At conference this weekend, there was a rare – and welcome – moment of controversy in the hall.
During Ed Davey’s Q&A, journalist Carolyn Quinn asked for a show of hands. Should the Liberal Democrats continue supporting the triple lock pension?
It was close. The triple lock survived the straw poll, but only narrowly.
For a party which proudly introduced the triple lock, that tells us something. There is an appetite among Liberal Democrats for a serious conversation about intergenerational fairness.
We should have it.
The triple lock was the right policy for its time. When Liberal Democrats entered government in 2010, too many pensioners had seen the value of the state pension eroded over decades. Linking annual increases to whichever was highest – earnings, inflation or 2.5% – was rooted in a liberal instinct. Giving people dignity and security in retirement.
It worked.
The question is whether a mechanism designed for Britain in 2010 should continue indefinitely, irrespective of how Britain changes.
Today the state spends around £154 billion a year on the state pension. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that this is now £16 billion higher annually than it would have been without the triple lock. Looking towards 2050, it estimates the additional annual cost of maintaining the lock could plausibly be as high as £40 billion.
That is not an argument for impoverishing pensioners. Nor should we succumb to lazy generational warfare which portrays pensioners as universally wealthy. It is an argument for asking where state support can best deliver fairness in Britain today. I believe the answer is children and families.
The triple lock has achieved something important. It has deliberately increased the state pension faster than earnings over time. But no equivalent promise exists to families bringing up the generation which will ultimately finance tomorrow’s pensions, NHS and social care system. That needs to change.