iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

What I found particularly interesting was that a majority are even in favour of a double lock, of inflation and 2.5%.

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

Burnham's conference speech didn't say anything about scrapping triple locks - it explicitly said that Labour will use a triple lock from 2030 onwards. I agree that Labour's approach to trans rights in government has been horrendous and incredibly damaging. labour.org.uk/updates/stor...

We promised in our manifesto to keep the Triple Lock unchanged throughout this Parliament.

I will honour that promise.

I will honour that promise, and I will do more.

That promise will take the state pension to a record high.

From there, in April 2030, we will adjust it.

The state pension will continue to rise every year at least by prices or 2.5%.

And it will hold its value relative to earnings over time so that pensioners will always share in the rising prosperity of the nation.

200

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

Survation's poll suggests that the public is massively in favour of Burnham's adjustments to the triple lock, assuming it funds significant levels of social care. YouGov's poll suggests there's even majority support for a double lock of inflation and 2.5%, which is really quite something!

210

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

No one's suggested scrapping the triple lock. www.gov.uk/government/n...

The current Triple Lock will be maintained throughout this Parliament, increasing the State Pension by over £2,000. From April 2030, the adjusted Triple Lock will mean the State Pension continues to rise by 2.5% or inflation - whichever is higher – and by even more if that is required to maintain its value relative to earnings. This will ensure the living standards of pensioners keep up with the rest of the population. For example, if the value of the State Pension is around a third of average earnings by 2030/31, as average earnings rise, the State Pension will rise in line with that too.

This adjusted Triple Lock will mean that if inflation spikes, pensioners will be protected. If wages rise, pensioners will share in that, with the State Pension tracking earnings over time. Nobody’s pension will ever go down. And State Pensions will be put on a sustainable footing for decades to come.

100

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

Assuming our goal is to reduce poverty, which of these groups should we prioritise first for more Government spending?

000

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

We have close to historic low levels of unemployment. If we can get that down further, amazing - we can then talk about how to spend the proceeds. But it seems bold to assume that Government telling people to consume more, will always cause a corresponding reduction in unemployment?

100

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

For an incorrect summary of Labour's proposals? www.gov.uk/government/n...

010

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

A bit below OECD average for typical earners, a bit above average for low earners. All while UK pensioners are better off than non-pensioners.

100

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

Protecting pensioner benefits as pensioner poverty falls really doesn't seem like "impoverishing pensioners".

100

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

No, it's implicit from the details of the policy, and fully consistent with the high-level conclusions drawn in the article (the new system's more sustainable, doesn't permanently ratchet up the level/generosity of the state pension).

300

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

Our state pension provision's a bit below OECD average for typical earners, a bit above average for low earners. While UK pensioners are better off than non-pensioners. Again, UK pensioners aren't a sensible priority for more Government spending.

000

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

Exactly. Pensioner poverty's projected to fall going forward, both before and after the triple lock's adjusted in 2030. The next priority is to get everyone else to catch up - once they have, we can increase benefits for everyone.

100

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

There's lower poverty rates among pensioners than any other age group.

100

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

If you don't understand what it means in this context, you just have to ask. The IFS has a good explanation here: ifs.org.uk/articles/how...

100

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

We don't. It's a bit below OECD average for typical earners and a bit above average for low earners. You need to compare apples to apples, not UK minimums to other countries' maximums/averages. Meanwhile, UK pensioners are better off than non-pensioners.

100

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

Pensioners don't tend to have financially dependent children or rent, which can easily take up half of workers' incomes. Those who do, are generally eligible for more benefits. Allow for those two things (not even the lack of work-related costs), pensioners are better off than non-pensioners.

100

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

The Tory narrative - is supporting Burnham's proposals? The state pension's 100% a benefit, has been since it was introduced.

100

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

Burnham's proposing to have a triple lock after 2030. His proposals are much closer to how most people probably think the system works already. www.gov.uk/government/n...

110

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

Having the state pension at the level of FT minimum wage would mean most people are much worse off before they retire than after. Pensioners don't have costs associated with working, generally don't have financially dependent kids of rent (those who do, are generally eligible for more benefits).

110

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

Pensioner benefits like the state pension are more generous than other benefits. Pensioners are better off than non-pensioners, with lower poverty rates. We can want to increase benefits, but need to start protecting the worst off (and let them catch up), before increases for the least worst off.

300

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

A largely excellent article, other than the statement that those relying on a state pension are usually badly off. They're far from well off, but also far from the poorest.

000

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

And what Burnham's proposing for after 2030 is a triple lock, closer to how most people probably think it works already. www.gov.uk/government/n...

150

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

Burnham's proposing to protect benefits for pensioners, the age group with the lowest poverty rates in the UK. It says a lot about their voting power, that there's any suggestion this is an attack on them. www.gov.uk/government/n...

100

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

Also very concerning that people read about Labour's plans to have a triple lock after 2030, and think it's talking about a double lock. www.gov.uk/government/n...

000

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

Burnham's proposing a triple lock from 2030 onwards, not a double lock. www.gov.uk/government/n...

000

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

It isn't. It's a bit below OECD average for typical earners, a bit above average for low earners. Meanwhile, UK pensioners have the lowest poverty rates of any age group. You need to compare apples to apples, not UK minimums to other countries' maximums/averages.

100

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

It's not a double lock, it's a triple lock. What we have today is misnamed - it's a triple ratchet, not a triple lock. The IFS have a good explainer on it. If we have extra money, it needs to be spent on groups with the highest poverty rates, not the lowest. ifs.org.uk/articles/how...

000

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

It's a triple lock, not a double lock. I expect people are getting that wrong because we call the current uprating system the wrong thing - it's currently a triple ratchet, not a triple lock. The short answer to your question is yes, 100% - the IFS has a good explainer. ifs.org.uk/articles/how...

110

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

Pensioner poverty's projected to fall, both before and after this tweak to the triple lock in 2030. www.gov.uk/government/p...

000

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

It's not even a double lock, it's still a triple lock, closer to how most people probably think the system works already. www.gov.uk/government/n...

010

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

In a world in which the triple lock is updated, the existing version can't be applied. It's therefore a counterfactual. A pretty standard use of the phrase.

100

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

What do you think the word means?

000

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

Pensioner poverty's projected to fall under the adjusted triple lock. www.gov.uk/government/p...

000

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

The DWP analysis the figures are taken from: www.gov.uk/government/p...

100

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

Because: 1. The UK doesn't have one of the least generous pensions. UK state pension provision's a bit below OECD average for typical earners, a bit above average for low earners. 2. Labour's proposal isn't to make the state pension less generous, it's to maintain its generosity.

000

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

The UK doesn't have the least generous state pension provision in the world. It's a bit below the OECD average for typical earners, a bit above average for low earners. Do other countries increase their state pensions faster than both inflation and average earnings?

200

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

Who do you want to prioritise for additional spending - those in the deepest poverty, or those not in the deepest poverty? Our state pension provision's a bit below OECD average for typical earners, a bit above average for low earners.

100

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

Life expectancy's going up, not down. 2024 and 2025 were both record highs, and 2026 is currently on track to beat them both.

000

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

It's a triple lock - it's still got all 3 of the 2.5%, inflation and earnings legs. www.gov.uk/government/n...

100

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

Once you adjust for those things, a state pension provides a much more generous safety net than workers receive, and you find that pensioners are better off than non-pensioners.

010

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

It's not a welfare cut. It's a triple lock, which protects the value of the state pension, and works in the way that most people probably think our existing triple "lock" does. www.gov.uk/government/n...

650

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

No he won't. There'll still be a triple lock on the state pension once he's done with it, which will then start doing what most people think it already does. www.gov.uk/government/n...

210

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

Pensioners already had lower poverty rates than other groups, before the triple "lock" ratchet was introduced. It was a bad policy, introduced as a (very successful) electoral bribe for Boomers as they started retiring.

100

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

Pensioners have been better off than other age groups, including being less likely to be in poverty, since well before the triple "lock" ratchet was introduced.

110

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

It might not mean earlier retirement, if people live longer / want to use the new tech to consume more. But the last hundred or so years has delivered amazing progress in all those areas in the UK, including retirement ages (pensioner benefits started being paid at age 70 in the early 1900's).

000

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

Meanwhile, UK pensioners are better off than non-pensioners and already have more generous benefits. They're not a sensible priority for more Government spending.

000

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

UK state pension provision's a bit below OECD average for typical earners, above average for low earners. Including DC provision (auto-enrolment in UK, superannuation in Australia etc). Most pensioners don't have financially dependent children/rent, generally eligible for more benefits if they do.

200

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

We don't. You can't compare UK minimums to other countries' maximums. Compare apples to apples, and UK's a bit below average for typical earners, a bit above average for low earners. Meanwhile, UK pensioners are better off than non-pensioners, and already have more generous benefits.

100

steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

We're fairly actively discouraging parenting at the moment.* *Although this presumably doesn't cover the removal of the 2-child benefit cap, which will hopefully help a bit.

010