What is the Triple Lock and should it be scrapped?
Written by Holly Mackay, CEO and Founder
22 Sep, 2026
The Triple Lock guarantees the State Pension rises by whichever is highest: inflation, average wages, or 2.5%. Right now wages are winning, pointing to a 3.9% rise to around £13,000 a year from April 2027. We asked Boring Money readers whether they think that's fair - and while most support the principle, almost nobody thinks it can survive unchanged.
What is the Triple Lock?
If you've ever wondered why the State Pension seems to increase by a different amount each April, that's the Triple Lock at work. It's the government's promise to raise the State Pension every year by whichever is highest of three things: 2.5%, average wage growth, or inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Whichever of those three numbers is biggest wins, so pensioners are guaranteed a rise that at least matches inflation, wages, or 2.5%, whatever happens.
This year, wages are currently out in front. Average earnings grew 3.9% in the three months to July, and that's the number pencilled in for next April's rise. We’ll know for sure on 20 October when the CPI is published for September. If inflation comes in below 3.9%, wages keep the crown and pensioners will get a 3.9% boost to around £13,000 a year from April 2027.
What do Boring Money readers think of the Triple Lock?
Love it or loathe it, the Triple Lock is one of those policies everyone has an opinion on. So we put it to our readers: good thing, bad thing, or needs a rethink?
More than half of Boring Money readers (54%) believed the Triple Lock was a good thing, whereas 37% said it was a bad thing. 7% of readers were sitting on the fence.
Based on the responses of 286 Boring Money readers.
But dig into the comments and the real story isn't “for” versus “against” at all. A lot of our “good thing” voters immediately qualified their answer with some version of “but we can't afford it forever.” That reform-minded middle ground - keep the principle of protecting pensions, but drop the 2.5% floor and move to a double lock or even just peg pensions to CPI – is the majority view as pragmatism overcomes sentiment.
Why do people want to keep the Triple Lock as it is?
The cohort of Boring Money readers that felt there was nothing to change about the Triple Lock was almost exclusively made up of pensioners and those close to retirement. These individuals, as a whole, feel UK pensions still lag behind Europe and that decades of contributions deserve protecting.
Because pensioners need every penny they can get. Should really be much higher to start with.
UK pensions are below their European neighbours and need to catch up. Too few people have enough DB or DC pensions so this could be all they have. Appreciate it's expensive for the country but as someone who has worked for 45 years in the NHS, had private healthcare, no children and went to private school, I have had very little from the government.
Why might some people want to reform the Triple Lock?
This was the largest and most nuanced group. They want pensions protected from inflation, but see the 2.5% floor as an unnecessary, expensive extra. Many also question the link to wage inflation.
Because any increase in state pension should be clearly linked to actual costs of living incurred by pensioners, i.e. consumer price inflation. Links to earnings and a 2.5% floor are spurious political promotional gimmicks.
As an OAP myself I'm grateful for the benefit but think that the time has come for an update in light of the country's huge public debt and its responsibilities to protect and care for all people equally. I agree that the UK government should set a predetermined sum and date for a change over from the triple lock to one which is protected for high inflation
Do young people want to scrap the Triple Lock?
Our younger readers have expressed frustration about how pensioner incomes are rising faster than their own. However, many pensioner voices also feature here as some older readers are empathetic to the financial struggles younger generations face.
Unaffordable, unfair, undeserved. Older people mock the young for being entitled while older generations demand more pension increases than we could dream of. Why should the young bail out reckless older people.
You paid for your parents and workers today are paying for you… except we're paying you so much more than you paid, we're going to be bankrupt. Giving retirees a lovely life doesn't help the most needy, or protect the realm, or fix the potholes - but you enjoy your sun lounger.
The country cannot currently afford it and that position is going to get steadily worse.
At the moment it is helping to increase the value of the state pension to a reasonable level compared to some of our European neighbours. However given the state of the economy I think we will have to face up to the fact (I'm a pensioner) that the country cannot afford it and that it will come to an end after the next election.
Why might some people be torn on the Triple Lock?
It’s not a clear-cut issue and some readers see both sides of the debate - between wanting UK pensions to catch up with Europe and worrying that money might be better spent supporting younger generations.
I'm torn between two points of view, both of which I agree with. One: UK state pensions are very poor compared to most comparable affluent countries' provisions, and the triple lock will over time bring state pensions closer to a ‘living wage’. Two: pensioners are being treated more generously than Gen Z, and I'd rather tax was spent on, e.g., subsidising young people's training opportunities.
What’s the verdict?
Across all four camps, one thing came through again and again: almost nobody thinks the Triple Lock is sustainable in its current form. Even many of its defenders admit the country can't sustain it forever, especially with an ageing population and mounting public debt.
The consensus that emerges isn't “scrap protection for pensioners”, it's “keep some protection, but simplify it.” Most readers, whichever camp they land in, seem to agree the State Pension should stay protected against inflation. Where they part ways is on the 2.5% floor and the earnings link, with a single lock (inflation only) or a double lock (inflation and earnings, no 2.5% floor) looking like the compromise readers could actually live with.
The overwhelming take-away here is that this is emotive; it creates anger in some younger readers and a sense of injustice in some older readers. Yet, most people see this as an unsustainable policy which will inevitably fall in the not too distant future.
What do you think? Tell us which camp you’re in – and why?
