Those of you who read my blog a lot will know that there is only one person who knows the state pension who is an actuary and a pension expert. I will not name him but this is his response to my blog today, It needs its own blog. It gives an insider’s view on what the triple lock really is, how we got to it (politically) and how it can be replaced by a more sensible way of managing state pension increases. Here goes….

I hate most of the comments on the triple lock.

For a start they fail to explain it properly.

The law required the annual indexation at least in line with earnings. I don’t know why but that at least is there.

But I know when it was planned to change from prices to earnings, no one discussed higher than earnings.

This year will be in line with earnings. I don’t see that as the triple lock. It is the legal minimum.

The triple lock is the extra promise which politicians loaded for political reasons.

There was a hike in the basic state pension in moving to the new basic. But not for older pensions. They might have had SERPS (and GRAD) which complicated the argument about older pensioners being worse off because their basic is lower. Some are worse off (but may get means tested top ups) and some are actually better off than some on the new rate.

But there is an argument that it should only be the pensioners on the old lower basis who may get an increase higher than earnings and catch up on the new rate which should be increased by the legal earnings linked rule.

I do not support the triple lock. If we want to raise the new basic state pension, do it transparently and honestly.

Hopefully we will have a move to lower inflation and earning increases soon and the then government will have the nerve to avoid the 2.5% minimum,  if higher than earnings or prices.

Worth noting that (2.5%) is now well over £5 a week, much higher than the increase which was below £1 which gave rise to this nonsense.

But more simply, I wish politicians didn’t feel a need to stress that this is a triple lock increase.   It isn’t.