On Kemi Badenoch, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, hitting her triple lock policy goal. This policy ensures that pensioners get an annual rise based on the highest of inflation, earnings growth or 2.5%. Advocates for reform argue that abolishing this benefit could help reduce the welfare bill and appeal to younger voters who feel sidelined by current economic policies.
While these demands for reform continue, the Conservative Party have themselves out-rightly pledged to not scrap the triple lock. This choice has sparked praise and criticism from all sides of the political spectrum as well as from think tanks. Reem Ibrahim, a spokeswoman for the right-wing Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA), attacked the triple lock. She even had the gall to call it a “Ponzi scheme.” The IEA, known for its right-wing batshittery, states that the triple lock mainly benefits richer pensioners. According to recent analyses, approximately one in four pensioners is now a millionaire.
Conservative Party member Tom Tugendhat criticized the lopsided focus on cutting economic and tax policy. He kept making the point that the current system is rigged to advantage older, whiter demographics. He added that young people are growing in their understanding of that gap. Young people are abandoning the Conservatives in droves. Tugendhat feels the party’s policies are not doing enough to support them and has argued for cuts to working-age benefits rather than pensions.
Opposition to the triple lock goes further than party politics. It is good to see both Labour and the Liberal Democrats pledge that they will keep the policy in place. By contrast Reform UK is set to release its policy on the matter in time for the next general election.
Sir Mel Stride, the government’s most senior Conservative recently declared his intention. He wants to see £23 billion slashed from the welfare budget if the Tories manage to win themselves another term of office. These proposals call for allowing states to impose stricter limits on mental health-related benefits, adding an additional layer to the confusing welfare labyrinth.
Ibrahim’s politically charged assault on the triple lock is indicative of a rising tide of opinion among wonks who like to rue the day. As recently as last December, she insisted that the triple lock was “totally unsustainable.” She argues that it disproportionately advantages some of the richest demographics in the country. This perspective raises the uncomfortable question of whether universal support for pensioners is equitable. Second, it underscores the reality that too many people in that demographic are not doing great, financially.
Andrew Griffith, yet another central Tory figure, reinforced that message here, as he insisted on keeping policy debates rooted in reality. “Policy debates shouldn’t be fought at the fringe,” he said in remarks about possible changes to welfare spending. He understood the importance of getting people back to work. In doing so he thinks we can radically improve their emotional, psychological, and perhaps most importantly their overall well-being.
The sustained controversy over the triple lock is symptomatic of a larger political sensitivity to intergenerational equity and fiscal discipline regarding welfare expenditures. Younger voters are making clear their frustration with the status quo. First, these are persistent and complex challenges that require sustained, committed efforts to address them.
