No fun being old under Andy Burnham .

NotSpaghetti

I'd like him to give more credit to his predecessor when policies have positive outcomes - such as the French agreement with small boats.

Burnham enjoyed quite a bit of praise regarding the smaller legislative body after reform of the House of Lords even though the legislative work wasn't his.

I wish he would just say - yes, the Labour Party under KS was working hard for this and that - and now we are starting to see the benefits.

I suppose it's the lack of humility that bothers me.
Very "Blair".

I see that too, though I do like what I’ve seen of him thus far

One of the fundamental issues of disparity in pension uprating is that only the basic pension is triple locked and earnings linked. The additional state pension (aSP) and other add ons are uprated by the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

You can read a history of pension uprating in this House of Commons Library briefing paper:

researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7812/CBP-7812.pdf

In a Lords debate in 2020, Baroness Altmann question the fairness of not applying the earnings link to the additional state pension.

The then Tory Minister for Work and Pensions Baroness Stedman Scott replied, …

it is not possible to make direct comparisons between the two systems in this way … care has been taken to ensure fairness to both groups … some people may get a larger amount uprated by the triple lock but they will not have access to other elements of the previous system, for example a lower state pension age and the ability to build a higher state pension through the additional state pension.

... which is effectively what Doodledog has, quite rightly, said in her posts.

There was only 1% difference last year between CPI of 3.8% and wages growth of 4.8%, the latter used for this year’s basic pension increase and the former for the aSP. But in other years there has been a more marked difference between the two and that is what can cause a gap to open when comparing the newer single tier pension and the old two tier pension.

However, when you bear in mind that the additional state pension can be as much as £230.54 per week and that around 825,000 pensioners, around 760,000 of them on old state pension, receive more than £300 a week and some more than £400 you can see how expensive it would be to triple lock it.

It’s important to understand that when earnings related contributions were abolished from 6 April 2016 the rate of NIC remained the same at 12%. In other words the NIC that once paid for two tiers of pension, now pays for just a single tier pension but based only on the number of years of contributions. There is no longer an earnings-related component no matter what you earn.

In arriving at the rate for the new single tier pension from 2016, the government set it at a rate just above the basic level of means-tested support for single pensioners with no option to contract out of any part of it.

It was equivalent to 130% of the old state pension and still is.

2016 Old £119.30 v New £155.65 a difference of £36.35
2026 Old £184.90 v New £241.30 a difference of £56.40

In theory then, the difference for someone receiving old state pension is made up of additional state pension.

That £36.35 indexed it by the CPI for each year since 2016 comes to £50.60 so it isn’t far off the current difference, especially after tax - £4.40 to be precise.

The most problematic recent years have been 2023, when the CPI was 6.7% and wage growth 8.5%, and 2024 when CPI was 1.7% and wage growth 4.1%. The difference in 2024 was only 1%, CPI 3.8% wage growth 4.8%.

The government's aim in introducing new state pension was both to simplify it and to make it cheaper per capita to pay in the longer term once everyone with aSP or protected payments had died.

However, we know the number of pensioners is rising because baby boomers are reaching pension age. Around 750,000 new pensioners each year compared to around 600,000 dying, hence all the debate about the sustainability of the triple lock.

Which brings us back to to the argument about percentages because when you look at it per capita we are taking about peanuts. The triple lock this year gave an extra 1% above CPI. For the full new state pension,(which many do not receive anyway due to contracted our deductions or not having enough contribution years), that extra 1% equates to a post tax rise of at most £1.85 per week. Are politicians really arguing over a sum that wouldn’t even buy a decent loaf of bread?

Moreover, by the time some received that £1.85 in May 2026, and many less than that, it's a year after the wage growth that it's based on and the inflation that wage growth will have contributed too. Always playing catch up.

Well I m very happy under Andy Burnham I like him and so far I think his ideas show a good start
I m old, 1945 and I m happy to get any pension, I worked till I was nearly 70 well 69 and a half to be more accurate and I m still working just not getting paid any more
My pension is what it is and as long as I can keep myself fed and clothed I m happy, life’s way too short to be mithering
(good old Suffolk word) about money

Why not open up the option for people on the old system to opt to pay back the six years national insurance contributions they missed by retiring at sixty, and then claim the pension at the rate for those who didn’t receive it until 66? Otherwise, whatever the government does isn’t fair to some.

I have high hopes for AB, too.

I would like to see papers like the Express and everyone who has circulated articles like the one under discussion be made to print a clear and obvious retraction. All they do is sow division and discontent - many people really believe that everyone on the OSP is worse off than anyone on the NSP, and resent it, yet this is just untrue.

(From Google) - Anyone reaching State Pension age on or after 6 April 2016 falls under the new State Pension system, which is far stricter regarding individual contribution records. The rules have changed in three major ways for women who didn't work:

1. No More Relying on a Spouse's Record
*The Old Rule*: Women born before 6 April 1953 could claim a basic pension increase or a partial pension purely based on their husband’s National Insurance (NI) record.

*The New Rule*: For younger women, the State Pension is based entirely on your own individual NI record. You can no longer claim or inherit a pension rate based on a living spouse's or civil partner's record. (Exception: The rare exception is if a woman specifically opted into the historic "Married Woman’s Stamp" reduced-rate election decades ago).

2. A Hard 10-Year Minimum Threshold
*The Old Rule*: Women under the old system could sometimes get a small pro-rata pension with fewer than 10 years of personal contributions.

*The New Rule*: Under the new system, you must have at least 10 qualifying years on your NI record to receive any pension at all. If you have 9 years or less, you get nothing.

3. More Years Needed for a Full Pension
Under the old system, women needed 30 to 39 qualifying years to get the full basic State Pension.Younger women under the new system need 35 qualifying years to receive the maximum full rate (which is £241.30 per week for the 2026/27 tax year).

The rules on inherited pensions and the State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme (SERPS) treat the two generations of women entirely differently.

Women born before 1950 (the Old State Pension group) enjoy generous, sweeping rights to inherit their deceased husband's state pension wealth. In stark contrast, younger women (the New State Pension group) face a heavily restricted system that has mostly eradicated direct state pension inheritance.

The basic pension inheritance rules differ completely between the two generations, with older women born before April 1950 able to inherit up to 100% of their late husband's basic State Pension to top up their own weekly rate, whereas younger women born after April 1953 receive 0% direct inheritance because the basic pension is completely individualised under the new system.

When it comes to SERPS and Additional Pension inheritance, older women receive a generous amount ranging from 50% to 100% of their husband's SERPS depending on his date of birth, while younger women face extremely limited rules where SERPS has been replaced, allowing them to inherit only 50% of a specific transitional "Protected Payment".

The Old System deliberately ran two parallel tracks. A person built up a foundational Basic Pension through NI years and added a completely separate, uncapped SERPS tier based on their career earnings.

This meant an older worker with high earnings could retire with a combined state payout far higher than the standard rate.

The New System completely abolished SERPS. It merged both elements into a single, flat-rate cash payment. No matter how much money a younger worker earns today, they cannot build up any extra state pension above the standard flat rate.

____________________________________

So yes - someone on the OSP who paid lower rate NI for fewer years will get less than her NSP equivalent who paid full NI for much longer. But when you take all of the other variables into account, the system does not discriminate against the older group - quite the reverse!

I'd like him to give more credit to his predecessor when policies have positive outcomes - such as the French agreement with small boats.

Burnham enjoyed quite a bit of praise regarding the smaller legislative body after reform of the House of Lords even though the legislative work wasn't his.

I wish he would just say - yes, the Labour Party under KS was working hard for this and that - and now we are starting to see the benefits.

I suppose it's the lack of humility that bothers me.
Very "Blair".

Iam64

Oh, I feel grit to mention Andy Burnham. He’s a breath of fresh air imo. I’m north west and I’m enjoying hearing his northern accent, seeing his warmth and open responses to people.
It’s warm up north 🌞.

Couldn’t agree more 😂 And I’m not northern.
I don’t care how he got there, he got there and that’s important.

eazybee

^I'm beginning to go right off him!^ ??

I have been off him since he forced his way into being Prime Minister.
His aims are deliberately divisive: North against South, old against young, working against middle class, feckless against responsible.
A true Marxist.

He is just trying to redress the balance which has been skewed - I see no evidence of divisiveness.

Thank goodness he is not dismissing those at the bottom of the heap and recognises that education reform has an important place in helping to keep people off that bottom rung.

I am not thrilled by the means of him arriving in the top spot, but it is is not all glamour and it is a bit of a poisoned chalice that he has accepted - I am glad that he has taken this on and is championing the needs of everyone rather than just the elite.

I don't think that makes him a marxist at all.

Chocolatelovinggran

I share Dickens contempt, posted yesterday, that a journalist on the Daily Express finds it acceptable to describe the State Pension as a " handout".

The haters live to hate, sadly.

petra

DaisyAnneReturns

Sarnia

Why has Andy Burnham said that older pensioners, those born before April 1950, will get a lower triple lock deal than those born after that date?

Older pensioners pay the same for a supermarket shop as younger pensioners so why the reduction?

I'm beginning to go right off him!

No reply yet to my last post pointing out that the OP is incorrect.

It seems AB did not say "older pensioners, those born before April 1950, will get a lower triple lock deal than those born after that date."

However, it is a basic mathematical fact that if you apply the same percentage increase on two different amounts (the old and new SPs), you will preserves the same proportional difference between them, but the absolute difference grows each year.

This has been happening for the last 16 years under 7 governments so blaming Andy Burnham is, to say the least, showing extreme bias.

The op informed me and others that the article was in The Express. So now I know its tosh.

There are also lots of iterations of the article on FaceBook put out by publications I have never heard of, they are just clickbait and always result in dozens of angry and uninformed responses from pensioners.

petra

Someone’s been reading the shite pumped out on FB.
Ignore.

My sentiments exactly.

I do think that Burnham’s ability to communicate is one of the most successful we’ve seen in a number of years, and it is clear that he is playing to his strengths.

It is early days yet, but I do think his domestic policies - as they are gradually being played out will certainly attract support and I await his first budget with interest.

Where I think he is untested is in foreign affairs, which are vitally important during these times. Get that right, and he will imo be well on the way to being a very successful PM.

I was one of the sceptics, particularly after the way Starmer was ousted, but I’ve come to accept that politics is indeed a dirty game, but if the U.K. is the winner in the long run, then so be it. Harsh I know.

However, as I said it is early days, and he is largely untested as yet, and we know how events have a habit of completely scuppering a PM.

Oh, I feel grit to mention Andy Burnham. He’s a breath of fresh air imo. I’m north west and I’m enjoying hearing his northern accent, seeing his warmth and open responses to people.
It’s warm up north 🌞.

Grrrr. I started work at 17- retired at 63 when RA stopped me. I worked part time 1972-1975, otherwise full time, always paid full tax and insurance. My state pension is not a hand out. It’s something I saved for, towards my older age.

I’m fortunate to have a work related pension. If I didn’t, my life would be very tough. I certainly couldn’t afford to keep my two dogs. - I’d be heart broken if they had to be rehomed

I share Dickens contempt, posted yesterday, that a journalist on the Daily Express finds it acceptable to describe the State Pension as a " handout".

DaisyAnneReturns

Sarnia

Why has Andy Burnham said that older pensioners, those born before April 1950, will get a lower triple lock deal than those born after that date?

Older pensioners pay the same for a supermarket shop as younger pensioners so why the reduction?

I'm beginning to go right off him!

No reply yet to my last post pointing out that the OP is incorrect.

It seems AB did not say "older pensioners, those born before April 1950, will get a lower triple lock deal than those born after that date."

However, it is a basic mathematical fact that if you apply the same percentage increase on two different amounts (the old and new SPs), you will preserves the same proportional difference between them, but the absolute difference grows each year.

This has been happening for the last 16 years under 7 governments so blaming Andy Burnham is, to say the least, showing extreme bias.

The op informed me and others that the article was in The Express. So now I know its tosh.

Sarnia

Why has Andy Burnham said that older pensioners, those born before April 1950, will get a lower triple lock deal than those born after that date?

Older pensioners pay the same for a supermarket shop as younger pensioners so why the reduction?

I'm beginning to go right off him!

No reply yet to my last post pointing out that the OP is incorrect.

It seems AB did not say "older pensioners, those born before April 1950, will get a lower triple lock deal than those born after that date."

However, it is a basic mathematical fact that if you apply the same percentage increase on two different amounts (the old and new SPs), you will preserves the same proportional difference between them, but the absolute difference grows each year.

This has been happening for the last 16 years under 7 governments so blaming Andy Burnham is, to say the least, showing extreme bias.

Chocolatelovinggran

I think this is what this is referring to, love0c.
Just a small correction - I was born in 1952, and am on the lower , older rate of State Pension.

I was born in 1953, and yes, I’m on the old SP.

‘Don’t run off to Queensland’, as they say here. Might buy a few coffees!

I've long tried to work out the pensions of myself and my DH. He started his first job age 23, I started mine age 16. He retired slightly early at age 63 having paid into his Co pension for 40 years. I reired at age 60 having paid NI conts for 44 years. My state pension didn't kick in till I was nearly 62 as I was caught by the transitionary rules. We were both on final salary schemes and both were on exactly the same salary. Neither of us had any gaps in our contributions except that for part of my working life I was only part-time and such employees were not allowed to join the Teachers' Pension Scheme until a ruling was made under some EU legislation that said the exclusion was illegal and we were all allowed to pay a lump sum to make up our missing years - the lump sum for me was about £4k. We were able to apply for a repayment of the NI contributions we had made as if we were paying the standard rate of NI as opposed to the reduced rate for those in company pension schemes. I applied for this repayment and after about 8 years of repeated requests to be repaid I gave up. So I not only paid the full rate of NI but I was done out of the element of SP it was intended to service.

As a result of this his SP is £110 a month more than mine despite me having paid in for 6 years more than him. Even worse, for about 25 or more years I was also self-employed and paid Class 2 and Class 4 contributions, the former not adding a single penny to my pension and the latter not contributing to anything at all - basically it was an extra amount of income tax.

Every year we both get our statutary increases and as my late dad used to say "1% of a lot isn't the same as 1% of a little".

That said, though the triple lock is a great thing for us pensioners it is likely no longer sustainable, but I would hope that any changes will bear in mind that most pensioners have the same basic needs as others and that must be considered.

I look forward to my £106 a month increase!

As this is under "Ask a Gran" I assumed the OP wanted an answer so I copied the opening paragraph over to ChatGPT, asked if it was true and if we know any more details. This was the answer:

No — the forum post appears to be mixing up two completely different pension issues.

I’ve checked the current reporting around Andy Burnham and the State Pension, including the specific “before April 1950” date. I can’t find evidence that Burnham has proposed giving pensioners born before 6 April 1950 a lower triple-lock increase than those born afterwards.

In fact, the current evidence points the other way. Burnham has recently reaffirmed his commitment to retaining the State Pension triple lock. In July he answered questions on the subject and said the Labour manifesto commitment remained in place.

There is, however, a live debate about whether the triple lock is affordable in the long term. Advisers and pension-policy organisations have been urging the next government to look at changing it or replacing it, because State Pension spending is rising rapidly. Sky News reported in July that some of Burnham's advisers are hostile to the triple lock and regard it as unsustainable. But that is quite different from saying: "people born before April 1950 will get a smaller annual increase." I haven't found a credible source saying Burnham has proposed that.

So where does 6 April 1950 come from? This is the important bit. 6 April 1950 is a very significant date in the history of the State Pension — but not because of the triple lock. Under the old rules, a woman born on or before 5 April 1950 reached State Pension age at 60. Women born from 6 April 1950 onwards were caught by the gradual increases in women's State Pension age.

That is the issue which eventually produced the WASPI campaign. Women born in the 1950s had their State Pension age increased, in some cases substantially, and many argued that they weren't given adequate notice. The PHSO subsequently found maladministration concerning the information provided to affected women, although the government decided against compensation. So when you see “born before April 1950”, alarm bells should actually ring for State Pension age/WASPI, rather than triple-lock uprating.

What about the old State Pension versus the new State Pension? There is another complication which may have helped create the confusion. The State Pension system changed in April 2016. People who reached State Pension age before then generally receive the basic State Pension (plus any additional pension entitlement), whereas people reaching pension age later are generally under the new State Pension system.

Both the basic State Pension and the new State Pension are subject to the triple lock.

But the amount someone receives isn't necessarily the same, because it depends on their National Insurance record and which pension arrangements they fall under. That's not the same thing as applying a different triple-lock percentage according to someone's date of birth.

And the supermarket argument? The forum poster is making a perfectly understandable point about the cost of living, but ,If the government said:

pensioner A gets a 5% State Pension increase because they were born after 6 April 1950;
pensioner B gets only 3% because they were born before that date,

that would indeed be a new and quite extraordinary policy, and I can find no evidence that Burnham has announced such a scheme.

What is happening is that there is increasing pressure on Burnham to address the cost of the triple lock. The Institute for Fiscal Studies and other pension experts have been questioning whether the current arrangement is sustainable in the long term.

So I would rate the forum claim “misleading/incorrect as written” rather than a genuine announcement by Burnham.

One thing is worth keeping an eye on, though: Burnham has committed to the triple lock as things stand, but the longer-term debate about changing it is very real.

CoolCoco

I wouldn't mind being under Andy Burnham

I can absolutely see what you mean

MazieD 9:26am

I picked up on it MazieD, but as I’ve been “accused” on another thread of “ranting about Farage, as he spurned me-“, thought I’d better keep quiet!

However, as you’ve raised it, haha, my comment on this is that Farage cannot have it both ways, Asylum Seekers cannot be both “housed in 5 star hotels” and “sleeping rough”

😄

I think I said a while ago that I had a small crush on him! It’s the black clothes, glasses and northern accent