- Triple lock: Lib Dems launching new attack ad following Badenoch’s plans to cut the state pension
- Badenoch’s triple lock comments: Lib Dems launch new poster van attack ad outside CCHQ
- ONS health data: “sickening” research damning for government’s lack of action
- McArthur responds to Polmont FAI determination
- Lib Dems call on new Welsh Conservative Leader to disown Badenoch’s plans to cut state pension
Triple lock: Lib Dems launching new attack ad following Badenoch’s plans to cut the state pension
The Liberal Democrats will be launching a new attack ad following Kemi Badenoch’s comments yesterday that she will consider means testing the triple lock.
The ad will highlight Kemi Badenoch’s three major announcements so far, cutting maternity pay which she described as ‘excessive’, slashing the state pension and putting UK interests at risk by sucking up to Elon Musk and Donald Trump.
A Liberal Democrat source said:
First Kemi Badenoch came for the mothers and now she has set her sights on the grandmothers.
Millions of pensioners felt betrayed by Labour’s cut to the Winter Fuel Payment, now it’s clear their pensions wouldn’t be safe with the Conservatives.
We will be reminding pensioners at every opportunity that Kemi Badenoch wants to take an axe to the triple lock.
Badenoch’s triple lock comments: Lib Dems launch new poster van attack ad outside CCHQ
The Liberal Democrats have today launched a new attack ad with a poster van outside CCHQ after Conservative Leader Kemi Badenoch said that she would look at means testing the triple lock.
The Liberal Democrats have said Badenoch’s comments will “send a shiver down the spine of pensioners” and that the Conservatives “want to come after their state pension”.
The poster pictures Kemi Badenoch and an elderly woman with the warning: “don’t let the Conservatives wreck your pension”.
Liberal Democrat Care and Carers spokesperson Alison Bennett MP, who launched the poster van outside CCHQ today, said:
Kemi Badenoch’s comments will have sent a shiver down the spine of millions of pensioners across the country.
Older people have already seen Winter Fuel Payments ripped away by the Labour government and now the Conservatives want to come after their state pension.
The Liberal Democrats are proud we introduced the triple lock to protect people’s pensions. We will fight to protect pensioners from Conservative attempts to scrap it every step of the way.
ONS health data: “sickening” research damning for government’s lack of action
Responding to ONS findings that have found that the risk of dying within 30 days of leaving A&E in England is likely to be more than twice as high for someone whose visit lasted 12 hours, compared to someone who was there for just two hours, Liberal Democrat Health and Social Care spokesperson Helen Morgan MP said:
It is sickening to think that thousands of deaths could have been avoided every year. This has caused untold devastation for families as they try to cope with their unimaginable loss.
The winter crisis that we are enduring could not be a more stark reminder of the unforgivable legacy that the Conservative government left behind.
The new government has so far shown a shocking lack of action in rescuing emergency care. They failed to prepare for this winter crisis and patients are paying the price.
Instead of putting forward a plan to winter proof the NHS, as the Liberal Democrats have been saying for months, Ministers sat on their hands and let this situation develop.
McArthur responds to Polmont FAI determination
Responding to the determination of a fatal accident inquiry into the deaths of Katie Allan and William Brown at Polmont Young Offenders Institution in 2018, which found that their deaths could have been avoided but for a ‘catalogue for failures’ in the system, Scottish Liberal Democrat justice spokesperson Liam McArthur MSP said:
Today, I want to pay tribute to the families of Katie Allan and William Brown. In the most difficult of circumstances, they have been resolute in ensuring these tragic cases receive the scrutiny they deserve.
They have had to wait far too long for this day. The length of time taken to complete fatal accident inquiries only adds to the anguish of families and prevents lessons from being learned at an earlier stage. That certainly seems to be the case in these instances.
Now that we have these reports, the Scottish Government must ensure that the sheriff’s recommendations are fully and properly implemented, including making cells safer and improving coordination between health and justice agencies.
More widely, we also need to see reform of the fatal accident inquiry system that ensures inquiries begin and results are presented in a more timely fashion.
Lib Dems call on new Welsh Conservative Leader to disown Badenoch’s plans to cut state pension
The Welsh Liberal Democrats have called on the new Leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Darren Millar to disown plans by UK Conservative Party Leader Kemi Badenoch to cut the state pension.
Conservative Leader Kemi Badenoch said yesterday that she would look at means testing the triple lock, meaning some pensioners would lose out on the annual automatic up-rating of the state pension.
Welsh Liberal Democrat MP for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe David Chadwick said that Badenoch’s plans would send a “shiver down the spine” of Welsh pensioners.
It follows on comments from Badenoch’s Shadow Chancellor, Mel Stride, made in December in which he said that maintaining the triple lock was “unsustainable”.
The triple lock was introduced by the Liberal Democrats in government to protect the state pension, by ensuring it increases each year by at least 2.5%, or in line with average wage increases or inflation if they are higher.
Brecon Radnor and Cwm Tawe’s Lib Dem MP has called on Conservative Senedd Members and the new Welsh Conservative Leader Darran Millar to distance themselves from both the Conservative Leader and Shadow Chancellor’s remarks and make clear they support the triple lock in full.
The Welsh Liberal Democrats have also criticised the appointment of the Labour MP for Swansea West Torsten Bell as the new Pensions Minister, highlighting that he has previously also called for the triple lock to be scrapped and advocated a sharp cut in the amount people can take out of their retirement pots tax-free from its current £268,275 to just £40,000.
Commenting, David Chadwick MP said:
Kemi Badenoch’s comments will send a shiver down the spine of pensioners here in Wales.
Tens of thousands of older people rely on the triple lock to get a decent increase in the state pension each year. After being hammered by years of the Conservatives’ economic vandalism and the new Labour government’s decision to cut the Winter Fuel Payment, this support is needed now more than ever.
Conservative Senedd Members and councillors need to distance themselves from the remarks of their party leader and commit to keeping the triple lock in full. Anything less from Darran Millar would show a complete disregard for local pensioners.
The Liberal Democrats are proud we introduced the triple lock and will fight tooth and nail against Conservative attempts to weaken it.
32 Comments
Sadly a cast iron commitment to the “triple lock” is not helpful. The way the triple lock is constructed – providing an increase which is the highest of the increase in prices, the increase in wages or 2.5% means that over time the “triple lock” would consume an ever higher proportion of GDP eventually exceeding 100%. So it is unsustainable unless it is combined with a new policy such as a constant upward ratchet of the age at which people become eligible for old age pensions or means testing the old age pension. Means testing the old age pension would destroy the universal payment principle introduced by Asquith and Lloyd George which would be very sad but not unthinkable. However means testing the old age pension would also undo Steve Webb’s pension reforms which were aimed at ensuring that it would always be worthwhile for people to save towards their old age. Like the now long abandoned tax relief on mortgage interest payments sooner or later the triple-lock will be abandoned. Pretending the triple lock is sacrosanct further destroys trust in the political class and ultimately plays into the hands of demagogues like Trump and Farage.
I agree with Richard, and I wish we would find something different to attack the Tories on here. Kemi Badenoch has said lots of pretty awful things in other areas but it looks to me like, on the triple lock, she’s being refreshingly honest about the need to abandon a policy that is expensive and fundamentally unfair to all those younger people who have to pay for it. Means testing the triple lock has disadvantages but could be an interesting way of making our pensions bill more sustainable while protecting less well off pensioners.
This issue really needs a more constructive public discourse. If whenever anyone (sensibly) questions the triple lock, we just take the populist line of crying scandal and making out that the triple lock is sacrosanct, we just make it harder for any Government to reform something that really needs reform.
Seems to me that the statements we’ve seen recently from LibDem MPs are desires for more spending on things, with no idea where the money would come from .
Save the triple lock
Pay the WASPI women
scrap the 2 child benefit cap
reinstate the WFA
More resources for the NHS.
Fix the sewage in our rivers
Mend the potholes
…
…
and a pony.
I also agree with Richard.
There is some logic in two parts of the triple, namely raising pensions by the greater of inflation or the increase in average earnings. Since average earnings normally rise by more than inflation, it stops pensioners getting poorer relative to the rest of the population.
Keeping pace with inflation during periods of wage stagnation has some justification, since unlike workers pensioners cannot do things like changing their employer, upskilling, etc.
However there is no logic whatsoever to the third component, the arbitrary 2.5%. If wages are stagnant and the price leve is static (no inflation), why on earth should pensions rise by 2.5%?
As Liberal Democrats we should put forward sensible policies, not play to the gallery.
Surely the real problem with affordability of the state pension is the increasing number of pensioners and the worsening ratio of pension-age vs working people?
Even if we revert to a single lock tracking inflation only, the cost of the state pension will still continue to consume a greater proportion of Government spending, unless something else changes.
We either accept this (including the need for younger people to pay higher taxes to fund it), or do something different.
It is possible to maintain a single lock based on indexing to average income provided you adjust the retirement age to maintain the ratio of pensioners to working age people.
@ Peter Davies, you write, “It is possible to maintain a single lock based on indexing to average income provided you adjust the retirement age to maintain the ratio of pensioners to working age people”.
Have you considered that this introduces a ‘Waspi Women’ situation on a more widespread basis ?
I seem to remember, the reason for the triple lock was about restoring the relative level of pensions buying power. So the question is really, has the triple lock achieved its intent of restoring real terms pensions or is there still some way to go.
Once we can answer this, we can determine what an affordable rate of increase might be.
@David Raw. As I understand it, the only parts of the WASPI women’s claim that stood up were to do with cliff edges and governments giving misleading information.
A regular program increasing the retirement age by enough to keep pace with demographics would allow retirement age to be predicted well in advance. The government could freeze the schedule perhaps two years in advance to allow exact planning.
It’s not ‘playing to the gallery’ to reassure people who, having already lost the winter fuel allowance, are yet again hearing: “We can’t afford you and will be coming for you with more cuts.”
People who are often ‘just about managing, don’t qualify for benefits’ and are seriously worried by such talk.
Again. And again. Every few months when someone ignites the ‘we can’t afford the triple lock’ subject. Again.
Japan seems to be finding ways to deal with the ‘too many old people’ issue, Sweden seems to have dealt with it. Why can’t ‘we’ come up with something positive, instead of always talking about taking things away?
@Cassie
“Every few months when someone ignites the ‘we can’t afford the triple lock’ subject. ”
That’s because the policy is expensive and funding it takes a significant and increasing share of public resources. Other demands on these resources include:
Supporting Ukraine and shoring up security in a world there the US cannot be relied on to underwrite Europe any more
Getting to Net Zero
More NHS
Getting kids educated better
Getting the sewerage out of rivers and the sea
and so on and so on ad nauseum, all in a country without meaningful growth (and given environmental constraints growth may not be that desirable anyway).
Something has to give….the electorate can’t have what it can’t (or won’t) pay for, and now the subsidy from North Sea oil has run out economic reality has reasserted itself.
And yes the ultra rich need to pay a bit more but that would raise peanuts compared the amounts required.
I notice the ‘candle ends’ Gladstonian monetarists are saying “we can’t afford it again”.
A question for Tristan Ward : if you had been a Liberal M.P. in 1948 would you have voted against Nye Bevan’s NHS and the Beveridge proposals on the grounds of cost given the state of the UK economy at the time ?
Hi Tristran,
We all need to remember that the triple lock was introduced in the coalition in response to the fact that the UK state pension was just about the lowest in the developed world in real terms and in comparison to average earnings. This was due to the fact that for decades governments had only authorised very low increases (RPI and then CPI iirc) on what was a very low base. As a consequence there were high levels of pensioner poverty offset to a limited extent by the uptake of means tested benefits. Thus people who had contributed all their working life were not getting anything like the rewards in retirement that the growth in the economy that their efforts had helped create, when compared to those in work.
The aim was over time to steadily reduce this imbalance and ultimately move to a situation where special benefits for pensioners would not be needed. This would have the additional benefit of removing the waste of time, effort and cost needed to run yet another bureaucracy managing the hugely complex system of income and savings related means tests, an leave dealing with the equity of the situation to the income tax system.
It was working in all these aims, and if it were not for the incompetence of the Labour government with its ill thought out and once again massively complex Winter Fuel Payments changes would have been steadily moving the achievement of those savings ever closer.
As a aside Tristan, I agree totally with you that as a nation we have to come to terms with the fact that we (or more correctly successive governments) have been overpaying us, and if we want potholes mending they have to be paid for. The magic money tree is not only dead, but has been chopped up and used for firewood.
However, to me beating up the pensioners once again is not the way to do it.
David
P.S. Apologies for mis-spelling your name in my former post.
@David Evans
Hello David. Everything you say about the triple lock is of course pretty well on the button. It’s another of those Lib Dem coalition success too often over-looked.
My response to Cassie was really to expand on the magic money tree point previously made by others. More generally, – it does seem odd that almost everything we hear from the party is how to spend/redistribute money rather than how to generate wealth. And I find that doubly odd where the state will not be able to spend the money needed (on pensioners as well as other things) unless wealth is generated and when the stated aim of the party is to replace the Conservatives as the official opposition.
In that context I find the idea that GOVERNMENTS have been [over]PAYING us strange. It implies that the citizen is there only to serve government’s ends, in a quasi-employee relationship with the state. Is that really what you meant? Or perhaps there was an unwritten thought that everyone is entitled to an income from the state (UBI anyone?)
We do (I think) agree that the nation has been living beyond its means!
@Cassie – Japan can only be viewed as dealing with the issue if you regard running up massive Government debt of over 260% of GDP as a solution – by far the highest of any developed nation (UK is just over 100%).
Hi Tristan,
Thanks for the reply. Based on what you have said, I think we are in general agreement but there are a couple of points which would benefit from some clarification.
My point of saying “we (or more correctly successive governments) have been overpaying us,” which you refer to, is not using paying as in the employment context, but instead overpaying as in the sense of payment in the wider sense of any transfer of money or even providing services at unsustainably high levels or low cost.
Thus it can easily be shown that the government has been “paying too much to us” in many ways for several decades whether by
1) using one off income from North Sea Oil revenues to reduce tax levels (Thatcher),
2) sale/giveaway of assets of assets e.g. British Gas privatisiation (Again Thatcher)
3) funding capital improvements by PFI to spread the cost over decades (Blair), or
4) Selling off Magistrates Courts (Cameron, May, Johnson)
5) Massive unfunded Covid giveaways (Johnson/Sunak)
6) Failure to maintain properly (Potholes, Hospitals, Concrete Bridges, Jails etc)
I hope this helps.
The one bit of yours which is not clear to me is the relevance of our aim (which is a tough one) to replace the Cons as the second party to the economic situation and the need for growth. If you could clarify, it would be appreciated.
I am well aware there is no ‘magic money tree’. All I am saying is it would be nice if just-about-managing pensioners weren’t made to worry, every couple of months, about something that so far hasn’t happened.
It also makes a large group of people feel they are regarded as no more than an expensive nuisance.
So maybe some positive discussion about reform, not just ‘end the triple lock’; and talking like 2.5% – roughly an extra £5 a week – is the lap of luxury..
@ Cassie Well done, Cassie. I completely agree with you that, “It makes a large group of people feel they are regarded as no more than an expensive nuisance”.
If I happened to be, let’s say for example, a retired partner in Price Waterhouse Cooper, or let’s say a solicitor practising in the leafy Home County of Kent, I think I might be a tad more reticent in expressing the sort of attitudes you have objected to.
@Cassie: Why do you feel that talk about ending the triple lock should make pensioners worry? Ending the triple lock doesn’t mean anything silly or mean like ending or reducing pensions. It simply means that we end the system by which pensions almost inevitably keep growing in real value beyond either the economy or our means to pay them, and instead move to a system in which the value of pensions is maintained over time. That doesn’t seem to me like something to worry about.
Hi Simon (R), I do have difficulty in understanding how you can make such a post and justify it by the one reason, “That doesn’t seem to me like something to worry about”. Firstly, and as I explained above to Tristan, there are many good Lib Dem reasons for increasing it in real terms including improving equity between those earning and those retired, removing the need for top up benefits, with the huge waste of resources in managing means testing and so on.
Secondly however, I am even more worried about the implication in your comment that you can’t see any reason for worry.
Perhaps you could let us know how you would react, if when walking home at night along with your elderly friends alongside someone younger and stronger who had portrayed himself as your friend and supporter, you were mugged and had some of your money stolen by a colleague of your so called younger and stronger friend, because they were a bit short of cash – Not once, but twice within a period of a few months. Also how would you react if someone else, who had also said they were your friend, and had asked you to support them, then suggested they would also mug you/refuse to pay some monies that they had agreed in the past you should get to make things a bit fairer in your older years, because they were going to be a bit short of cash as well.
@David Evans: Are you seriously trying to compare maintaining the level of the pension at its current level in real terms (which is what would be implied by scrapping the triple lock) with mugging someone?
@SimonR. If UK pensions provided anything like a decent pension, instead of providing almost the lowest pension in Europe, then your comments might, possibly, bear thinking about. Since that is not the case, the triple lock is very very slowly starting to raise pensions, but only in those years when inflation is less than 2.5%. Otherwise the pension is only being raised by the highest of wage or price inflation.
Your comments about affordability are nonsense. A wealthy economy like the UKs could afford to pay much higher pensions than it does, paid for in part by no longer needing pension top ups (Like WFA or council tax allowance) and supplementary pensions. Instead of cutting NICs, the government could increase them and use the money to pay for pensions at a level that would stop pensioner poverty
Three cheers for a proper Liberal, Dr Mick Taylor. Well said, Mick.
Hi Simon R, I fear you may have failed to notice my use of hyperbole as a well known means to draw attention to fundamental problems in a friend/colleague’s argument, and instead you have chosen to take it literally.
If believe that if you reconsider my post in that light you will perhaps begin to understand that why “That doesn’t seem to me …” can never be an argument winner for Lib Dems who believe every individual matters. Nor can it be justified that repeated targeting of one particular group (in this case elderly people) in quick succession by Labour (none of which was mentioned by them in the run up to the election) is in anyway an acceptable way of running a country, especially when a third proposal targetting that group begins to be raised by people like yourself (and was promoted by Kier Starmer’s latest appointment as Pensions Minister in a previous job), with what can best be described as a glib throw away line “Why do you feel that talk about ending the triple lock should make pensioners worry?”
@Mick: Check out this House of Commons research briefing that compares pensions across the World. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn00290/. It makes it clear that UK pensioners receive fairly similar amounts to what is typical in the developed world. People often claim that UK pensioners receive much less than other countries but that is simply not true. Comparisons are complicated by that the UK system relies much more on personal and occupational pensions than most other countries – so if you look only at the state pension, you don’t get the full picture. They are also complicated by that we have a flat rate (new) state pension that aims to pay the same to everyone, whereas many countries have a state pension that pays a % of final salary. In my experience that leads to a lot of misleading memes around online that compare our flat rate with the absolute highest rate that a tiny minority of the highest earners in other countries receive, using that false comparison to make out that UK pensioners are unfairly treated.
Can we afford to pay more? In 2023-4, the state pension made up 11.3% of Government expenditure (and remember, that’s only a portion of pensioners’ income due to personal/occupational pensions contributing too). What proportion of Government expenditure do you think we should spend on pensions (which is therefore not available to spend on anything else?) And what other Government expenditure would you cut to pay for it?
Thanks Simon R for your link – but the picture it presents is quite complicated. UK state pensions are substantially below the OECD average, but UK personal and occupational pensions are higher. This doesn’t exactly compensate. It leaves poorer pensioners worse off, while those with good occupational pensions (like myself) are much more comfortably off. As you point out, the fact that the UK state pension pays a flat rate, rather than a salary-linked rate, may somewhat ameliorate the UK’s greater pension inequality.
The big point nobody has yet mentioned, however, is that Badenoch has abandoned – or at least, placed limits on – the long-standing Tory policy of favouring their older-generation voters at the expense of the younger generations who don’t vote Tory. Just for once, it seems to me that Badenoch’s policy shift in this case deserves respect. For years, the Opposition parties have regularly complained that Tory austerity policies have hit benefits for the poor and disabled while leaving pensioner benefits sacrosanct. Now that Badenoch has moved away from that position, the Opposition parties should not simply carry on slinging more mud at the Tories.
Few politicians truly reject the magic money tree when it comes to their own policy planning. Certainly the Lib Dems aren’t doing so. One cautious cheer to the Tories for shying away from it.
I think David Allen has cracked it with his analysis of the HoC Research Briefing and how relying on headline average figures of total pensions rather than state pensions can lead to a totally inaccurate assessment of the situation. Sadly, it seems that this is what Simon R has done.
My concern, as I have referred to in many posts, is the “Not quite poor enough” those who don’t quite qualify for means tested benefits. These are the ones that Kier Starmer, Rachael Reeves, Kemi Badenogh and sadly Simon R’s proposals hit the hardest. I hope he will change his view.
Yes, comparing pensions across countries is complicated due to all the different systems. But I don’t see it as a bad thing that we rely on occupational/private pensions. The UK system is broadly that the Government provides a fixed flat pension designed to give every pensioner a basic standard of living, and if anyone thinks they’ll want a bigger pension then they are free to additionally contribute to an occupational/etc. scheme while they are working, sacrificing some income now for more income when retired. That seems to me in accord with liberal principles of letting people choose how to arrange their lives.
Other countries have chosen to have state pensions that work more like final salary schemes, incorporating both a basic rate and a higher rate for some pensioners based on things like their working salary – thereby covering what in the UK would be the responsibility of non-state schemes. That means in those countries the state pays more in total (making it easy for people to pick out just the state pension spending and accuse the UK of being mean for spending less) but that extra spending is largely spent on perpetuating income inequality by paying some pensioners more than others. Is that really a better way to do it than the UK?
Simon R is correct when he writes “if anyone thinks they’ll want a bigger pension then they are free to additionally contribute to an occupational/etc. scheme while they are working, sacrificing some income now for more income when retired. That seems to me in accord with liberal principles of letting people choose how to arrange their lives”. However it does not give full credit to the Steve Webb reforms. Under “auto-enrolment” all employees have to be enrolled in a pension scheme with a minimum contribution level of 8% of earnings [of which the employer has to pay 3/8ths]. So that is a pretty hefty nudge in the direction of pension savings. In fact we could rewrite Simon R’s statement to say “if any employee thinks that they will not want a bigger pension than the flat state pension they are free to opt out of their occupational pension scheme”. In practice the proportion of employees who choose to leave the scheme is about 1 in 10. So when we are thinking about future pensioner living standards we should for the majority of the UK’s population think about the combined effect of the state flat rate pension and an occupational pension. I know this is not a complete answer – for example it does not address self-employment or people who have a medical condition which prevents their working but thanks to Steve Webb’s reforms it does cover a good chunk of the population.
The UK state pension scheme is based on contributions by individuals throughout their working lives. That’s what NICs were established to do. The Tories cut NICs for individuals, thus ensuring there was less money to pay for the paltry pensions the state provides. Now Labour, instead of arguing for higher pensions and asking people to pay more to receive them, have taxed employers more in NICs, thus p[otentially causing more problems for business.
So, SimonR, saying that we can’t afford higher pensions is of course a nonsense. We need politicians to stop attacking tax as some kind of evil and constantly promising to reduce it and instead recognise in the words of JK Galbraith ‘that taxes are the price we pay for a civilised society’.
Higher pensions are possible if we pay for them. After all, I have a good occupational pension BECAUSE I PAID FOR IT, as did my employers. So we should be demanding higher pensions for all paid for by raising more when people are working.
“We need politicians to stop attacking tax as some kind of evil and constantly promising to reduce it and instead recognise in the words of JK Galbraith ‘that taxes are the price we pay for a civilised society’.”
Seconded