State pension triple lock 'cannot exist forever' as payment increases cost taxpayers £12bn a year

Patrick O'Donnell
Mon, 27 Apr 2026 06:43:15 +0000

Analysts are sounding the alarm that the state pension triple lock "cannot exist forever" as taxpayers are forking over £12billion more a year to the Treasury thanks to the policy.

New polling suggests the payment uprate mechanism remains politically untouchable as Reform UK has joined the chorus of parties pledging to preserve it should they win power at the next general election.

The current Labour Government has also confirmed the guarantee will stay intact throughout this Parliament, which was introduced by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition in 2010.

Under the triple lock, state pension payment rates increase every year by either the rate of inflation, average wage growth, or 2.5 per cent; whichever is highest.

Originally designed to prevent pensioners falling behind living costs after years of erosion, the policy has become one of the most contentious fault lines in British fiscal debate.

Political polling suggests the triple lock is simultaneously too costly to maintain indefinitely and too electorally dangerous for any mainstream party to abandon.

Tom Selby, director of public policy at AJ Bell, said: "The reason is almost certainly cold political calculus.

"A significant section of the public supports the triple-lock, particularly older voters, and any party indicating it will not pledge allegiance to the policy risks being annihilated at the general election."

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

State pensioners can claim £344 boost every four weeks through single DWP payment

Martin Lewis issues warning to pensioners on less than £380 a week from DWP

State pension 'crisis' as millions 'struggle to make ends meet' amid age increase

Mr Selby noted that any comparable spending commitment generating such uncertainty over future costs would face intense scrutiny given the pressures on public finances.

With inflation currently elevated, there is also recognition that the 2.5 per cent floor may not be triggered for some time, meaning a shift to a so-called "double lock" would not necessarily deliver immediate savings.

Fresh polling conducted by Opinium for AJ Bell reveals that four in ten British adults back making the triple lock a permanent fixture of the pension system.

However, this support is far from uniform across age groups, with younger people considerably less enthusiastic about the policy than their older counterparts.

Mr Selby added: "The fact young people are much less in favour of the triple-lock than their older counterparts may reflect the reality that the longer it is in place, the more likely the state pension age will need to rise further and faster than under current plans."

Critics contend the arrangement creates a fundamental generational imbalance, with working-age taxpayers, many grappling with housing costs and sluggish wage growth, effectively funding above-inflation rises for a cohort that has typically accumulated greater wealth.

Mr Selby argued that policymakers must eventually chart a course toward retiring the triple-lock, which requires honest communication with voters about the trade-offs involved.

He shared: "Assuming the Treasury does not want spending as a share of GDP on state pensions to continue ballooning squeezing the ability to spend elsewhere or reduce the tax burden on the working population there are two main levers available to control costs: the amount people receive from the state in retirement and the age at which they receive.

"But that first step of acknowledging the triple-lock simply cannot exist forever may be the hardest."