A prominent think tank has called for the government to abolish the state pension triple lock, arguing the funds should be redirected to tackle the crisis facing working-class boys.
The Proposal to End the Triple Lock
In a report published this weekend, the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) stated that the triple lock mechanism is unsustainable. The policy currently guarantees that the state pension rises each year by the highest of three figures: inflation, average earnings growth, or 2.5%.
The CSJ proposes that pensions should instead be linked solely to inflation, bringing them into line with other benefits. The savings generated from this change would be used to finance a new national effort focused on young men.
Addressing a 'Crisis of Boyhood'
The report highlights stark statistics to illustrate the challenges, noting that boys are now more likely to own a smartphone than to live with their father. It frames the debate as a fundamental question of Britain's social contract, asking whether the comfort of current pensioners should take precedence over the prospects of the future workforce.
Writing in The Telegraph, Miriam Cates, a former Conservative MP and senior fellow at the CSJ, elaborated on the think tank's controversial stance. "We advocate for a national effort to boost marriage rates, to give as many boys as possible the chance to grow up with their dad," she stated.
A Question of Generational Fairness
Ms Cates argued that ending the triple lock is necessary to correct a perceived imbalance. "Controversially, we suggest this should be funded by ending the triple lock, as a way to end the generational unfairness that has prioritised the old over the young," she wrote.
The report concludes that the nation's future is deeply connected to the outcomes of its young men. It calls for a shift in focus towards the "foundational years of boyhood" to cultivate a generation that is purposeful, hopeful, and resilient.
The proposal from the influential centre-right think tank is likely to ignite a fierce political debate, pitting pension security against investment in disadvantaged youth.
