Last week, I opined in these pages that intergenerational fairness should be a liberal priority. A commenter rightly challenged my suggestion that pensions be linked to CPI: poverty is measured relative to median earnings, not inflation. CPI-linking would let pensioners fall below the poverty line even as their purchasing power held steady — precisely what happened after 1980.
The correction clarified my thinking. If relative poverty matters — and it does — then benefits should track earnings, not just prices. The triple lock gets this right for pensioners. We should extend the same logic to everyone else.
* * *
I should acknowledge I muddled two concepts worth distinguishing. Destitution is absolute — the inability to afford essentials like heating, food, and shelter. Poverty, as officially measured, is relative — household income below 60% of the median. A person whose basic bills are covered is not destitute. But fall below that threshold and you are, by definition, poor: unable to afford what society considers normal.
That exclusion is real. It shows up as hesitation over a grandchild’s birthday present, or quiet withdrawal from social life. The triple lock exists because we decided pensioners should not face exclusion.
The mechanism embodies a sound principle: benefits should keep pace with living standards, not merely with prices. The earnings link achieves this. The CPI floor provides protection against inflation shocks. These two elements — earnings-tracking with inflation protection — form defensible policy.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Violet Bonham Carter and Mary Stocks remember the struggle for women's suffrage
Brighton Conference
Show us the money - should politics be funded by billionaires?
Alan Jelfs 
Jason Connor 
Phil Wainewright 
Christina Evans 