Tom Selby, director of public policy at AJ Bell, highlights the strong public backing behind the state pension triple-lock, while pointing to the growing political and fiscal tensions surrounding its future.
Tom Selby, director of public policy at AJ Bell, comments:
“Politicians of all stripes remain steadfastly wedded to the state pension triple-lock, despite growing criticism of the cost of the pledge and the potential intergenerational unfairness it is baking into the system. Given the obvious challenges facing public finances, any other policy which had added £12 billion to Exchequer costs and which, by its nature, creates huge uncertainty over future costs would be under real scrutiny. However, Reform UK has become the latest party to commit to retaining the triple-lock if it wins the next election, while the government has said the policy will remain untouched for the rest of this Parliament.
“The reason is almost certainly cold political calculus. A significant section of the public support the triple-lock, particularly older voters, and any party indicating it will not pledge allegiance to the policy risks being annihilated at the general election. With inflation running hot, there may also be a feeling that the 2.5% underpin might not kick in for a while, meaning there are no guarantees ditching this element in favour of a ‘double-lock’ will actually save any money in the short term.
“Despite 4-in-10 Brits supporting making the triple-lock permanent, this is highly unlikely to be pursued by any government. The natural long-term result of such a move would be that, eventually, the state pension would reach and then exceed average earnings in the UK – an outcome that would clearly not be affordable for any government. The fact young people are much less in favour of the triple-lock than their older counterparts may reflect the reality that the longer it is in place, the more likely the state pension age will need to rise further and faster than under current plans.
“In order to set a path for the triple-lock to eventually be retired, this trade-off needs to be clearly explained to the electorate. Assuming the Treasury does not want spending as a share of GDP on state pensions to continue ballooning – squeezing the ability to spend elsewhere or reduce the tax burden on the working population – there are two main levers available to control costs: the amount people receive from the state in retirement and the age at which they receive it. If you can’t pull the ‘amount’ lever, then the only option left is the age – a shift that would only impact younger generations.
“The starting point needs to be setting out what the triple-lock is aiming to achieve and establishing a path to reach that goal. At that point, the promise can be shifted to either a single or double-lock to earnings and/or inflation, with a strong argument for smoothing out these measures over time to avoid the unpredictable spikes we have seen in recent years. This would at least provide a degree of stability, giving people a better idea of what the state will provide and from when, and what they need to build up for themselves to fund the retirement they want. But that first step of acknowledging the triple-lock simply cannot exist forever may be the hardest.”
*Based on a nationally representative survey of 2,000 UK adults carried out online by Opinium on behalf of AJ Bell between 20 and 24 March 2026.
How the triple-lock has pushed up the cost of the state pension
