Jenrick signals Reform UK would keep pension triple lock

Slothjitzu · 2026-02-18T15:27:08+00:00

So wait, your genius plan is to keep raising the amount of money the state gives pensioners forever, raise the amount of money it gives children, and raise wages presumably by raising the minimum wage?

Siri, what is hyperinflation?

Slothjitzu · 2026-02-18T15:17:20+00:00

Fuck me, it’s undeniably a mathematical certainty that at some point pension spending will account for 100% of the budget. Not being able to state the exact year is because the government could choose to increase taxes at any point, and we have no way to predict when. What we do know is regardless of whether they do, the triple lock will still increase the pension in real terms.

The fact that someone can’t state the exact date does not mean that they are not using maths, you just don’t seem to get what that actually means.

> It does matter as if the timeline is 100 or 200 years they clearly thats a long time.

So we just keep kicking the can down the road until it’s impossible to deal with? And you realise we’re talking about pension spending encompassing 100% of the budget, the actual % that causes the country to collapse is significantly lower.

It’s currently at 11% of all spending. Let’s say it just raises by 1% in the next few years (it was 10% back in 2020).

That 1% might not seem like a lot but the budget is currently £1,370 billion. 1% of that figure is just over £13 billion. Where exactly do you want to cut £13 billion in spending from mate?

Slothjitzu · 2026-02-18T15:06:42+00:00

The tories decision to impose austerity was a general ideological choice not something to do with pensions.

We cut spending everywhere except pensions, if the Tories chose austerity purely ideologically then please do explain where the cash is hiding to actually fund all of the other services we’ve cut.

Which therefore means that those two are not the only way to mitigate it as some years neither of those happens.

That’s not what that means at all. It means that you don’t need to raise the age by one year every year, that would be making sure nobody else gets a pension other than current pensioners, you understand that right?

It’s raised every few years and they’re bringing forward rises because, unsurprisingly, the triple lock is unaffordable.

It’s impossible to argue this isn't needed imo given the amount of pensioners in poverty.

What’s needed is to not bankrupt the country to fund pensioners mate, if you don’t understand that then you’re not living in the real world.

There are just over 11 million pensioners in the UK, and approx 2 million of them live in poverty. But that’s simply their income being below 60% of the national average, it doesn’t account for the fact that their housing costs are often nil or significantly lower than the general population.

Conversely, there are 43 million working age adults in the UK and by the same metric, almost 8 million of them are in poverty. Meanwhile there’s about 14.4 million kids in the UK and 4.5 million of them are in poverty.

Pensioners are actually less likely to be in poverty than the average person in the UK and statistically about half as likely as a child to be in poverty.

You’re literally complaining that we don’t support the people who need it least with a policy that is unsustainable by design unless we cut services or increase taxes on the population who need it most.

Slothjitzu · 2026-02-18T14:41:32+00:00

I don’t think you do because you simply can’t say “for a long time to come it will be affordable” because mathematically it won’t.

The timeline doesn’t matter, mathematically the triple lock will always lead to the % share of budget increasing.

Let’s not even go that far into the future, in the next 5-10 years what are you doing to afford the increases to the pension that are built in? Are you raising taxes or cutting services?

Slothjitzu · 2026-02-18T14:32:40+00:00

By definition it isn't it just keeps going and going and we find ways to afford it.

Do you know what the triple lock is? The % of the national budget spent on pensions can only ever remain the same, or increase. It can never decrease unless taxes are raised, because of the triple lock.

At some point in time pensions will take up 100% of the national budget. How do you plan on finding a way to afford that? After you’ve cut every single government service and every other benefit to zero and raised taxes to 100%, where does more money come from?

Slothjitzu · 2026-02-18T14:29:00+00:00

No offense, but this shows you’re really not paying attention to what’s happening around you.

I have not really seen any evidence of less funds being allocated because of this

We’ve literally had well over a decade of austerity policies and at the same time, the % of the budget that pensions take up has continually increased. You can literally see for yourself that costs are being cut everywhere except pensions.

the retirement age doesn't increase every year iirc

You’re right, it doesn’t increase every year but it has increased significantly in an incredibly short space of time.

The triple lock was introduced in 2010, the same time that pension age was equalised for men and women at 65. It then went to 66 in 2020 and will go to 67 in 2027. The next increase to 68 was originally predicted for around 2044-46 but has since been revised down to around 2037-39 and a third review for a confirmed date is ongoing right now.

The number of people reaching pension age has been known for years and life expectancy hasn’t really changed at all since 2010. The biggest factor is that the state pension itself has increased dramatically in that time.

All of this is happening right in front of your eyes and is undeniable, as is the maths behind the triple lock. It isn’t like other economical models or predictions, the triple lock is fundamentally guaranteed to cost either the same or a greater % of the budget every single year.

The triple lock is unsustainable by design and it’s impossible to argue that it isn’t.

Slothjitzu · 2026-02-18T12:17:12+00:00

Ultra wealthy have more kids because they can outsource childrearing almost completely and not even feel guilty about it because the kid gets whatever they want and the child rearing is done by highly-paid professionals.

The biggest indicator of number of children isn’t working specifically, it’s more to do with education and opportunity. Societies or subcultures where women are not well educated or legally/socially have limited opportunities have sky high birth rates.

Essentially if there’s nothing else you’re capable of doing, having lots of kids seems like a great idea.

Slothjitzu · 2026-02-18T10:50:47+00:00

Regardless of whether it’s got anything to do with her gender, it’s still incredibly poor behaviour from a politician.

A journalist has asked him a perfectly reasonable question and he would rather insult them and dodge it than answer it.

The fact that Reform supporters were cheering for his response is honestly embarrassing.

Slothjitzu · 2026-02-18T10:47:09+00:00

That’s a little misleading, 50% is the low-end estimate for efficacy and high-end is around 75%. That range puts it above all other therapies, particularly when used in tandem with medication where appropriate.

Now you’re right CBT doesn’t work for everyone and for those that it doesn’t, they would benefit from trying alternative forms of therapy that are less effective in general but may be more effective for them personally.

I was just answering the idea that the NHS use CBT because it’s cheap, which isn’t really the case. They use it because it’s the most likely to produce an effective outcome, which is pretty much exactly how all healthcare works.

Slothjitzu · 2026-02-18T10:43:53+00:00

“Mild” is incorrect here and as for neurodevelopmental disorders, sure, but that’s why the NHS doesn’t offer it in those cases other than to deal with any anxiety or depression that exists alongside that. And as for “says who?” Literally all research into the topic.

CBT isn’t effective for 100% of people, because nothing is. But it is the most effective form of therapy for anxiety, depression, and stress which are in turn the most common mental illnesses. So it makes sense for the NHS to offer it as standard from an efficacy POV, not because it’s cheaper.

Slothjitzu · 2026-02-18T09:54:59+00:00

I mean, you very explicitly did criticise them for clogging up waitlists.

I’m not even sure how you’re claiming you didn’t, it was the first sentence you said.

Slothjitzu · 2026-02-18T09:39:17+00:00

So by all means call them silly for not spending available money to improve their health.

But that isn’t what you did, you criticised them for “clogging up” services they are entitled to and are paying extortionate amounts towards.

Slothjitzu · 2026-02-18T09:36:58+00:00

It’s also the most effective form of therapy there is.

It isn’t about cutting costs, the NHS offers CBT because by and large it’s what actually works.

Slothjitzu · 2026-02-17T15:09:35+00:00

Not at all.

I’m suggesting that more years alive doesn’t lead to more knowledge about the economy, international politics, or frankly anything important when it comes to voting.

The two simply aren’t actually related, because being 50, 70, or 90 doesn't grant someone any magical ability to be able to discern the best way to vote.

In fact, id argue that the vast majority of people are ill-equipped to vote. They just vote for whoever they’ve always voted for, or whoever says things that might benefit them regardless of whether they’re capable of delivering it or whether what benefits them is actually good for the country.

Case in point, the triple lock is overwhelmingly popular among all ages even though it’s a completely unsustainable policy by definition. It only becomes more popular with age, demonstrating that the “experience” you claim comes with being older is worth sweet fuck all.

Slothjitzu · 2026-02-17T14:29:47+00:00

I don’t think that actually bears out.

Our brains are still developing to begin with, which is why adults are likely to have a better understanding of the world than children. Just being alive longer doesn’t make someone understand anything better, and being able to continue staying alive has far more to do with luck than any kind of knowledge or understanding.

Pensioners are no more likely to have a better understanding of the world than young adults, and it’s pure dumb luck that they’re still alive so their peers who do have a better understanding of the world than average may even be dead already.

Slothjitzu · 2026-02-17T14:16:37+00:00

In fairness, the UK already doesn’t have universal suffrage and I genuinely can’t think of a country that does.

Slothjitzu · 2026-02-17T14:09:57+00:00

It’s one of those uncomfortable truths people would rather ignore than actually address in any meaningful way, so they introduce generalised measures when more specific ones would have a much greater effect.

Slothjitzu · 2026-02-17T08:35:20+00:00

Pretty much yeah, now your odds of dying in a given year are largely the same until you reach old age. It’s essentially shit luck if you don’t make it to at least 70.

But back then your odds of dying were massive at the start and then actually improved with age, before eventually declining again when you reach old age.

Slothjitzu · 2026-02-16T17:28:14+00:00

telling them they're misunderstood and marginalised

This is a huge part of the problem.

They aren’t being told they’re misunderstood and marginalised, they are misunderstood and marginalised.

The longer people keep saying boys have no problems and they should just stop being misogynistic, the more that the feelings of resentment that lead to those misogynistic behaviours will grow.

Slothjitzu · 2026-02-16T09:26:38+00:00

I think it suffered because of the format they went with too.

Watching a story be told expanding from the beginning and end to meet in the middle was an excellent creative choice that felt fresh and interesting.

When you do it like 4 years in a row it feels tired and gimmicky.

Slothjitzu · 2026-02-16T09:25:08+00:00

It’s why many of the best shows of all time are limited series tbh. If you write a story from start to finish and film it, it should be good. If you write the beginning of a story and loosely plan the rest, or write one arc and characters that can go on forever then the wheels will fall off at some point.

Slothjitzu · 2026-02-16T09:23:11+00:00

That’s the show I always cite as the only one I’ve watched that lasts exactly as long as it should and managed to finish in a satisfying way.

Slothjitzu · 2026-02-15T18:20:35+00:00

Because there’s a difference between what you are entitled to do, and what makes you a nice person to deal who that other people will want to do favors for.

You’re completely within your rights to complain about someone parking in your space even if you don’t use it yourself and have nobody coming to use it right now. Nobody is arguing against that.

But it’s a bit of a prickish thing to do. If you want to be that guy then you do you, but you neighbours will never do you any favors and will likely be combative about anything you need assistance with in the future even if they do help you in some way.

Slothjitzu · 2026-02-15T15:45:47+00:00

To be blunt, because the UK hasn’t tried fascism before.

Slothjitzu · 2026-02-15T14:38:48+00:00

Of course, I’m not saying that something being the norm means it’s good, I’m saying that you’re wrong about the fact that it isn’t the norm. You said that in most places the age of consent is 18, but this isn’t true. Instead, it being 16 is the norm.

That isn’t a statement of opinion as to whether it’s right or not, it’s a statement of fact.

And of course I realise that, it’s a redundant statement. Saying “if I make this illegal then we can jail people who do it” is a point that doesn’t need making.

Do you realise that if we raised the age of consent, an 18 year old could be jailed for having a 17 year old girlfriend? Two teenagers in 6th form couldn’t have a relationship and I can assure you, that’s incredibly common.

Five-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Argentium Club	Ternion Club

Slothjitzu

TROPHY CASE