For the most part in his recent article (Workers, pensioners and children: all better off. Ignore the critics – we really are standing up for working people, 5 April), Keir Starmer rightly flags up the introduction of policies supporting the less well off in this society. However, I believe it was an ill-considered move to include the statement about increasing the state pension. As a pensioner I am not seeing a straightforward improvement and instead seeing a policy that is reducing the benefit of those increases.
The triple lock, established by a Conservative–Liberal Democrat government in 2010, was designed to ensure that pensioners who had made tax and national insurance contributions throughout their working lives did not see their pension watered down. However, under the current approach this is actually being undermined. The outcome of freezing the personal allowance means that a significant and increasing proportion of pensioners, based on pension-related income alone, will have to pay tax, thus offsetting the intended benefit of the triple lock. This is made worse for any pensioner with even a small amount of additional income, and will become more burdensome as the personal allowance freeze continues into subsequent years.
Even the Conservatives, as part of their previous manifesto, promoted a “triple lock plus”, ensuring the personal allowance for pensioners would increase in line with the state pension. So if we stop to consider who introduced the triple lock and which party has recognised the need not to undermine it, who exactly has the intention of looking after pensioners more?
As a lifelong Labour supporter, I say this with a heavy heart. Of course decisions have to be made with limited funds. But if the intention is genuinely to support those “who have worked hard all their lives”, then here is a policy that needs to be revised.
James Kyle
Ealing, London
