Reform UK has launched a furious attack on Andy Burnham over his plan to change the state pension triple lock, despite Nigel Farage and Richard Tice previously refusing to guarantee the policy themselves.
Farage has accused the Prime Minister of a “betrayal of British pensioners”, while Lee Anderson and Tice have also gone on the offensive over Labour’s plans.
But the criticism has prompted old comments from senior Reform figures to resurface.
In November 2025, Tice said:
“On a number of occasions, Nigel has clearly said that we’re not guaranteeing the triple lock.”
Farage later described the future of the triple lock as “open for debate”.
Reform subsequently changed its position and now promises to keep the existing system.
That means the party is now attacking Burnham for touching a policy its own leadership was openly questioning less than a year ago.
Reform piles into Burnham
Farage shared an article this week under the words:
“Read my latest article on Burnham’s betrayal of British pensioners. 👇”
Lee Anderson also took aim at Labour’s plan.
He wrote:
“Triple Lock… Whilst the left are scurrying around posting feeble excuses to the end of the Triple Lock saying things like ‘it is not a cut for pensioners’ then I ask you this. If it’s not a cut in how much pensioners get paid in the future then what’s the point of it all?…”
Richard Tice added:
“Burnham plans assault on pensioners savers and workers to pay for bigger state, more inefficient state We will all pay higher taxes and suffer a death tax as the final nail in our coffin.”
The criticism sounds unequivocal now.
Reform’s older comments were not.
Tice previously said Reform couldn’t guarantee it
Tice was asked directly about the triple lock during an LBC interview in November 2025.
He said Reform could not guarantee the policy.
“On a number of occasions, Nigel has clearly said that we’re not guaranteeing the triple lock.”
The comments came as Reform was moving away from several expensive promises it had previously made.
Tice argued that the state of Britain’s finances meant the party could not make guarantees years before an election. (lbc.co.uk)
Farage later took a similar line.
Asked about the policy in February 2026, he said:
“I haven’t changed my mind. It’s open for debate. Everything is open for debate.”
Reform eventually did change course.
By April, Farage had committed the party to keeping the triple lock.
That is Reform’s position now.
But it leaves the party attacking Burnham for proposing a change to a guarantee its own leaders had, until recently, been unwilling to make.
Burnham has now explained exactly what he is proposing
Burnham responded to the row by publishing a lengthy statement explaining why he wants to change the triple lock.
He said the current system would remain untouched for the rest of this Parliament.
The change would not begin until April 2030.
Under Burnham’s proposal, the state pension would still rise every year by either inflation or 2.5 per cent, whichever is higher.
It would also receive larger rises when needed to make sure its value does not fall behind average earnings over time.
That is different from simply removing the earnings link altogether.
The current system increases pensions each year by whichever is highest out of inflation, wage growth or 2.5 per cent.
Burnham’s version would remove the automatic annual wage-growth element, while keeping an earnings link over the longer term.
He said:
“From April 2030, under our adjusted triple lock, we will guarantee that the state pension rises every year by either inflation or 2.5 per cent, whichever is higher. It will also increase by more than this when necessary to ensure that it holds its value relative to average earnings.”
Burnham also acknowledged something his opponents have focused on.
Pensions would rise more slowly than they would if the existing triple lock remained unchanged.
He said:
“I want to be upfront about what I am proposing because this adjustment will bring change. The state pension will not increase as quickly as it otherwise would if we kept the triple lock in its current form.”
That is why the change saves money.
Burnham says the money should go into social care
Burnham’s argument is that pensioners would receive something else in return.
He wants the savings from the triple lock reform to help fund a National Care Service providing free personal care.
That would include help with basic needs such as eating, dressing and bathing.
Burnham said:
“Everyone knows that our social care system is broken. And yet, for decades, politicians have failed to fix it.”
He argued that older people are currently exposed to enormous care bills and that the lack of social care is also putting pressure on hospitals.
“I am convinced that if we carry on as we are, our broken social care system will eventually break our NHS too.”
Burnham says patients are being unnecessarily admitted to hospital because care is not available at home, while others cannot be discharged because there is nowhere suitable for them to go.
His proposed National Care Service would be introduced during the next Parliament.
Burnham described the trade-off directly:
“This is the settlement I am offering to pensioners: a state pension that rises every year, no care charges and a high-quality National Care Service to give peace of mind in later life.”
Reform’s old comments quickly resurfaced
Once Reform began attacking the policy, clips of Farage and Tice’s previous positions started circulating again.
@MatthewStadlen wrote:
“And here’s Richard Tice saying Reform can’t guarantee the triple lock”
Political commentator Sam Freedman also pointed to the awkward position Burnham may have created for his opponents.
@Samfr wrote:
“Not sure how the triple lock change will ultimately play politically. But trapping the Tories and Reform into defending a policy literally none of them support in private is potentially a neat move.”
Burnham says he is willing to take the political hit
Burnham made clear in his statement that he expects the proposal to be unpopular with some voters.
He said:
“This is not an easy decision, but I believe it is the right one.”
He also pointed out that he had tried to find a cross-party solution to social care when he was health secretary in 2009.
“It is a profound failure of politics that we have known about this problem for so long and yet failed to act.”
And:
“I would never forgive myself if I did not try now.”
The final detail of the National Care Service will be shaped by Louise Casey’s review.
Burnham says it will be fully funded without additional borrowing.
Reform says the existing triple lock should now remain untouched.
That is a perfectly legitimate position for the party to take.
But it is also a position Farage and Tice only arrived at after previously refusing to guarantee the very policy they are now accusing Burnham of betraying.
Joe Connor is a UK-based reporter specialising in politics, public policy, and national affairs. He has previously contributed to publications including The London Economic (JOE Media Group) and Spotted News.
At The Daily Britain, he covers Westminster politics, elections, and breaking political developments, alongside in-depth analysis of policy decisions and their real-world impact.
Leave a Reply