Tony Blair Institute urges Labour to scrap State Pension Triple Lock
Tony Blair’s thinktank has urged Labour to scrap the state pension triple lock, saying the policy cannot continue after the next election. Thomas Smith, the Tony Blair Institute’s director of economic policy, said Britain’s state pension system was built for a different era.
The institute said the manifesto pledge to keep the triple lock was unaffordable. Under the policy, basic and new state pensions rise every April by whichever is highest: inflation, average wage growth or 2.5%.
Thomas Smith and Rachel Reeves
Smith said in the report: “Britain’s state pension system was built for a different era.” He also said: “We can’t keep pouring money into a system that is increasingly unaffordable.” In comments to, he said: “Pension spending must be contained and that means the triple lock cannot continue after the next election.”
Rachel Reeves has taken the opposite line. Last month, speaking to on the sidelines of the International Monetary Fund spring meetings in Washington, she said: “We made a commitment in our manifesto to the triple lock and we’re not changing that.” She also said difficult choices would be needed to fund energy support for households and increased defence spending.
George Osborne’s 2010 policy
George Osborne introduced the triple lock in 2010 under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. The Tony Blair Institute said the policy had added billions of pounds to annual government spending in recent years, as inflation shocks from the Covid pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine pushed uprating higher.
The thinktank said Britain’s ageing population was driving the pressure further. It said the number of pensioners was expected to rise from 12.6 million now to almost 19 million by 2070.
Pensions spending by 2070
On the institute’s numbers, state spending on pensions would rise from 5% of gross domestic product to 7.8% on current policy, an increase that would amount to an extra £85bn a year in today’s money. The institute said a new lifespan fund could replace the basic and new state pensions, pushing the argument into the next election campaign and the spending decisions that follow it.
