The chamber chose protection over retrenchment. No won, with 330 votes to Yes’s 253, and the arguments attracting the most respect were not evasive about the pressure on the public finances so much as unwilling to make pensions the first sacrifice.
The floor’s most-respected No case put the principle bluntly: “The triple lock is there to protect against inflation.” Another argued that “Balancing the books on the backs of retirees every time global markets wobble is wrong”, framing the issue as a question of trust and the state pension’s low starting point rather than a response to one bout of expensive borrowing.
Yes had a more developed fiscal critique than the result might suggest. Its strongest argument called the policy “a fiscally unsustainable policy that depends on whichever of three volatile measures might spike in any one year”, while another warned that “Young people will be paying directly for young people’s pension increases”. But the two sides largely talked past each other: Yes argued affordability, ageing and intergenerational burden; No answered with adequacy, promises already made and the fear that “Find the billions in hotels, standing aid and schemes” should come before touching the pension.
The debate also resisted a simple defence of every aspect of the lock. Several No voters wanted better-off pensioners to pay more tax or lose eligibility, while Yes voices proposed inflation-only or smoothed earnings links and means-tested support. That leaves the chamber opposed less to reform in principle than to the idea that a squeeze prompted by bond markets should begin with the universal pension floor.
The room’s verdict was a refusal to turn a fiscal shock into a pensioner penalty — and a demand that any replacement first answer the question of what a decent old age is worth.
46 Opinions
The triple lock is mathematically unsustainable, it will be scrapped eventually the only question is whether its by will or by force
It was a pledge and UK state Pensions are quite low compared to other countries. There is an argument to be had at the next election but until then stick with the pledge
Retired people have spent a lifetime contributing. This is not a generous gesture by the government. This is the pensioners’ money. If we need to tighten our belts, stop giving our money to foreigners.
It is vital to correct generational unfairness, but not by attacking the poorest. The State Pension is very low and we should be looking to improve it over the long term. But older people with comfortable incomes should pay higher rates of tax.
UK Pensions are among the lowest in Europe- this is what the triple lock was for. The current rhetoric about pensions, PIP, benefits in general is a distraction from the growing inequality in the UK, the handing of subsidies to businesses, the rampages of private equity & privatisation, and the failure of HRMC to collect billions in tax. The pension is not why we are broke, it because profit is taken out of the country by tax avoiders and foreign buy outs of our assets.
I'm a pensioner and even I think the triple lock is now excessive. Increase pensions purely in line with average public sector pay rises. And only after other elements of the Welfare state have been similarly impacted by taking a cut. As taxes increase then those on welfare must also take some pain.
Keep the triple lock, the UK still has the lowest pensions in Europe. There will always be elderly people, and the older you get, the more help you need, as well as a good quality of life, not a luxurious one, I'm sure some think that all elderly live in the lap of luxury, Many have lived hand to mouth bringing up a family, working all hours. Stopping it won't help, the cost of a care home will cost far more than keeping the triple lock. Pensioners do pay tax.
Sorry guys. But we have to be realistic we have an aging population we just can't afford to keep it. Just like all benefits state pension should be means tested. Then those that do qualify could actually get a bit more.
The triple lock should be scrapped, not because of the "recent surge in bond yields" but because it's a fiscally unsustainable policy that depends on whichever of three volatile measures might spike in any one year. This has meant that pensioner incomes have grown three times faster than average earnings over the last two decades. A better alternative would be a "smoothed earnings" link which would track earnings but give some protection against inflation shocks.
Definitely freeze for at least 5 years but should be coupled with foreign claims on our welfare state to be banned completely. All benefits should be looked at especially those on more than 30 grand ,cut theirs!