The Baroness and the triple lock!

bigfreddiel

Today Ros Altmann said the triple lock on State Pensions was unsustainable but ministers were too frightened to change it!

Well she had her chance to do just that when she was the pensions minister but didn't so who exactly was too frightened then I ask you?

Cheers fj

hugheskevi

Well she had her chance to do just that when she was the pensions minister but didn't so who exactly was too frightened then I ask you?

That decision would not be hers to make.

The DWP Secretary of State would need to support the measure, and then HM Treasury would make the decision as part of Budget/Autumn Statement policy with input from Number 10.

The views of a junior Minister wouldn't count for much on something that is perceived to carry so many votes and subject to commitments from the Prime Minister - it is not a technical matter left to the responsibility of a junior Minister, it is a political matter decided at highest levels of government.

xylophone

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/opinion/ros-altmann-how-i-would-reform-pensions-and-get-ride-of-triple-lock-1-

And I thought I was joking!

Post 2

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71020298#Comment_71020298

robin_banks

bigfreddiel wrote: »

Today Ros Altmann said the triple lock on State Pensions was unsustainable but ministers were too frightened to change it!

Well she had her chance to do just that when she was the pensions minister but didn't so who exactly was too frightened then I ask you?

Cheers fj

Let's be realistic here, she's right.

PennyForThem_2

She is right - but I would say that as I am pension age and benefited and I don't think the politicians would like to back date.

LHW99

It probably won't be removed until the rate of inflation is back above 2(.5)%, at which point is irrelevant.
How long that will be goodness knows.

Nick_C

I think we can forgive her for accepting collective responsibility as a Junior Minister. Now she is free of that and can say what she thinks.

Quite ridiculous that State Pensioners got a bigger rise than workers this year when inflation was at zero and we have a massive budget deficit.

The double lock is fine. The triple lock needs to go ASAP.

zagfles

Nick_C wrote: »

I think we can forgive her for accepting collective responsibility as a Junior Minister. Now she is free of that and can say what she thinks.

Quite ridiculous that State Pensioners got a bigger rise than workers this year when inflation was at zero and we have a massive budget deficit.

The double lock is fine. The triple lock needs to go ASAP.

Yup - the 2.5% was only brought in by the Labour govt because pensioners only got a tiny rise when inflation was low - leading to "peanuts" headlines in the Sun - because the rise was only enough to buy a bag of peanuts.

Instead of the govt trying to educate the stupid that the rise isn't supposed to get you anything extra - it's supposed to keep up with inflation so you can buy the same stuff as the year before, they decided to put a 2.5% underpin to avoid such headlines.

So now pensioners get a real terms rise when inflation is below 2.5% but not when inflation is above 2.5%. Makes no sense at all.

No doubt getting rid of the 2.5% would lead to "nasty Tories" etc type headlines, so they'll probably chicken out. Soundbite politics to appeal to those who haven't got a clue wins more votes than sensible policy which takes a few brain cells to understand. Which is the problem with democracy...

kidmugsy

How about a single lock? Pensions go up with the earnings inflation index: I don't see an objection unless you think that pensioners are somehow entitled to better protection against price inflation than workers get.

bigfreddiel

hugheskevi wrote: »

That decision would not be hers to make.

The DWP Secretary of State would need to support the measure, and then HM Treasury would make the decision as part of Budget/Autumn Statement policy with input from Number 10.

The views of a junior Minister wouldn't count for much on something that is perceived to carry so many votes and subject to commitments from the Prime Minister - it is not a technical matter left to the responsibility of a junior Minister, it is a political matter decided at highest levels of government.

I guess you're right, but my point is if she really believed in doing away with the 2.5% part of the triple lock then maybe she should have said so while in government, not after she was effectively sacked anyway.

I think you just look stooopid kicking up a fuss after you've been dumped.

Cheers fj

Sapphire

Nick_C wrote: »

I think we can forgive her for accepting collective responsibility as a Junior Minister. Now she is free of that and can say what she thinks.

Quite ridiculous that State Pensioners got a bigger rise than workers this year when inflation was at zero and we have a massive budget deficit.

The double lock is fine. The triple lock needs to go ASAP.

Have you any idea how little the state pension is (the lowest in Europe), and just how badly off and vulnerable some pensioners are, and that after decades of working and being productive? They have no means of increasing their income, while younger people certainly do. No one who is old and vulnerable deserves to live on the breadline.

I'm not talking about pensioners who have additional assets – certainly, it might be an idea for those in the higher income brackets to be subjected to this, or to even forego their pensions altogether. But that will never happen, because it would affect only the wealthiest in society. It's the poorest people, who have contributed all their lives, who would have to suffer. :cool:

I think voting patterns would definitely alter should the government introduce such a change, affecting all pensioners, rather than just affluent ones. There are other ways of raising money that don't affect the poorest in society…