Good morning. One sure sign that an election is on the way is that pensions increasingly become a topic of political conversation. At the weekend Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, said that keeping the pension triple lock would be in the Conservative partyâs manifesto. At the liaison committee yesterday the Tory MP Stephen Crabb asked Rishi Sunak to confirm that he wanted to keep it in place for the whole of the next parliament. Struggling to suppress his belief that this was a daft question, because the answer was obvious, Sunak replied that it was safe for Crabb to assume that the answer was yes.
The triple lock is a pledge to increase the value of the annual state pension every year in line with earnings, inflation, or by 2.5% â whichever is higher. Introduced by the coaliton government, it is designed to ensure that pensioners never start falling behind other groups in terms of living standards. Over the last decade it has helped pensioners considerably, and you can see why Sunak wants it in the manifesto. But it does not come cheap.
Today the i points out that Sunak cannot make this promise without inviting awkward questions about when the age at which people can start getting the state pension will rise from 66 (the current age) to 68. It is going up to 67 later this decade, and is currently due to rise to 68 in the 2040s. Last year a report said the government should bring forward the rise to 68 by three years, but Mel Stride, the work and pensions secretary, announced he was postponing the decision until the next parliament.
In her i story, Alexa Phillips quotes two of the Conservative partyâs best experts on pensions as saying that keeping the triple lock in place for another five years could mean the rise in the state pension age to 68 having to happen earlier. David Willetts, a former minister who is now president of the Resolution Foundation thinktank, told the i that the coalition government was only able to afford the triple lock because the state pension age was going up. He said:
The argument was, if we speed up the increase in the pension age, there will be fewer pensioners, and weâll be able to pay them a higher pension.
That was the trade-off on which the triple lock rested when it was first introduced, and it is a reminder that somehow or other these pledges have to be paid for, even with unpalatable measures like that which have come back and proved to be very controversial.
And David Gauke, a former work and pensions secretary, told the i that Sunakâs promise would mean the government having to revist the state pension age decision. He said:
The triple lock proved to be more expensive in practice than was anticipated when the policy was first announced, just because of the way in which the economy operated after 2010. It did more to increase the value of the state pension than anyone had thought was likely.
Ultimately, governments are going to have to take into account the wider fiscal situation. If you prioritise the increase in the state pension, then one way you can address that is by looking at the age in which it comes into play.
Why is this so salient as an election issue? Because pensioners are far more likely to vote than other age groups. This chart, from a British Election Study report, illustrates this, with turnout figures for the last three general elections, by age group.
The Commons is in recess, and it looks as if it may be a quiet day at Westminster. Here are some of the things in the diary.
Morning: The Environment Agency publishes sewage discharge figures.
Morning: Angela Rayner, Labourâs deputy leader, meets mayors and mayoral candidates in the west Midlands.
Afternoon: Peers debate the second reading of the leasehold and freehold reform bill.
If you want to contact me, do use the âsend us a messageâ feature. Youâll see it just below the byline â on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a laptop or a desktop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos â no mistake is too small to correct). Often I find your questions very interesting, too. I canât promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either in the comments below the line; privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate); or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.
