Backseat Driver, Former PM Tony Blair Reckons The Triple-Lock...

Graphite

Replying to valdali.

We don't have to pay towards our pension.

We did for 50 years.

We don't pay NIC.

We did for 50 years.

We don't have to pay for our commute.

We did for 50 years.

We don't have to pay for childcare.

We did.

We have time to cook from scratch.

Today’s parents could if they wanted to. How long does it take? An hour? I don’t buy into this notion that today’s parents have less time than that their parents' generation had when they were working. The standard working day is still 8 hours and there are still 24 hours in a day.

We don't have to take holidays at peak times because of childrens' school.

That hasn’t changed for responsible parents who did not want to take their children out of school in term time.

Mortgages?

People who bought their homes then paid mortgages at far higher rates of interest than is charged now.

Do we need as much [income] as working parents?

Nobody is arguing that housing isn’t more expensive now and takes up a larger percentage of outgoings but it has never been easy. But people who have retired still pay rent. They still pay council tax, the same household bills and still have to eat. It still costs as much to heat a house whether one or four people live in it, Council tax is the same if there are two adult occupants. It still costs as much to run a car.

The cost of housing drives economic hardship more than anything else. It shouldn’t be necessary to penalise pensioners and begrudge them a rise of little more than a £1 day because successive governments have allowed a housing shortage to develop, including selling off council housing, encouraging a ballooning and avaricious private rental sector, repeatedly miss new-build targets and do nothing about the one million homes that are sitting long term empty in England alone.

Stoking intergenerational conflict over the state pension is just a deflection from this and other factors that contribute to the cost of living. By giving into this narrative we will make lives harder for this current working generation when they reach pension age.

Couldn't agree more. All to easy to blame pensioners when many are struggling to survive.

Sarnia

They have to find the money to cover the ever growing benefits payments, don't they? Might as well be the poor old pensioners.

The gvt should be looking at young people who haven't worked since 2020. Why is this? Because it's too easy for some to claim benefit. Benefit claimants (not disabled) should have a cut-off period of 3 months. Able-bodied would soon find work.

Replying to valdali.

We don't have to pay towards our pension.

We did for 50 years.

We don't pay NIC.

We did for 50 years.

We don't have to pay for our commute.

We did for 50 years.

We don't have to pay for childcare.

We did.

We have time to cook from scratch.

Today’s parents could if they wanted to. How long does it take? An hour? I don’t buy into this notion that today’s parents have less time than that their parents' generation had when they were working. The standard working day is still 8 hours and there are still 24 hours in a day.

We don't have to take holidays at peak times because of childrens' school.

That hasn’t changed for responsible parents who did not want to take their children out of school in term time.

Mortgages?

People who bought their homes then paid mortgages at far higher rates of interest than is charged now.

Do we need as much [income] as working parents?

Nobody is arguing that housing isn’t more expensive now and takes up a larger percentage of outgoings but it has never been easy. But people who have retired still pay rent. They still pay council tax, the same household bills and still have to eat. It still costs as much to heat a house whether one or four people live in it, Council tax is the same if there are two adult occupants. It still costs as much to run a car.

The cost of housing drives economic hardship more than anything else. It shouldn’t be necessary to penalise pensioners and begrudge them a rise of little more than a £1 day because successive governments have allowed a housing shortage to develop, including selling off council housing, encouraging a ballooning and avaricious private rental sector, repeatedly miss new-build targets and do nothing about the one million homes that are sitting long term empty in England alone.

Stoking intergenerational conflict over the state pension is just a deflection from this and other factors that contribute to the cost of living. By giving into this narrative we will make lives harder for this current working generation when they reach pension age.

I didn't enter a world of full employment. The 80s were dreadful in many areas, with many young people out of work.

Allira

M0nica

I have long thought it should go and just be tied to the growth of annual earnings, why should we do better than our children?

Pensioner poverty is a seprate issue best dealt with through ensionCreit, or, as it was more correctly known Minimum Income Guarantee.

How exactly are we doing better than our children?
Even the new State Pension at £241.30 pw is far less than the minimum wage for a 35 hour week, let alone the old State Pension at £184.90 pw.
Those on the old State Pension fall further and further behind with each increase.

But we don't have to pay towards our pension; we don't pay NI (minimum wage 40 h week does); we don't have to pay for our commute, our parking for work (£12/d where I used to work, now); we don't have to pay for childcare; we have time to cook from scratch; we don't have to take holidays at peak times because of childrens' school; only more well-off pensioners are likely to have mortgages because we wouldn't have been loaned the money if we weren't; so do we need as much as working parents? I certainly don't.

Monica writes: I think it absolutely unacceptable that older people should get a free card to get extra money … I would limit it to one lock - wages.

Here we go again. The notion that one person’s pocket is being picked to pay for another to have a free ride.

How can you argue that the the triple lock is unaffordable and should only be based on earnings growth only when it is earnings growth that has been used to determine the pension increase for five out of the latest eight year’s increases including the last three. The formula that was used is the one you say should be used.

And while it is true that State Pension is deemed to be paid from current NIC, some of it is coming from the excess credit balance that has built up in the National Insurance Fund over the years.

At the last accounting period there was around £50 billion more in the fund than needs to be there. Where did the £50 billion come from? It is from the savings that previous governments made by equalising the pension age and from accelerating the change by two years. George Osborne bragged that acceleration alone saved him £60 billion and was the easiest saving he had ever made. Jeremy Hunt gave away £10 billion of that £60 billion in cutting NIC from 12% to 8%. That’s the £50 billion in the NIF.

And if you want to push the pickpocketing claims, pensioners pay tax too. It isn’t as if it stops when we reach 66/67.

Most people don’t receive the equivalent of the full nSP. StatXplore shows that in Aug 2025, when the full New State Pension was £230.25 per week, the average pension paid to someone age 70 was £210.10. Depending on the composition of their pension, they will just have received an SP increase of £10 a week (or less if some of that is a protected payment from SERPS). That’s £8 a week after tax, equivalent to £1.15 a day. It’s hardly a king’s ransom and wouldn’t buy a decent loaf of bread.

I am someone who saw her SP age increase by six years and was badly affected by other changes in the transition from the old to the new state pension system notably changes to SERPS inheritance for young widows. I’m around £75,000 worse of than someone just a few years older than me would be. But I should feel grateful for a rise of £1.15 a day or shouldn’t receive it all???

One reason the triple lock is deemed unaffordable is because the number of pensioners is growing. Currently, more people are reaching SP age each year than the number of pensioners dying, around 700,000 versus 600,000. We are seeing the affect of the post war baby boom but that won’t last forever.

Although the Additional State Pension (SERPS/S2P) isn’t triple locked, one of the reasons the overall cost of the SP is curently so high is because many older pensioners are receiving very large pensions. I have written about this before. At May 2025, over 820,000 people were receiving pensions in excess of £300 per week, some more than £400, a few more than £500. The vast majority are people on the old state pension. As these people die, they will be replaced by younger people receiving much smaller state pensions. This will help balance out the increasing number of pensioners caused by the baby boom.

In the 1980s only 6% of the population had been to university. I know because I was one of the few. I have the Access course to thank for the opportunity. My first ever formal exam was my degree 25 years after I left school.

Doodledog

I don't think there has to be choice between the young and the old. The whole system should be remodelled, so that it is a genuine 'pay in/get out' one, with exceptions for those unable to do so, obviously.

I don't need the system explaining - I do realise that it is the young who are paying our pensions, just as we paid those of the generations before us. It won't be easy, and it will take time, but the whole system needs to be revamped.

Well, it works in other countries.

As long as there is a safety net for pensioners who did not manage to pay in sufficient superannuation contributions for one reason or another.

Oh and this, not that I went, but university education was free.

silverlining48

As we worked and paid for our parents pensions then our children are supposed to do so for us. It was common for most people to have a second or third job as well as their main one. So we worked our arses off too.

The old state pension is still one of the lowest in Western Europe despite the catch up that the triple lock has tried to do.

I worked from 15 to 60 contributing for 45 years and have to struggle on the old state pension which is £200 pm less than the new one. It barely covers council tax and utility bills.
As for boomers having had a pretty good run, I don’t understand what is meant by that.

What I mean is we went into a world of full employment.
Many of us managed to get on the property ladder, that wasn't easy from what I remember, I don't think it ever was, like many we started with very little. We didn't have the nights out and of course the technological age and all the gadgetry was years ahead. We were a generation that missed the wars and awful times our parents and grandparents went through. I look back on my younger life and in hindsight I think I'm luckier than many young people today.

I was just going to say that Allira, we do fall behind with every increase. Maybe they hope we will starve or freeze to death which happened to too many pensioners regularly in pre triple lock winters.

M0nica

Oreo

Also, too old to do any kind of job now there is no prospect of earning more, which younger people will do.

many younger people have no prospect of earning more in the foreseeable future. All they can see ahead is the fear of unemployment

Well, nearly every teenager I know who is still in education ie 6th form at school or FE college seems to have also found some part-time work, which will also stand them in good stead on future CVs. Menial work, yes, but some are being paid more per hour pro rata than the State Pension.
Perhaps they are just the enterprising ones.

Unemployment is down.

M0nica

I have long thought it should go and just be tied to the growth of annual earnings, why should we do better than our children?

Pensioner poverty is a seprate issue best dealt with through ensionCreit, or, as it was more correctly known Minimum Income Guarantee.

How exactly are we doing better than our children?
Even the new State Pension at £241.30 pw is far less than the minimum wage for a 35 hour week, let alone the old State Pension at £184.90 pw.
Those on the old State Pension fall further and further behind with each increase.

I don't think there has to be choice between the young and the old. The whole system should be remodelled, so that it is a genuine 'pay in/get out' one, with exceptions for those unable to do so, obviously.

I don't need the system explaining - I do realise that it is the young who are paying our pensions, just as we paid those of the generations before us. It won't be easy, and it will take time, but the whole system needs to be revamped.

As we worked and paid for our parents pensions then our children are supposed to do so for us. It was common for most people to have a second or third job as well as their main one. So we worked our arses off too.

The old state pension is still one of the lowest in Western Europe despite the catch up that the triple lock has tried to do.

I worked from 15 to 60 contributing for 45 years and have to struggle on the old state pension which is £200 pm less than the new one. It barely covers council tax and utility bills.
As for boomers having had a pretty good run, I don’t understand what is meant by that.

Doodledog

I think it is absolutely unacceptable that people who have worked and paid NI all their working lives should be worse off than those who haven't and are claiming PC.

That is not because I don't care about the poor - anyone who knows me is aware that that is not remotely true - but because the whole welfare system is skewed towards making workers pay for everyone else. That may be ok if you are, or have been, on a decent salary with a decent pension, but if you are struggling by on minimum wage, seeing neighbours not in work getting more than your income in benefits, or working part-time and getting top-ups, and then getting more than you in pension, you must lose faith in the system. On top of that, if you need care in old age you are charged when those who haven't worked get the same care free.

I think that the LP has lost sight of this, and many of their poorer decisions have happened because they are so distanced from actual working people and they have no empathy with them. All too often other people, whether Labour voters or not, also lack that empathy. It is dangerous, as other, less scrupulous parties are very willing to make use of that disaffection and heaven help us all if they succeed.

Absolutely! and why can't they see the absolute unfairness of that situation. So many of the younger people I know are working their a***s off, some with side hustles, not even to stand still sometimes.

I think the triple lock is becoming very unaffordable. Far more needs to be done for the younger generation. Not meaning to generalise but one way and another, us Boomers have had a pretty good run.

They have to find the money to cover the ever growing benefits payments, don't they? Might as well be the poor old pensioners.

mum2three

'Back seat driver'.....describes Blair perfectly. Is he the one still pulling the strings...because Starmer is obviously acting under instructions from a higher authority.
I think perhaps someone in parliament reads Gransnet and is aware of the support the Labour party has from its members and doesn't want to lose it. (I don't include myself in that category as I think Tony Blair is responsible for much of the mess this country is in.)

How can Blair be pulling any strings? What is the 'higher' authority Starmer answers to?
Maybe some Gransnetters are MPs themselves and use the threads to formulate policy on knitting patterns, words games and what to plant in the garden?
This post made me smile like nothing else has today!

Doodledog

I think it is absolutely unacceptable that people who have worked and paid NI all their working lives should be worse off than those who haven't and are claiming PC.

That is not because I don't care about the poor - anyone who knows me is aware that that is not remotely true - but because the whole welfare system is skewed towards making workers pay for everyone else. That may be ok if you are, or have been, on a decent salary with a decent pension, but if you are struggling by on minimum wage, seeing neighbours not in work getting more than your income in benefits, or working part-time and getting top-ups, and then getting more than you in pension, you must lose faith in the system. On top of that, if you need care in old age you are charged when those who haven't worked get the same care free.

I think that the LP has lost sight of this, and many of their poorer decisions have happened because they are so distanced from actual working people and they have no empathy with them. All too often other people, whether Labour voters or not, also lack that empathy. It is dangerous, as other, less scrupulous parties are very willing to make use of that disaffection and heaven help us all if they succeed.

👏👏👏👏👏 Well said Doodledog

I think it is absolutely unacceptable that people who have worked and paid NI all their working lives should be worse off than those who haven't and are claiming PC.

That is not because I don't care about the poor - anyone who knows me is aware that that is not remotely true - but because the whole welfare system is skewed towards making workers pay for everyone else. That may be ok if you are, or have been, on a decent salary with a decent pension, but if you are struggling by on minimum wage, seeing neighbours not in work getting more than your income in benefits, or working part-time and getting top-ups, and then getting more than you in pension, you must lose faith in the system. On top of that, if you need care in old age you are charged when those who haven't worked get the same care free.

I think that the LP has lost sight of this, and many of their poorer decisions have happened because they are so distanced from actual working people and they have no empathy with them. All too often other people, whether Labour voters or not, also lack that empathy. It is dangerous, as other, less scrupulous parties are very willing to make use of that disaffection and heaven help us all if they succeed.

M0nica- 15.35.

Indeed. in the three months to December 2025 there were an estimated 957,000 young people (aged 16 to 24) in the UK who were not in education, employment or training (NEET) representing 12.8% of that age group.

Oreo

Also, too old to do any kind of job now there is no prospect of earning more, which younger people will do.

many younger people have no prospect of earning more in the foreseeable future. All they can see ahead is the fear of unemployment

I agree Monica, there are many pensioners who would be happy without it just an adjustment according to the rise in the cost of living. It cannot be afforded, but we are the ones who vote, alas vote chasing takes precedent over the best options to balance the books

M0nica

Graphite It is currently called triple lock for a reason, the locks are wages, 2.5%band CPI. I would limit it to one lock - wages. The fact that that has been the one used for the last few years is irrelevant. The other 2 locks were still in place but not needed.

The government then has Pension credit at its disposal to deal with any extra pressures put on poorer pensioners if CPI is higher.

But I think it absolutely unacceptable, when young people and families are struggling with rising prices and slower rising wages, that older people should get a free card to get extra money that will need to come ftom the same young people's incomes.

Agree wholeheartedly with everything you say MOnica.

Roll on someone who has the courage to actually do away with the triple lock.

Also, too old to do any kind of job now there is no prospect of earning more, which younger people will do.