Andy Burnham sent huge warning after fresh demands to scrap the triple lock . hyn
A close ally of Andy Burnham called for the triple lock to be axed. (Image: Getty)
Andy Burnham has been warned that voters will punish him at the ballot box if he scraps the triple lock. The Prime Minister was given an ultimatum after fresh calls to ditch the policy amid soaring borrowing costs.
Lord O’Neill, an ally of Mr Burnham, urged him to rein in “excesses” such as the triple lock – which sees the state pension rise each year by the highest of inflation, earnings and 2.5% – to calm market turbulence. But Silver Voices director Dennis Reed said: “No political party worth its salt is going into the next General Election pledging to scrap or dilute the triple lock.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
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.
“All recent opinion polls prove massive public support for the lock, and those ignoring that support will suffer the same fate as the dinosaurs.
“Instead of heeding these increasingly hysterical calls to scrap the lock, politicians should be devising positive policies to improve our pitifully low state pension, like removing it from taxation entirely and increasing the basic pension to half average earnings.”
Campaigner Dennis Reed warns against ditching triple lock (Image: Getty)
The PM has said he will stand by Labour’s manifesto pledge to keep the triple lock in place for the current parliament, but there are ongoing questions over its long-term future.
Reform UK’s Treasury spokesman, Robert Jenrick, insisted that spending should be slashed on net zero and benefits for foreign nationals.
He said: “Reform will be able to keep the triple lock because we have announced huge cuts to net zero subsidies, migrant handouts and the biggest package of welfare reforms in a generation.
“We are the party for workers, and those who have worked their whole lives, and we will never tire of putting them first.”
It comes as Government long-term borrowing costs have surged to their highest levels for 28 years amid chaos on the global bond market linked to the Middle East conflict.
Lord O’Neill, a former Treasury minister who has repeatedly criticised the triple lock, said next month’s Budget would have to include either spending cuts or “some form of tax increases” in order to restore the Government’s fiscal “headroom”.
He told Times Radio that the bond markets would “respond favourably” to “credible action to deal with the excesses of the triple lock or the excesses of welfare spending”.
Lord O’Neill’s intervention came after he warned yesterday that Mr Burnham’s “tone” in his first speech to the Commons as PM outlining his plans for Government was “the last thing investors wanted to hear”.
Meanwhile, former director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies think tank Paul Johnson insisted the triple lock “has to stop”.
He told The i Paper: “Clearly, it has to stop at some point because it is just a permanent upward ratchet. Logically, if you carry on with this forever, it will take up the entire economy.”
Labour MP and former minister Zubir Ahmed said there should be an “honest” and “grown-up” conversation about the triple lock at the next General Election.
Speaking to BBC Politics Live, he said “maybe the triple lock is quite a blunt instrument” that was “appropriate for its time”, adding that there could be a more “sophisticated” way to support pensioners in need.
Elsewhere, ex-NatWest chairman Sir Howard Davies said the country faced “a very dicky period” leading up to the Budget on October 28.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, he urged the Government to “make some signs about their overall approach to the fiscal balance” in order to “calm things down a bit”.
But Mr Burnham blamed the rising cost of borrowing on the previous Tory government as he clashed with Kemi Badenoch at PMQs.
He said: “When they were in government, we saw 14 years of stagnant growth. We saw 14 years of debt rising as a percentage of GDP.
“I would say to her that the turbulence on global markets are because of that exposure that they left behind.”
The Prime Minister admitted that he and his former economic adviser Lord O’Neill did “not always agree”.
He also refused to rule out tax hikes in the Budget when pressed by the Conservative leader.
When asked about Lord O’Neill’s remarks, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “Our position on the triple lock is clear.”
Mr Burnham promised shortly before he entered 10 Downing Street in July to honour Labour’s election manifesto commitment to keep the measure for the duration of the current parliament.
A YouGov poll in May found that 66% support the triple lock, compared to just 14% who are opposed to it. Even among 18-34-year-olds, the triple lock was backed by 44% to 21%.
But critics argue it is too expensive, with the annual cost estimated to reach £15.5 billion by 2030, which is three times higher than its original estimate, according to the Office for National Statistics.
The Daily Express has a long-running crusade demanding that the triple lock, which was introduced to protect pensioners from increases in the cost of living, be kept in place.
Some 1.7 million older people are living in poverty in the UK, and another one million are close to the breadline, according to figures from the Department for Work and Pensions.
A DWP spokesperson said: “Supporting pensioners is a priority and we have committed to the triple lock for the rest of this Parliament, meaning millions of older people will see their state pension rise by up to £2,100.”
Andy Burnham Sent Huge Warning After Fresh Demands to Scrap the Triple Lock
Prime Minister Andy Burnham is facing renewed pressure over the future of the state pension triple lock, with economists, business groups and commentators calling for the long-standing guarantee to be reformed or scrapped.
The debate has become increasingly important as the government prepares for its first major Budget under Burnham. Pressure on public finances, borrowing costs and competing demands for government spending have created a difficult environment for ministers.
The triple lock has become one of the most politically sensitive issues in the debate because it directly affects millions of pensioners. Under the current system, the state pension rises each year by whichever is highest of inflation, average earnings growth or 2.5 per cent.
Critics argue that the mechanism has become increasingly expensive and can produce pension increases that are higher than the growth experienced by other parts of the population. Supporters, meanwhile, argue that it protects pensioners from losing purchasing power and provides an important level of certainty during retirement.
For Burnham, the question is therefore not simply about cutting spending. It is also about how the government balances the needs of pensioners with those of working-age households and younger generations.
Fresh Pressure on Burnham
The latest pressure came from Lord Jim O’Neill, a former economic adviser to Burnham. O’Neill argued that the government should consider tackling what he described as the “excesses” of government spending, including the triple lock or welfare spending. He suggested that credible action on these issues could help reassure financial markets about the government’s approach to the public finances.
The comments came at a particularly sensitive time.
The government’s first Budget is approaching, while borrowing costs and financial-market concerns have increased the pressure on Chancellor John Healey. The government’s room for manoeuvre is limited by its fiscal rules and by the need to maintain confidence in the sustainability of public finances.
The Resolution Foundation has also argued that the deteriorating market environment makes it more important for the government to demonstrate that it is willing to address difficult long-term spending pressures.
The issue has consequently moved beyond an abstract economic debate. It has become part of a wider discussion about the government’s priorities.
What Is the Triple Lock?
The triple lock was introduced in 2010 as a mechanism designed to protect the value of the state pension.
Under the system, the annual increase is determined by whichever is highest among three measures: inflation, average earnings growth or 2.5 per cent.
The purpose is straightforward. If prices rise rapidly, pensioners receive protection against inflation. If wages grow faster than prices, pensions rise in line with earnings. And if both inflation and earnings growth are very low, the 2.5 per cent minimum provides a guaranteed increase.
The policy has therefore provided pensioners with a degree of predictability.
However, the same mechanism can also increase government spending significantly when wage growth or inflation is high. Because the highest figure is selected, the pension can rise faster than either of the other measures.
That is the central concern expressed by critics.
Why Are Calls for Reform Growing?
The arguments against the triple lock are largely focused on affordability and fairness.
The state pension represents a major and growing part of government spending. As Britain’s population ages, the number of people receiving pensions is expected to remain an important consideration for future governments.
The Financial Times recently argued that the triple lock has become increasingly difficult to sustain and suggested alternatives such as a double lock or an earnings-based system.
The British Chambers of Commerce has also called for the policy to be scrapped, with the organisation arguing that money could instead be directed towards other priorities, including tackling youth unemployment.
The argument is partly about intergenerational fairness.
Younger workers contribute through taxation and National Insurance while also facing pressures including housing costs, student debt and weaker access to secure employment. Critics of the triple lock question whether it is sustainable to provide pension increases under a formula that can outpace earnings growth.
This does not mean that all pensioners are financially secure. There are significant differences in income and wealth among older households, and some pensioners remain heavily dependent on the state pension.
That distinction is central to the debate.
Pensioners Face Their Own Pressures
Those defending the triple lock point to the financial realities facing many older people.
Pensioners must deal with food bills, energy costs, rent or mortgage payments and other household expenses just like everyone else. For people who rely primarily on the state pension, even relatively small changes in annual income can have a significant effect.
The Guardian recently reported arguments from pensioners and campaigners who say that the UK state pension remains relatively modest compared with pensions in several other European countries.
This is one reason why removing the triple lock could have consequences beyond government accounts.
A change to the formula would not affect every pensioner equally. Someone with substantial private pension income and other assets could experience a different impact from someone whose main source of retirement income is the state pension.
Any reform would therefore raise questions about whether the government should apply one rule universally or introduce additional protections for those with lower incomes.
The Numbers Behind the Debate
The latest earnings figures have made the issue particularly relevant.
Average weekly earnings excluding bonuses increased by 3.5 per cent in the three months to July 2026, according to figures reported by Reuters. Vacancies also declined, while the number of payrolled employees fell in August.
Under the triple lock, the relevant annual increase is determined by the highest applicable measure at the assessment point.
Current forecasts indicate that the full new state pension could rise to around £250.70 a week in April 2027 if earnings growth remains the determining factor. That would represent an increase from £241.30 a week.
These figures illustrate why the issue matters financially.
Even a relatively small percentage increase becomes substantial when applied across millions of pensioners and over many years.
What Could Replace the Triple Lock?
Scrapping the triple lock would not necessarily mean freezing pensions.
Several alternatives have been discussed.
One possibility would be a “double lock”, linking pensions to inflation and earnings while removing the 2.5 per cent minimum. Another option would be to link pensions primarily to earnings growth.
There could also be a more targeted system in which pension increases are combined with additional support for pensioners on lower incomes.
Each approach would produce different results depending on economic conditions.
An earnings-based system could make pension spending more predictable in relation to wages. An inflation-based system could focus more directly on maintaining purchasing power. A double lock would retain some of the protection of the existing system while removing one element of the formula.
There is no single reform that would eliminate all of the competing pressures.
The Political Dimension
For Burnham, the political consequences of any decision are significant.
The triple lock has been supported by governments of different political backgrounds, partly because pensioners represent a large and politically important section of the electorate.
A decision to abolish or weaken the guarantee could therefore generate opposition from pensioner organisations, campaigners and politicians.
One pensioner campaign group has already warned that parties supporting a reduction in the triple lock could face a strong electoral response.
At the same time, refusing to reform the system could leave future governments facing increasing expenditure.
That creates a difficult balance between immediate political concerns and longer-term fiscal planning.
Burnham’s Position
It is important to distinguish between calls made by advisers and the government’s confirmed policy.
The latest reports show that Burnham has been urged by economists and former advisers to consider changes to the triple lock. They do not establish that Burnham has formally decided to abolish the policy.
Some of his economic advisers have previously expressed support for reform, including arguments that the triple lock places an unnecessarily large burden on future public finances.
The government’s actual decision will depend on its fiscal calculations, political priorities and the details eventually presented by the Chancellor.
That distinction is particularly important because speculation surrounding the Budget can move quickly before official announcements are made.
A Wider Question About Britain’s Welfare State
The triple-lock debate is ultimately part of a much larger question about Britain’s welfare state.
The government must decide how much should be spent on pensions, healthcare, social care, defence, housing and support for working-age households.
Every pound committed to one area potentially reduces the flexibility available elsewhere unless the government raises additional revenue or finds savings.
That is why economists continue to focus on the triple lock even though the policy itself concerns pensions.
The issue has become a symbol of the broader challenge facing governments: how to maintain public services and social protection while keeping taxation and borrowing under control.
What Happens Next?
The next major test will come with the government’s Budget.
Ministers will have to explain how they intend to manage public finances while responding to demands for spending in several competing areas.
If Burnham chooses to retain the triple lock, he will need to explain how the government intends to meet the long-term cost of the commitment.
If he chooses to reform it, the government will need to explain how pensioners will be protected, particularly those on lower incomes.
Either approach would have significant consequences.
For now, the key fact is that the triple lock remains under serious scrutiny. Fresh calls from economists and business groups have placed the issue firmly on the government’s agenda, while pensioner organisations continue to defend the existing guarantee.
The coming Budget and subsequent policy decisions will determine whether the triple lock remains unchanged, is modified or eventually replaced.
For millions of pensioners, the outcome could affect the value of their future state pension. For younger workers and taxpayers, it could influence how much of the government’s resources are available for other priorities.
That makes the debate about the triple lock much larger than a single pension policy. It is becoming a test of how Andy Burnham’s government intends to balance retirement security, intergenerational considerations and the long-term sustainability of Britain’s public finances.
