𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

Andy Burnham’s expected coronation as Labour leader and prime minister has sparked a fresh debate over the state pension triple lock. Fears have been raised over the long-term future of the policy, which has been criticised by economic advisers to the PM-in-waiting.

The triple lock sees the state pension rise each year in line with whichever is highest out of inflation, average earnings or 2.5%. The measure was announced in 2010 by the Tory-Lib Dem coalition government to protect pensioners against increases in the cost of living. But there are now growing calls for a rethink over the policy.

Critics claim the UK cannot afford it amid the country’s economic woes and with a growing older population.

They also argue that it is unfair on younger people who are grappling with issues such as being unable to get on the housing ladder.

Labour committed in its 2024 general election manifesto to maintain the triple lock until the end of the current parliament.

Mr Burnham said the pledge still stands as he took part in an online question and answer session on Reddit last night.

But there will now be questions over whether he would keep it beyond that point, with the next election due by 2029.

A former Bank of England chief economist who is advising Mr Burnham suggested in a recent interview that he could look at changing the policy as the debate has “shifted” in the last few months.

Describing the triple lock as “fiscally unsustainable”, Andy Haldane said: “I don’t know when the moment will come politically, I don’t know when the political will can be summoned, to tackle this, but I think the vast majority of people would say it does need tackling, and given our strained fiscal times. Why not now?”

Other economic advisers to the wannabe premier have also criticised the triple lock in the past.

Ex-Treasury minister Lord O’Neill previously branded the policy “bonkers”, while former head of the budget watchdog Richard Hughes said it is “one of a series of age-related pressures that pushes public spending upwards steadily over a number of years”.

Political heavyweights who have called for the triple lock to be axed in recent months include Labour former prime minister Sir Tony Blair and Tory ex-chancellor Jeremy Hunt.

A series of think tanks have also demanded that the policy is ditched and replaced with a less costly alternative.

The Office for Budget Responsibility has said the annual cost of the triple lock is set to reach an eye-watering £15.5 billion by 2030, which is three times more than originally estimated.

Sir Keir Starmer’s successor will be under intense pressure when it comes to the public finances and is facing a £4.7 billion defence black hole.

But for someone who could enter 10 Downing Street within weeks, little is known about Mr Burnham’s plans and he has largely dodged questions from the media since his Makerfield by-election win.

But the former Greater Manchester mayor faces a fierce battle that risks a backlash on the same level of the winter fuel payments fiasco if he looks to make changes to the policy in the future.

The Prime Minister and Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced plans to scrap the previously universal winter fuel allowance for most pensioners just after Labour’s general election win in July 2024.

But the move sparked devastating warnings that OAPs on the breadline would be forced to choose between heating and eating after losing out on the payments of up to £300 a year.

Sir Keir and Ms Reeves were eventually forced into a damaging U-turn after months of fury from cross-party politicians, campaigners and unions.

The Express has a long-running crusade to defend the triple lock and is campaigning for all parties to make manifesto commitments at the next general election.

Reform UK became the first party to promise to maintain the policy if it wins the next election, due by 2029.

Treasury spokesman Robert Jenrick, who defected from the Tories, appeared to change Nigel Farage’s mind after the Reform leader previously expressed concerns over the cost and suggested it was “up for debate”.

Reform has pledged to make sweeping cuts to the benefits bill to retain the triple lock if the party wins power.

Kemi Badenoch’s Conservatives back the policy but have yet to confirm it will be in their next manifesto. The Liberal Democrats are also strongly in support of the measure.

The triple lock is key to securing the grey vote, with older people more likely than their younger counterparts to turn out on polling day.

Those in favour of the triple lock insist it is a lifeline for many poorer OAPs who are unable to earn money in other ways.

They point out that the full new state pension is only £12,547.60 a year, and many pensioners actually receive less.

They say the policy is essential to prevent more older households falling into poverty or being forced to choose between heating and eating in the dark and cold winter months.

And supporters argue that the UK has one of the lowest state pensions among Western countries.

Polling suggests that the majority of the public is in favour of keeping the triple lock in place.

A YouGov survey earlier this year found that two-thirds said it should stay, while just 14% said it should go.

Only one in four said they would be in favour of changing the triple lock, while 37% were opposed.

Even among the youngest age group – 18-34-year-olds – 44% said they supported the triple lock compared to 21% who said they opposed it.

But what could replace the triple lock if the mechanism was ditched?

Under a double lock, the 2.5% minimum rise could be removed with the state pension going up by either inflation or average earnings growth.

There have also been proposals for a “smoothed earnings link”, which would tie state pension payments to wages but give the option for a temporary boost if inflation is high.

While the next election could be three years away, Mr Burnham will have to decide whether Labour’s manifesto includes a commitment to keep the triple lock or to axe it.