Reform UK has broken their silence and vowed to “defend pensioners” after Kemi Badenoch revealed the Conservatives are “going to look at means testing” the pension triple lock in a mega policy switch up.
During a phone-in from a member of the public while on Iain Dale’s LBC show, the Tory leader said the party needs to “keep growing” with its approach to this area, despite supporting it while in power.
State pensions currently rise each year by whichever is highest out of the rate of inflation, average earnings or a minimum of 2.5%.
And now Nigel Farage’s party has called out the “the same old Tories” adding that only “Reform UK can be trusted to stand up for our pensioners”.
Reform UK has broken their silence and vowed to “defend pensioners” (Image: Getty)
Reform UK say only they ‘can be trusted to stand up for our pensioners’ (Image: Getty)
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
A spokesperson for Reform UK told GB News: “Labour have cut the winter fuel allowance and the Tories want to cut the state pension. Only Reform UK can be trusted to stand up for our pensioners.
“Reform UK will always ensure that pensioners can live with dignity and proper support, unlike the Tories.”
Ms Badenoch’s comments follow the Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride claiming that the triple lock is “unsustainable”.
The Tory leader added: “Means testing is something which we don’t do properly here. I always said, for example, that millionaires should not be getting the winter fuel payment.
“We don’t have a system that knows who should get what. That’s the sort of thing we need to be looking at.”
Kemi Badenoch revealed the Tories are ‘going to look at means testing’ the triple lock (Image: Getty)
Mr Farage’s party have also previously turned up the heat and blasted Labour war on pensioners.
In September, all five Reform MPs stood against Labour and voted against the cuts to the Winter Fuel Payments in Parliament with Farage slamming the Winter Fuel Allowance being withdrawn from all pensioners as a “terrible mistake”.
The move, which has left many elderly Brits anxious about their heating bills, is alleged to save £1.5bn a year.
In November, the Prime Minister justified the need for the cut by telling a BBC local radio station that “when you inherit a broken economy… very difficult decisions have to be made.”
Reform UK Breaks Silence After Kemi Badenoch Suggests ‘Means-Testing’ Triple Lock
Reform UK has reaffirmed its commitment to protecting the state pension triple lock as a dispute over pension policy exposes differences between Nigel Farage’s party and the Conservatives.
The controversy originally erupted in January 2025, when Kemi Badenoch’s comments about means-testing government support were interpreted as opening the door to changes affecting the triple lock. Badenoch subsequently insisted that she was discussing means-testing more generally, rather than proposing to means-test the pension guarantee itself. <Cite refs={[“turn393274search0″,”turn393274search7”]}/>
The issue has returned to the political spotlight in 2026 following Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s plans to adjust the triple lock from 2030. Reform has used the debate to present itself as committed to maintaining the existing protection for pensioners, while the Conservatives have defended the policy but raised questions about the wider economic circumstances in which it operates.
What did Kemi Badenoch actually say?
The original controversy began during a phone-in interview on LBC in January 2025. Badenoch was questioned about the triple lock and whether the Conservatives would consider means-testing it.
She responded by discussing the need to improve means-testing across the welfare system. She argued that the government needed a better way to identify who should receive particular forms of support, using the winter fuel payment as an example.
Badenoch criticised Labour’s approach to restricting winter fuel payments, arguing that some pensioners on low incomes had lost support they needed. She also said that millionaires should not necessarily receive benefits simply because those benefits were available universally.
Her comments were interpreted by political opponents as suggesting that the Conservatives might reconsider the triple lock. Labour, the Liberal Democrats and Reform criticised the apparent possibility of changing the system, prompting Badenoch to clarify that she had not proposed means-testing the triple lock itself. <Cite refs={[“turn393274search0″,”turn393274search1”]}/>
The distinction is important. Means-testing determines eligibility for a benefit according to income, savings or other financial circumstances. The triple lock, by contrast, determines how the state pension increases each year.
Changing one does not automatically require changing the other. A government could alter eligibility rules for a particular benefit while maintaining the formula used to uprate the state pension.
Nevertheless, the episode highlighted how sensitive pension policy has become. Even an ambiguous statement can generate concern among retirees who rely on predictable increases in their income.
Reform’s commitment to the triple lock
Reform has since made its position explicit.
In a statement published on 28 September 2026, the party’s Treasury spokesman, Robert Jenrick, said Reform would not abandon its commitment to the triple lock. He argued that the policy had protected pensioners while keeping pension increases under control compared with the previous arrangement. <Cite refs={[“turn393274search2”]}/>
Jenrick also argued that maintaining the triple lock need not come at the expense of younger generations. Reform’s stated approach is to seek savings elsewhere in public spending and use those savings to support pensioners.
The party has pointed to proposed reductions in government expenditure and changes to immigration, welfare and energy policy as part of its approach to funding its commitments. These are political proposals, however, and their eventual financial effects would depend on implementation, the amount of savings achieved and other economic factors.
Reform’s position is that pensioners who have spent their working lives contributing through National Insurance should retain a dependable source of retirement income. Its argument is that the state pension represents a commitment between workers and the state, rather than a discretionary payment that should be changed whenever government finances come under pressure.
That position places the party at odds with proposals to alter the existing uprating formula, although the precise financial consequences of maintaining or changing the system remain a matter for economic analysis.
How does the triple lock work?
The triple lock was introduced by the Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition government in 2010. It guarantees that the basic state pension and the new state pension rise annually by whichever is highest of three measures:
- Inflation, measured using the Consumer Prices Index.
- Growth in average earnings.
- A minimum increase of 2.5%.
The purpose is to protect pensioners against rising prices while allowing them to share in increases in wages. The 2.5% floor provides an additional safeguard in years when both inflation and earnings growth are lower.
Supporters argue that the mechanism helps prevent the state pension from losing purchasing power over time. It also gives retirees a degree of predictability when planning their household finances.
Critics question whether the guarantee is affordable indefinitely, particularly as the population ages and the number of people receiving pensions rises relative to the number of working-age taxpayers.
The debate is therefore not simply about whether pensioners deserve protection. It is also about how that protection should be financed, how it should interact with other public spending commitments and what obligations today’s workers will face when they retire.
Andy Burnham’s proposed changes
The latest dispute has been intensified by Burnham’s plan to adjust the triple lock from April 2030 as part of a proposed National Care Service.
Under the government’s published approach, the pension would continue to rise annually by at least inflation or 2.5%, while the automatic link to average earnings would be replaced with a mechanism intended to maintain the pension’s value relative to earnings over time. The government says this would protect pensioners against inflation while limiting increases that consistently outpace wages. <Cite refs={[“turn393274search4”]}/>
Burnham has argued that changes are necessary to help finance a national social care system. Supporters of the proposal see it as an attempt to balance retirement security with the need to fund care for people who require assistance in later life.
Critics argue that changing the triple lock could weaken an important guarantee and create uncertainty for pensioners who have planned their finances around it.
The distinction between the existing system and the proposed adjustment is significant. The proposal does not mean that pension increases would simply stop. Instead, it would change the formula used to determine those increases and how the pension’s value relates to average earnings.
The consequences would depend on inflation, wage growth, the final design of the policy and the way it is implemented.
The Conservatives face questions of their own
Badenoch has continued to defend the triple lock as Conservative policy. At the party’s conference in September 2026, she said the policy remained in the Conservatives’ draft manifesto and argued that the underlying problem was weak economic growth. <Cite refs={[“turn393274search5”]}/>
Her argument is that a stronger economy would make the cost of pension commitments easier to manage. She has also maintained that reforming working-age welfare should be a priority rather than targeting pensioners who are no longer able to work.
However, she has faced questions about whether the Conservatives could restore the existing system if a future Labour government changed it. In October 2026, she acknowledged that reversing such changes could prove difficult if the money had already been committed to other spending. <Cite refs={[“turn393274search6”]}/>
This creates a challenge for the Conservatives: they must defend their stated commitment while explaining how they would respond if public finances made the policy more difficult to sustain.
It also illustrates why the January 2025 means-testing controversy should not be confused with a formal Conservative proposal to means-test the triple lock. Badenoch disputed that interpretation at the time, and the party’s later statements have continued to describe the triple lock as official policy.
What pensioners need to know
For pensioners, the most important distinction is between the policy currently in force and proposals for the future.
The government’s published factsheet says the existing triple lock will remain in place throughout the current Parliament, with the proposed adjustment scheduled for April 2030. Under the plan, pensioners would continue to receive annual increases, but the calculation would change. <Cite refs={[“turn393274search4”]}/>
That means neither the original debate about means-testing nor the current argument over the triple lock should automatically be interpreted as an immediate cut to everyone’s state pension.
The practical effect of any future change would depend on the legislation, the uprating formula and the economic conditions at the time. Pensioners should therefore look for specific policy details rather than relying on headlines that use the words “scrap”, “cut” or “means-test” without explaining what is actually proposed.
The wider question of fairness also remains. Some people argue that universal pension increases are easier to understand and protect retirees from losing value as prices rise. Others believe that limited public funds should be targeted more heavily towards people with the greatest financial needs.
Both arguments raise questions about how the state should distribute resources between generations and among pensioners with different incomes.
A debate that reaches beyond Westminster
The triple-lock dispute illustrates the difficult choices facing Britain’s political parties. Protecting retirement income is a major public commitment, but so are healthcare, social care, housing and support for working-age households.
Reform says it would preserve the triple lock and find savings elsewhere. The Conservatives continue to describe the guarantee as their policy while emphasising the need for economic growth. Labour’s proposed adjustment seeks to maintain inflation protection while changing how pension increases relate to average earnings and using the resulting savings to support social care.
Those are different approaches to the same fundamental problem: how to provide security in retirement while keeping public spending sustainable.
For Reform, reaffirming the triple lock gives voters a clear statement of its position. For Badenoch, the challenge is to explain how the Conservatives would preserve their commitment under different economic conditions. For the government, the task is to show that its proposed changes would deliver the promised social care funding without leaving pensioners exposed.
Ultimately, the argument should be settled through clear policies, transparent costings and an honest explanation of who would be affected. Pensioners need dependable information about their future income, while younger workers deserve to know how today’s commitments will be financed.
The triple lock is more than a formula for annual increases. It is a debate about retirement security, intergenerational fairness and the responsibilities of the state. As the political argument continues, the crucial question is not simply which party makes the strongest promise, but what each party’s plan would mean for pensioners and taxpayers in practice.