rawliberal 🔸

I listened to Ed Davey on the @BBCr4today this morning, and frankly, I think he missed the point. The idea that we're keeping the triple lock to help millennials is at best for the birds, and at worst downright insulting. I say that as a millennial. The case for the triple lock is a worthy one - stopping pensioner poverty. I want that as much as anyone. But pensioners are now less likely to be in poverty than children or working age adults. We talk about fairness, yet our answer is to give the same increase to every pensioner, treating the one choosing between heating and eating exactly the same as the one with millions in the bank. I can see no moral or fiscal case for above inflation rises for millionaires. That money should go where it's needed most - to everyone in poverty, not just one group. It could help fund free personal care, a policy that would disproportionately benefit older people. Ed is right that we shouldn't pit one generation against another. But intergenerational inequality is already one of the defining injustices of our time, and this would further entrench it. Worse, it gaslights an entire generation into believing it's for our benefit. Telling millennials we're keeping the triple lock to help us in 30 years' time is nonsense. We're on course to be the first generation worse off than our parents. We're locked out of the housing market, paying higher taxes, repaying student loans that never seem to shrink, and putting off having children because of the cost of living. I joined this party because I care about fairness and tackling inequality, and that has to include inequality between generations. This line, and this decision, fails on both counts. Ed needs to think again.