Here’s a surprising fact: the triple lock has saved the taxpayer money. It’s true.
Today, the most popular position among Westminster elites seems to be that the country can no longer afford it.
But, based on our calculations, had the triple lock never been introduced and the previous rule, which pegged state pension increases to the highest of inflation (RPI) or 2.5%, remained in place, pensions would have increased 6% faster and cost the Treasury £4 billion more than they do now, each year.
The triple lock has struck a balance. Pensioners are better off than they were before. But the growth has been controlled.
And it’s part of why I won’t ditch Reform’s commitment to it, however much I’m encouraged to by otherwise intelligent commentators in these pages.
Today, someone on the state pension is getting £241 a week. Out of that they pay all their outgoings - food, electricity and gas bills, rent in a lot of cases. Next year, it will go up to £250.
It’s not exactly lavish, is it? And when you consider there are now a million more divorced, single pensioners than there were two decades ago, for many, money is now much tighter.
Yet some Tory MPs such as Jeremy Hunt say that this is still too much.
To which my argument is: why is it always British workers who have done the right thing their whole lives who are asked to be the first to make sacrifices? They’ve paid in, juggled jobs for decade after decade, and in their retirement they get around £1,000 a month to live on. For many, it’s their only income.
In what world is it fair to turn on them first?
The sacrifice needed to restore the public finances should fall on the grifters who have exploited our generosity and on the nonsense vanity projects created by a clueless political class.
The government spends £7 billion a year on foreign aid - Ed Miliband announced another £88 million for Gaza last week alone. Another £184 billion goes on the benefits bill - double what it was pre-pandemic. By 2030, it’s forecast to reach £210 billion.
Since 2023, the cost of welfare for foreigners has grown twice as fast as the state pension. If Boriswave migrants get indefinite leave to remain, as Angela Rayner demands, the lifetime cost to the Treasury could be as much as £600 billion.
Net Zero zealotry is costing us a fortune as well. The Government is ploughing £5.8 billion into Great British Energy, excluding nuclear projects, and a further £9.4 billion into carbon capture and storage.
The fiscal incontinence of successive governments has seen borrowing costs rocket. If we simply returned the cost of British borrowing to that of Greece, we would have £30 billion more headroom. Imagine saying we’d be looking at Greece as a model for low-cost government borrowing ten years ago.
I could keep listing examples of scandalous waste. But you get the picture. Balancing the public finances simply does not hinge on the triple lock. Not in the next decade, at least.
It’s about choices. Reform has chosen to cut wasteful spending by £80 billion so we can afford to pay vulnerable pensioners, who have worked all their lives, a decent sum of money in old age. My pledge to raise the tax-free personal allowance to £15,000 in Reform’s first budget will mean the state pension will never be taxed either.
The Labour and Tory MPs moaning about the triple lock won’t choose to make the common-sense decisions on immigration, welfare and energy reform that our country requires.
Take William Hague, the former Tory leader. He has described cutting foreign aid as “a strategic blunder”, but the triple lock for our own pensioners as a “runaway train” that needed to be scrapped. God forbid we put our own citizens first.
As it happens, if people were interested in fiscal probity, they would be talking about reforming gold-plated public-sector pensions.
Public-sector defined-benefit pensions - phased out in the private sector decades ago - represent the government’s second-largest liability at £1.4 trillion, or almost £50,000 per household, but you will rarely hear a peep about them from the old parties. Reform, in contrast, is doing the hard work behind the scenes to address this looming crisis.
“But what about younger generations? Aren’t they being screwed?” is the final riposte from triple-lock bashers. To which I say: I agree. We must lower rents by building more in big cities and deporting all low-skilled migrants. Cut their debts by scrapping worthless university degrees, and bringing back apprenticeships. And create better-paying work by ending absurd employment regulation and reversing Rachel Reeves’s jobs tax.
It’s not a binary choice between helping pensioners and our young people get a better deal. We can, and must, do both.
(This is a slightly edited version of an article published in the Sunday Telegraph on 27th September.)
Today, the most popular position among Westminster elites seems to be that the country can no longer afford it.
But, based on our calculations, had the triple lock never been introduced and the previous rule, which pegged state pension increases to the highest of inflation (RPI) or 2.5%, remained in place, pensions would have increased 6% faster and cost the Treasury £4 billion more than they do now, each year.
The triple lock has struck a balance. Pensioners are better off than they were before. But the growth has been controlled.
And it’s part of why I won’t ditch Reform’s commitment to it, however much I’m encouraged to by otherwise intelligent commentators in these pages.
Today, someone on the state pension is getting £241 a week. Out of that they pay all their outgoings - food, electricity and gas bills, rent in a lot of cases. Next year, it will go up to £250.
It’s not exactly lavish, is it? And when you consider there are now a million more divorced, single pensioners than there were two decades ago, for many, money is now much tighter.
Yet some Tory MPs such as Jeremy Hunt say that this is still too much.
To which my argument is: why is it always British workers who have done the right thing their whole lives who are asked to be the first to make sacrifices? They’ve paid in, juggled jobs for decade after decade, and in their retirement they get around £1,000 a month to live on. For many, it’s their only income.
In what world is it fair to turn on them first?
The sacrifice needed to restore the public finances should fall on the grifters who have exploited our generosity and on the nonsense vanity projects created by a clueless political class.
The government spends £7 billion a year on foreign aid - Ed Miliband announced another £88 million for Gaza last week alone. Another £184 billion goes on the benefits bill - double what it was pre-pandemic. By 2030, it’s forecast to reach £210 billion.
Since 2023, the cost of welfare for foreigners has grown twice as fast as the state pension. If Boriswave migrants get indefinite leave to remain, as Angela Rayner demands, the lifetime cost to the Treasury could be as much as £600 billion.
Net Zero zealotry is costing us a fortune as well. The Government is ploughing £5.8 billion into Great British Energy, excluding nuclear projects, and a further £9.4 billion into carbon capture and storage.
The fiscal incontinence of successive governments has seen borrowing costs rocket. If we simply returned the cost of British borrowing to that of Greece, we would have £30 billion more headroom. Imagine saying we’d be looking at Greece as a model for low-cost government borrowing ten years ago.
I could keep listing examples of scandalous waste. But you get the picture. Balancing the public finances simply does not hinge on the triple lock. Not in the next decade, at least.
It’s about choices. Reform has chosen to cut wasteful spending by £80 billion so we can afford to pay vulnerable pensioners, who have worked all their lives, a decent sum of money in old age. My pledge to raise the tax-free personal allowance to £15,000 in Reform’s first budget will mean the state pension will never be taxed either.
The Labour and Tory MPs moaning about the triple lock won’t choose to make the common-sense decisions on immigration, welfare and energy reform that our country requires.
Take William Hague, the former Tory leader. He has described cutting foreign aid as “a strategic blunder”, but the triple lock for our own pensioners as a “runaway train” that needed to be scrapped. God forbid we put our own citizens first.
As it happens, if people were interested in fiscal probity, they would be talking about reforming gold-plated public-sector pensions.
Public-sector defined-benefit pensions - phased out in the private sector decades ago - represent the government’s second-largest liability at £1.4 trillion, or almost £50,000 per household, but you will rarely hear a peep about them from the old parties. Reform, in contrast, is doing the hard work behind the scenes to address this looming crisis.
“But what about younger generations? Aren’t they being screwed?” is the final riposte from triple-lock bashers. To which I say: I agree. We must lower rents by building more in big cities and deporting all low-skilled migrants. Cut their debts by scrapping worthless university degrees, and bringing back apprenticeships. And create better-paying work by ending absurd employment regulation and reversing Rachel Reeves’s jobs tax.
It’s not a binary choice between helping pensioners and our young people get a better deal. We can, and must, do both.
(This is a slightly edited version of an article published in the Sunday Telegraph on 27th September.)
