Sunak’s Reluctance on Pensions “Triple Lock” and Its Implications for the Conservative Party.

John Deer Jeje Laye
5,407 views 4 mins 0 Comments
Sunak’s Reluctance on Pensions “Triple Lock” and Its Implications for the Conservative Party.

As the UK gears up for an anticipated general election next year, the issue of the pensions triple lock has emerged as a contentious topic within the Conservative Party. Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s recent reluctance to commit to including the triple lock in the party’s election manifesto has raised eyebrows and concerns among some Tory MPs.


  1. Rishi Sunak avoids committing to the pensions triple lock for the upcoming election manifesto, causing unease among Conservative MPs.
  2. The triple lock mandates an annual state pension increase based on inflation, wage growth, or 2.5%, leading to significant budgetary implications.
  3. The Institute for Fiscal Studies warns of the financial strain the triple lock could impose by 2050.
  4. Disagreements emerge within the Conservative Party, with some ministers advocating for a humane approach to benefits.

The triple lock, introduced by the coalition government in 2010, mandates that the state pension be increased annually by the higher of three metrics: inflation, wage growth, or a flat 2.5%. This mechanism has consistently ensured that retirees’ earnings grow at a faster rate than the salaries of those still in the workforce. However, the financial implications of this policy are becoming increasingly evident. A significant surge in wages means that the Treasury is now faced with the prospect of budgeting for a substantial 8% increase in the state pension next year. This follows a 10.1% hike this year, driven by robust inflation.

Sunak’s hesitancy to commit to the triple lock for the upcoming election is causing unease within the Conservative Party. Some MPs fear that not committing to this policy could risk alienating a significant portion of their voter base, particularly the elderly. When questioned about the triple lock during the G20 conference in New Delhi, Sunak stated, “We’re not going to speculate on the election manifesto now.” He further added that while the triple lock has been the government’s policy for some time, he has much work to do before the election.

The financial implications of the triple lock are not lost on economic think tanks. The Institute for Fiscal Studies recently highlighted that the policy could increase the government’s welfare expenditure by a staggering £45 billion annually by 2050. Such a financial burden could exert “insurmountable pressure” on officials, potentially leading to an increase in the minimum retirement age for both genders.

Sunak’s stance contrasts sharply with that of Mel Stride, the work and pensions secretary. Stride had previously asserted in June that the triple lock would “almost certainly” feature in the Conservative Party’s forthcoming manifesto. This divergence in views underscores the internal debates and disagreements within the party regarding the future of the triple lock.

Further complicating the matter are considerations to reduce working-age welfare benefits in real terms before the election. Such a move would provide Chancellor Jeremy Hunt with some fiscal flexibility, potentially paving the way for tax cuts. This comes at a time when the Tories are keen on retaining their parliamentary majority.

Justice Secretary Alex Chalk weighed in on the debate, emphasizing the need for a compassionate approach to benefits. Speaking to Sky News, he stated, “We must do everything we can for the most disadvantaged in society.” Chalk’s comments hint at potential rifts within the Conservative Party, with different ministers advocating varied approaches to welfare and benefits.

In conclusion, the pensions triple lock has emerged as a political hot potato for the Conservative Party. As the general election looms, the party will need to navigate this issue carefully, balancing fiscal responsibility with the needs and expectations of their voter base. The coming months will be crucial in determining the direction the party chooses to take on this matter.