I was surprised that Andy Burnham posted this video on Linked in, to be frank I was surprised that he took the trouble to explain how his triple lock takes over from the old one. Here’s his one minute video that anyone who cares about their state pension should watch. That’s 40 million impressions, 40 million watches and a proportion of those watches generating likes!
The way that politicians talk to the nation is via social media, Burnham has been the king of tic-toc but less commented on, he is a master of the linked in post. This one is seriously good with some great graphics.
I won’t go over what he’s saying, that’s been done before on this blog but I hope a few people will click through and share it with their contacts. I am not a Labour member, not a Labour voter but I like what Labour is doing in a number of areas. The State Pension must be tended, it must grow to meet the needs of the 45% of us not in workplace and the £15m who aren’t going to get satisfactory income from their pot-saving DC things.
But the state pension cannot take up all the budget needed to keep us properly cared for as we grow older. Some of the money that was destined for the state pension in the decades to come must be shared for social care. If we hadn’t got the link between the two services supplied by the Government but paid for by taxation (and NI), then we have now.
The National Care Service isn’t going to sort out all the problems that deteriorating healthiness brings but it is being designed to make sure that the worst outcomes for older people are avoided.
How do we know that this will be successful. Well we won’t know until we try and like other Government initiatives (the pension dashboard and HP2 springs to mind) it’s going to take a lot longer than we want it too. But we’re talking about something that impacts not just the people who are losing use of their body and their minds, but all the people who are connected – friends, family and those charged with keeping people going.
Everyone can say “I know somebody who..” and most of us know a few.
So good for you Andy Burnham. You will not have got the balance between social care and retirement income for most people. As my friend Derek Benstead about the right pension from CDC, sometimes you’ll be wrong paying too much, one time paying too little. You will always be right if you are wrong but close enough.
That’s what’s happening with this change and I am quite sure that it will be challenged and changed a thousand times to meet everybody’s best estimate. But in the end it is Government’s Actuarial Department and the Treasury who work out the expense and the DWP and the Pensions Minister who work out the need.
Andy Burnham, thanks for keeping the conversation going, I hope that the comments will grow throughout the day and that this blog does a little to stoke the embers!
I am still trying to understand what the implications of this are for pensioners in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who will not benefit from the “National” (which I think is actually “English”) Care Scheme. I am sure this will have been picked up in the press, I just haven’t seen it.
Welsh Secretary Stephen Kinnock confirmed that Wales will secure a portion of the care funds irrespective of the political administration in Cardiff Bay, given that social care is devolved.
Source: The Pembrokeshire Herald 30.9.26
Age Cymru has historically maintained that the state pension triple lock is a non-negotiable right vital for financial security and maintaining parity between pensioners and society. Its reaction to the proposed changes can be read at http://www.agecymru.wales/latest-news/age-cymru-comment-in-response-to-andy-burnhams-speech-in-relation-to-social-care-and-the-triple-lock/
Age NI meanwhile urged the Northern Ireland Executive to prepare for potential adverse impacts on local pensioners and demanded that any associated savings or block-grant adjustments allocated to Northern Ireland be strictly ring-fenced for investing in local social care rather than absorbed elsewhere.
http://www.ageni.org/discover/2026/09/age-ni-comment-on-social-care-and-the-triple-lock/
Age Scotland also remind us that funding and delivery of social care is devolved. So the proposed trade-off between the future value of the State Pension, by removing the Triple Lock, for increased spending on social care in England only benefits people in Scotland if the Scottish Government of the day decide to spend every pound of the associated (additional) money in this way. “That isn’t a given, and even then it’s tricky.”
http://www.agescotland.org.uk/news/1656-response-to-prime-ministers-triple-lock-and-social-care-announcement
I think by that they mean how “Barnett consequentials” are calculated, allocated and ultimately spent.
Scotland’s First Minister has argued that modifying the triple lock could leave Scottish pensioners collectively £4 billion worse off by 2050.
The UK government says it does not recognise these figures, which have been calculated by working out Scotland’s share of the pension-age population, compared with the projected total UK annual saving from the changes of £50 billion by 2050.
The UK Treasury countered further that while Scotland does not receive a direct “Barnett” share from Annually Managed Expenditure (AME) pension savings, increased spending on devolved public services (like social care) in England typically triggers Barnett consequentials for Scotland.
http://www.agescotland.org.uk/news/1656-response-to-prime-ministers-triple-lock-and-social-care-announcement
Living in Scotland as I do, and as I presume RWT may do too, we are sadly used to a form of political ping-pong between the Westminster government and the devolved government disputing estimated numbers from either side.
I agree there’s been little in the regional newspapers about these proposals, but the Age NI reaction was on LinkedIn. Age Cymru and Age Scotland both have a LinkedIn presence but did not post their reactions there, so I’ve added links to them above.