‘Andy Burnham’s state pension triple lock plans might scare many – however there may be trade-off for ageing inhabitants’

Any leader serious about governing Britain faces the same uncomfortable question: as the population ages, how much more can younger workers reasonably be asked to pay to maintain promises made in a very different demographic era?

View Image

Andy Burnham’s plan to lessen the state pension triple lock from 2030 will frighten many pensioners, and opponents will inevitably seize on the headline.

But the argument he set out at the Labour Party Conference deserves to be judged alongside what pensioners would receive in return: a National Care Service, free at the point of use, designed to stop older people being forced to burn through savings or sell homes simply because they need help washing, dressing or living with dignity. That is the real trade-off.

The triple lock has protected pensioners, but the long-term arithmetic is becoming increasingly difficult. The Office for Budget Responsibility says an ageing population and continuing the triple lock each add roughly 1.6% of GDP to state pension spending over the next 50 years. It is a colossal amount.

OPINION

Other parties will attack Mr Burnham’s plan. Yet any leader serious about governing Britain faces the same uncomfortable question: as the population ages, how much more can younger workers reasonably be asked to pay to maintain promises made in a very different demographic era?

Britain has waited far too long for a Prime Minister prepared to say some uncomfortable things out loud. Social care has been ducked by successive governments. Water privatisation has left consumers furious over sewage, debt and executive rewards. Empty homes sit unused while families desperately need somewhere affordable to live. The electricity grid needs major reform if Britain is serious about cutting bills and rebuilding industry.

Then there was Brexit. Mr Burnham’s admission that it has done “more harm than good” was striking precisely because Westminster has spent years treating honest discussion of its consequences as politically radioactive. His call for a new post-Brexit relationship with Europe was another sign that this Government is prepared to reopen debates others would rather leave buried.

Add electoral reform and greater public control over essential services, and this was an extraordinarily ambitious programme. His ideas are bold, and some may prove transformative. But speeches are the easy part.

Building a care workforce, funding the promises, fixing infrastructure and turning sweeping reform into lower bills, better homes and greater security will demand years of relentless delivery.

Mr Burnham has finally confronted the problems Britain has catastrophically neglected. Now he has to prove he can solve them.