End of the triple lock?

My works pension increases by HALF of the rate of inflation. I need the 'triple-lock' on the measely State pension just to stand still.

Pretty much the same for us, plus "pensioners' inflation" is not the same as the overall rate, but generally higher.

And the basic state pension is pretty stingy to start with, so some catching up on wages would be a good thing!

The user and all related content has been Deleted User

It was introduced in 2010 by a non socialist government and was confirmed yesterday by Teresa that there would be no change.  

PS - i've just reported myself For infringing the rules

Ms Altman clarified her comments. She explained that the 'triple lock' only ever applied to the basic state pension and not to tops-ups such as SERPS and not to other top ups such as pension credit (because that's a means-tested benefit, and has had only minor changes made to it, as with other benefits recently). All of which is true.......but she reasoned that removing the triple lock would somehow benefit pensioners??

She explained that the 2.5% option was a figure that didn't relate to anything and, as DD says, was included to enable pensioners to pull back a bit of lost ground on wage earners, when inflation and wage increass are low.

She now suggests that there should only be a 'double lock' (i.e. either an increase in line with inflation or with average wages, whichever is the higher).

She also mentioned the fact that the new state pension is now to be £155/week for everyone - a fact that has now clearly been shown not to be the case.

My own view on all this is that, as Ms Altman was sacked in the recent cabinet shuffle, she should keep her nose out of such things and that the triple lock should remain.

Her problem was the cost of pensions to the exchequer rising by 2.5%\year.  By 2020 the costs will be over £90 billion a year.

Compared to many other European countries, the UK state pension is low in relation to living costs.  Other countries can afford better pensions, why should UK lag behind?

All of the above comments have a certain validity, but Baroness Altmann does have a point. Ultimately pensions do have to be affordable and a blanket uplift without any link to real movements in the economy would, in the long term, become unsustainable. We are also going to get it until at least 2020, so that's another 10% even if it fizzles out then.

On the whole Baroness A has stuck up for pensioners and may have been thwarted in her suggestions and ideas when in government. It looks as though a "double lock" will be sufficient in the future...if we don't run out of funds first....

Ms Altman must have been thining about this change when she was a minister......but kept quiet about it, knowing that it would make her unpopular.

She also accused people of "whinging" about the changes to the state pension (getting rid of SERPS etc)......but then quickly back-tracked when she got the back-lash from that comment.

She then admitted that the new proposals 'hadn't been very well explained". Too right they weren't!! First they tell us that everyone will get £155 (or whatever the figure is currently), then they slide in all the extra rules about the type of NI contributions required and that being contracted out will actually result in a deduction from the amount you get i.e. those type of contributions act as 'negative' years (rather than not counting as a full year, as you might expect).

Ms Altman is only interested in one pensioner - and that's Ms Altman.