I have a sneaking suspicion that readership skews towards the older generation. Maybe I’m wrong. Perhaps there are a number of young people whose morning routine is not complete without reading the day’s ToryDiary. 

But for those older readers, I am most likely going to upset you. Insult you, even. Because I am going to tell you something that many politicians are unwilling to say. The triple lock is a mechanism that is neither fair, sustainable nor conservative.

For those unaware of what the triple lock links the state pension to whichever is the highest of inflation, average earnings or 2.5 per cent. A relatively harmless, insubstantial mechanic, one might think. After all, only some sick-in-the-head psychopath would like to see Meredith from Lancashire succumb to the horrors of poverty and destitution, having frozen to death in her bungalow that she can’t afford to properly heat.  

The problem is that whenever someone floats the idea of tampering with the triple lock, a figurehead such as Meredith is wheeled out. The policy has somehow progressed from protecting Meredith to protecting every pensioner in Britain from the possibility of Meredith. Because the triple lock is a policy that benefits pensioners regardless of their income whilst simultaneously indebting great swathes of young people for years to come. 

Data from yesterday shows that the triple lock is expected to deliver an increase of 3.9 per cent, which would see the state pension rise by £488 a year. This would mean that the yearly state pension will sit at just north of £13,000. Alongside an increase in state pension claimants, the state pension is expected to cost the Treasury for the year 2026/27, an increase of roughly from the year before. 

, driven in large part by the “ratcheting effect of the triple lock.” Add on to this the fact that, by 2030, the triple lock is predicted to slap an extra  £15.5bn on public spending, and you get a system which is becoming increasingly likely to go bust.

Were the possibility of going bust not enough of an issue, part of the impact of the triple lock “have seen living standards grow three times more than typical workers over the last 20 years.” Those who are working age and told to put in a shift everyday, only for their tax money to be funnelled into a group of people who, according to research from the at least as well off as the average working-age person” and who, in wealth terms, specifically “are far better off.” And yet, by 2050, the triple lock could increase the total cost of the state pension by anywhere from £5bn to £40bn a year. It’s bonkers.

Kemi wants to boast of her supposed ‘New Deal for Young People‘, and that she has the interests of the young at heart. And yet, she refuses to fiddle with a system that sends money to a group of which are substantially better off than others. Indeed, ONS data shows that the median net worth of those aged between 65 – 69 sits at £355,800, with their mean net worth at £597,200. Those aged, say, 20 to 24 meanwhile, have a median net worth of £15,300 and a mean net worth of £23,600.

It stinks of hypocrisy. And yet, I can understand why many in the party want to keep it. In the 2024 General Election, close to 88 per cent of those aged 66 and over turned out to vote, compared to just 65 per cent of those aged between 18-25, and 69 per cent of those aged between 26-35. Couple these numbers with the fact that roughly 40 per cent of those aged 65 and over , higher than any other party, and everything becomes clear.

The Tories are not standing by the triple lock out of some moral-bound duty to pensioners. Our party is avoiding the question not because they want to best protect Meredith. No, we refuse to tinker with the system because we are afraid of angering those who we so very depend upon to get into office. Scrapping the triple lock would be electoral suicide. Through refusing to discuss the subject, we are effectively offering them a bribe. In return for their ever-increasing standards of living, we receive their vote.

And this is what frustrates me so greatly. Kemi is popular because of her no-nonsense attitude. She says it how it is, and people like her because, even if they disagree with her, she stays true to her beliefs. If she is so serious about portraying such an image to the public, then she should break ranks from the rest of the establishment and pledge to scrap the triple lock. She boasts of willing to be unpopular if what she says is right. Well, then, let’s see it.

The triple lock is unsustainable, it is unfair, and it sees young people dish out yet more cash to fund the lives of a group that enjoy a higher standard of living than they do. There is conservative about that.

Kemi, you know it has to go. Questions about the state pension more generally can be shelved for another time. But before such questions are asked, the issue of the triple lock needs to be tackled. The triple lock has to be scrapped.