concern. According to a 2018 study by the Resolution Foundation, baby boomers – adults born between 1946 and 1964 – will take roughly 20 to 25 per cent more from the welfare state through pensions and healthcare than they paid in.

Experts project that younger generations will see far lower net returns, estimating that millennials – born between 1981 and 1996 – will receive only about 10 per cent more than they contribute over a lifetime.

But polling, carried out by Savanta on behalf of The i Paper, suggests there is public support for increased spending on the state pension – rather than any attempt to cut the bill.

A survey of 2,134 adults, conducted in the week before Christmas, found just 9 per cent believe too much money is spent on the pensioner benefit, while just under a third (33 per cent) believe it is about right. Almost half of all adults (49 per cent) surveyed said spending is too low.

Support for state pension spending is, predictably, higher among older voters. Some 64 per cent of the over 55s said spending was too low, compared with 28 per cent of 18 to 34-year-olds.

‘Necessary to prevent pensioner poverty’

Though some in Labour doubt the future of the triple lock, many still stand firmly behind it – a divide that’s hard to ignore.

Labour MP Neil Duncan-Jordan told The i Paper that the policy was “necessary to prevent more pensioners falling into poverty”.

“Pensioner poverty continues to be high, and removing the protection afforded by the triple lock will, over time, mean more and more older people facing financial hardship,” he said.

His view was echoed by fellow Labour MP Kim Johnson, who insisted that the “state pension triple lock must be protected in full”, adding: “After a lifetime of work and contribution, our older citizens deserve dignity and security in retirement.”

Another Labour MP said they held “no truck with the idea of getting rid of the triple lock”, adding: “I guess if you look at international comparisons, our pensioners are not earning a fortune from the state pension. Welfare clearly needs reform, but I don’t think, I don’t think it’s pensions that is the place to go for it.”

The SNP opposes any weakening of the triple lock, with one MP warning that a reversal would “have a devastating impact on Scottish pensioners”.

The Liberal Democrats have also pledged full protection of the policy, with one MP, Manuela Perteghella, telling The i Paper her party was “the only one standing up for pensioners and protecting the triple lock fully”.

Nigel Farage’s party has been repeatedly asked if it will keep the triple lock. It’s a question he has yet been unable to answer, saying Reform UK is working through its spending priorities.

If Reform decides it won’t commit to the policy, other parties could jump two ways. They could use it as political cover to argue the policy is unaffordable and decline to put it in their election manifestos. Or – more likely – they could use it as an election dividing line and claim Farage is no friend to retirees.

One Labour MP said that the political weight of the issue influences how colleagues approach it. “Lots of us don’t think the triple lock is either sustainable or affordable but if you are in a Lib Dem or Tory-facing seat your view is going to be skewed,” they said.

“You don’t want to be fighting an election where they can say you’re going to make pensioners poorer.”

Conservative Leader Kemi Badenoch, burned by even suggesting the policy was up for discussion, hedges when asked. In November she said she does not want to scrap the triple lock “now” but added a get-out clause: “Let’s see what mess Labour leaves for us.”

But there is an increasing clamour from her backbenchers to scrap the triple lock. Veteran Tory MP Edward Leigh has repeatedly argued that the pledge cannot survive. Speaking in November, he said: “The triple lock must go. That is not a popular policy, but in our hearts, I think we know that it is the right one.”

Tory MP Tom Tugendhat also warned in the same Commons debate that demographic pressures are forcing the issue. “We do not have enough young people for an ageing population,” he said. “That means, I am afraid, that we do need to look at the triple lock. I know that those on my party’s front bench do not agree with me, but I have been clear that we simply cannot afford the level of welfare payments we are making. We need to be clear that health and pensions are now costing too much.”

But it’s not a universal view among Conservatives. Tory MP, Alec Shelbrooke, spoke out against cutting the policy in July.

“A great number of the retired people in this country are carrying the burden of supporting their families in work, looking after their grandchildren, and doing those things unpaid,” he said. “We should be grateful to pensioners in this country and not be saying, ‘You’re the ones whose income we’ve got to cut’ because the Government are letting welfare run out of control.”

Is the triple lock still ‘politically untouchable’?

The trouble is, senior politicians don’t want to talk about it. As Paul Johnson, a former director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, has put it, the policy is as “politically untouchable” as it is “financially unsustainable”.

But attitudes are shifting. While a 2021 YouGov poll found that about two-thirds of UK adults (68 per cent) support keeping the triple lock in place, that had dropped to 42 per cent in 2025.

That may provide cover for a wider debate, if any political party wants to pick a fight with not only pensioners, but also those about to retire.

The path to triple lock reform

Once MPS get beyond the question of whether to keep the triple lock, the next issue is what should replace it.

One idea quietly circulating is whether all three elements of the triple lock need to be treated equally. A Conservative MP suggested that the earnings link was the least important part of the formula.

“The bit of the triple lock that probably isn’t as important as the other two is keeping pace with earnings,” the MP said, arguing that pensioners were more concerned about inflation and maintaining living standards than tracking wages.

Others have floated a return to a “double lock,” linking pensions to inflation or earnings but dropping the 2.5 per cent floor. More targeted support through pension credit has also been mentioned as a way of protecting the poorest retirees while reducing overall costs.

Several factors suggest the debate may intensify sooner rather than later. Reviews of the state pension age and the long-term sustainability of pensions are expected to report in the coming year, forcing ministers to confront how an ageing population can be supported over decades rather than years.

Simultaneously, the rising cost of the triple lock is becoming harder to absorb within an already stretched public spending envelope. Each year the policy remains in place raises the baseline for future governments, increasing the stakes of any eventual decision.

For now, the triple lock survives because it is popular, politically sensitive, and publicly defended. But privately, many MPs across parties accept that the question is no longer whether it will be debated again, but when – and who – will be prepared to say openly that reform may be necessary.

Whether any party will take that risk in their 2029 election manifestos remains far from clear.