Friday, October 02, 2026
Has Ed Davey got it wrong on the triple lock?
The paper says that Tom Gordon said he thought Sir Ed Davey had “missed the point” and that it was “for the birds” that the state pension trip lock helps millennials:
Lib Dem leader Sir Ed earlier today said changing the triple lock would mean millennials, those aged 30 to 45, would have a “very poor pension” when they retire.
In a post on social media, Mr Gordon wrote: “I listened to Ed Davey on (BBC Radio 4’s Today) this morning, and frankly, I think he missed the point. The idea that we're keeping the triple lock to help millennials is at best for the birds, and at worst downright insulting. I say that as a millennial.
“The case for the triple lock is a worthy one - stopping pensioner poverty. I want that as much as anyone. But pensioners are now less likely to be in poverty than children or working age adults.
“That money should go where it's needed most - to everyone in poverty, not just one group. It could help fund free personal care, a policy that would disproportionately benefit older people.”
He added that “intergenerational inequality is already one of the defining injustices of our time”, highlighting how millennials are locked out of the housing market, paying higher taxes and struggling with spiralling student loans.
He added: "Telling millennials we're keeping the triple lock to help us in 30 years' time is nonsense... I joined this party because I care about fairness and tackling inequality, and that has to include inequality between generations. This line, and this decision, fails on both counts. Ed needs to think again."
Lib Dem MP Tim Farron, a former leader of the party, also appeared to suggest Mr Burnham's policies aligned with the party. He wrote on social media: "Reflecting on the PM’s leader’s speech. It was a cracking piece of oratory. It also included loads of Lib Dem ideas e.g. on social care, Europe and water - this is good news for us as a party and as a country. The task for the Lib Dems is to make sure these are more than words."
Sir Ed, who cares for his disabled son John, has long been a champion of social care, making it a key plank of the Lib Dems’ policy agenda.
Some Labour MPs were left surprised by his negative response to Mr Burnham’s Labour conference speech on Tuesday, in which he vowed to contest the next election on a pledge to create a National Care Service that would be free at the point of use.
And Tom is not the only Liberal Democrat MP who has expressed dissent with the leader's position. Vicky Slade the MP for Mid Dorset & North Poole posted on BlueSky: 'Pensioners will gain more from free social care than a linking rise of state pension to earnings. Proud of triple lock in coalition but we must plan for future not venerate the past.'
The BBC add that a Lib Dem MP contacted them after Sir Ed's interview to say the majority of the parliamentary party would not support opposing Burnham's changes to the triple lock. They continue:
One frontbench Lib Dem MP told the BBC after Burnham's Labour conference speech: "Lots of us [are] struggling tonight with [a] Labour leader articulating Lib Dem values better than we do."
They pointed to Burnham's promises on electoral reform, social care, the water industry, and relations with Europe - all Lib Dem campaign points in recent years.
"I'm honestly utterly despondent with the state of things," another Lib Dem MP said.
Some senior Lib Dems believe Sir Ed's position as leader has been vulnerable for some time, even if they stressed no challenge is imminent.
"A plausible candidate could take him tomorrow in a bloodless coup," one prominent party figure said.
"But that person hasn't yet revealed themselves as far as I'm aware. Nobody is going to blow anything up without a clear plan to put something in its place."
Burnham's proposal is not actually that radical. it will still guarantee a minimum increase of 2.5% each year in the pension, but it will also release money for social care that is much needed. This knee-jerk reaction from Ed Davey is not a good look for the party.
Comments:
<< Home
The triple lock,as has been stated,was introduced to bring pensions up to a liveable level. It has long been argued that those of us who have private pensions ,did not need these increases but nothing was done. Sir Ed is wrong. I cannot be the only Lib Dem who listened to Burnham and heard him articulate many things that are core values of our party.we must support those and use our parliamentary power to stiffen Burnhams resolve to bring those ideas into force
# posted by 
: 9:29 AM
: 9:29 AM
Once you start means testing the pension - which Labour are de facto doing with their income tax plan, and which Beveridge was strongly opposed to - then you create what economists call a "poverty trap". It generates a perverse disincentive for people on modest incomes to save towards their own pensions, because why bother when other people who don't save just get given more means tested benefits anyway? Under Labour's plan to exempt pensioners from income tax (but only if they have no additional income), within a very few years you will have a situation where someone on a low income who scrimped and saved to get themselves a tiny private pension (say a couple of grand a year) will actually end up with less money in their pocket than somebody who didn't save at all. It's manifestly unfair, and if we extended means testing even further then it would become even more unfair. Lib Dems who think this is the way forward should go back and read Beveridge!
Post a Comment
# posted by : 11:07 AM
: 11:07 AM<< Home
