Triple-Lock is doomed

 The Triple-Lock has had its day.

    Some people [1] are gunning for the so-called Triple-Lock on the State Pension. The triple-lock, introduced in 2011, ensures that the basic statuary old-age pension rises each year by an amount that is the greatest of: (a) the CPI inflation, (b) average earnings growth, or (c) 2.5%. 

    I agree it must be revised. I have never understood how the third element found its way into the formula. Why should pensions rise when average wages did not? And yet, from the data in Table 1 of reference [1], the 2.5% rule was used to raise pensions faster than average wages in 2013, 2015, 2017 and 2021. Why should pensions rise in those years? There is no money with which to pay them. So, let us dispense with the 2.5%; and look at the double-lock

    One might argue that pensions will not go down in real terms if they are corrected for inflation, i.e. tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI).  And that protection might suffice. Yet, if the hoped for 'growth' of the economy were to occur repeatedly for a few years, wages could rise faster than inflation; i.e. could rise in real terms. And it might  be argued that, in fairness, pensioners should join in the fun. Generous fairness. And, though there are years in the quoted Table [1] in which average weekly wages rose more slowly than inflation, (e.g. in 2011, 2012, 2016, 2022, 2023), I think it is clear that, in the long term, average wages out-strip inflation, and indeed contain inflation (as that is a dominant element in driving wage rises). 

    At this stage we might accept either locking pensions to CPI or, more generously, locking them to average wages. But what we must not do is lock them to both whichever is the higher. It is perfectly possible for inflation to exceed wages one year and wages to catch up the next; and that repeatedly. With a double-lock, pensions could rise twice as fast as wages. 

    So, it has to be that we go for a single-lock, to average wages. The author of the cited paper [1], Heidi Karjalainen, points out that average wages tend to rise in jerks, and advocates using a "‘smoothed earnings link’, similar to the approach used in Australia."

    It is plain silly for a succession of governments from 2011 to the present Labour government to promise to retain the triple lock. It suggests that there are too few MPs in the House able to understand the simple train of thought outlined above.

References

[1]  Karjalainen, H. (2025). "What are the effects of the ‘triple lock’ and how could it be reformed?" Institute for Fiscal Studies. Available at: https://ifs.org.uk/articles/what-are-effects-triple-lock-and-how-could-it-be-reformed 

[2]  https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/averageweeklyearningsingreatbritain/october2025

The Trump Fiasco

The Trump Fiasco

    There are many different ways in which Trump's war against Iran is lamentable. 

    1. It is not clear that there was sufficient cause. 

    Israel and the United States argued that Iran, with the declared aim of wiping Israel off the map, should not be allowed to build nuclear weapons. Most states in the United Nations would probably agree. Though it does seem arrogant and hypocritical for two Nuclear powers to declare that other powers should be denied such weapons. 

    Iran has always claimed that their objective was only to develop nuclear energy, not nuclear weapons. They were in the process of negotiating. Foolishly, perhaps. Maybe there was a lack of good faith, certainly the Islamic Republic harboured much anger. The leadership might be divided on the issue of Nuclear weapons; after all, if Israel has them so why not Iran, a proud country with a history that stretches back to the origins of civilization. And they have a largely disaffected population, as their economy and quality of life has been ruined by decades of hostile sanctions. 

    2. The United States was not the appropriate enforcer. 

    The international community spent most of the previous century setting up a mechanism for handling exactly this sort of problem, namely the United Nations and the International Court. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an autonomous organization within the United Nations system, was set up in 1957 to supervise and monitor the spread of nuclear weapons material and technology. 

    3. The US team seem un-diplomatic, almost puerile in their approach. 

    It is not clear what the problem was in the negotiations. Why could the Iranians not be persuaded to prove their good faith? Were the IAEA or US negotiators as distastefully arrogant as the President of the USA, and his unspeakable Peter Hegseth, the self-styled 'US Secretary for War'?  Whichever other country has a secretary for 'war', as one of the foremost offices of the state!  Accusing the victims of US bombing of "cowering like rats, for that is what rats do."  Bragging  that "This was never meant to be a fair fight, and it is not a fair fight. We are punching them while they’re down, which is exactly how it should be." Uch!  And the puerile codename for this assault: "Operation Epic Fury." Adult Americans must cringe.

    Why did the United States go to war without the authority of Congress, if that is the constitutionally correct procedure? Did President Trump consult with the US ambassador to the Iranian Republic? It would seem not. That is to say, it would seem that Trump's team mis-judged the psychology of the Iranian regime and the willingness of Iranian people to revolt. 

    Trump spent a week or two from 15th January clustering weaponry and making threats, apparently hoping that the Iranian leadership would lose its nerve, or collapse. He was apparently oblivious of the fact that threatening to use force to settle disputes is as explicitly forbidden by the UN charter as the use of force [See my posts]. Apparently ignorant also of the high status accorded to martyrs in the mindset of Islamic ideologues.

    I suggest someone offers to restart negotiations; perhaps António Guterres as Secretary-General of the United Nations; or Emmanuel Macron, or Mark Carney. Perhaps Iran would forego nuclear weapons if Israel did the same. 

Links
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Agency
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text  
https://occidentis.blogspot.com/2026/01/trumps-actions-are-illegal.html
https://occidentis.blogspot.com/2026/03/united-nations-dissolved-and-reformed-i.html  
  

 United Nations: Dissolved and Reformed?

I observed on 3rd Jan 2026, [1] that the United States has flagrantly broken its committment to the Charter of the United Nations [2] articles 2.3 and 2.4;  I quote:

Article 2 paragraph 3.  All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

Article 2 paragraph 4.  All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

So, of course, did the Russian Federation when it invaded Ukraine in 2014 and again in 2022. I concluded in January [1]:

"The answer has to be that they leave the Club, the consortium of civilised nations. Nobody can force the US; all we can do is isolate them, ignore them."

I supposed that one reason why no one can force the exclusion of the USA or Russia, following UN protocol, was 'the veto' (which first came into play in 1946, used by The Soviet Union, and used 29 time over the years by Great Britain). However, when I scoured the Charter for the word 'veto' I found only this:

Article 27

Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.

Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.

Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting. (My emphasis.)

Note that there is no veto in the General Assembly, nor in the Security Council on procedural matters and matters concerning action under Chapter VI ("Pacific Settlement of Disputes"). That chapter requires that states shall "seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice."). And must recuse themselves if they are party to the dispute. (See the excellent Wikipedia article on United Nations Security Council veto power [3])

Unfortunately there is no coercive powers in Chapter VI; those are covered in Chapter VII: "Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression." Under that chapter, action requires the "concurring votes of the permanent members."

So, it turns out to be not just a question of: "Who will bell-the-cat?" Who will venture to tell the United State/Russian Federation to stop their bombing?  The Veto is a deliberate escape clause inserted by the five Great Powers of the time (1945) to protect their sovereignty and self interests.  As it turns out, the "Great Powers" are precisely those that most need to be curbed. What is to be done?

Before considering the drastic step of forming a new United Nations which explicitly excludes all powers from using the veto if they are party to a dispute (Britain's position in 1945), let us look at Chapter VII. Its Article 41 lists some non-violent but coercive measures, while its Article 42, considers the use of force.

Article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

  Action of the Security under either Article 41 or 42  can (at present) be blocked by a negative vote from any one of the permanent members. (Absence or abstention is not regarded as a negative vote.)    

    Others have pointed out that the discussion of breaches of the Charter can not be vetoed. I think that would put some pressure on one of the Great Powers that had gone rogue. Bullies do not like to be thwarted, but they do not like thinking of themselves as "the baddies".

        And I think we have yet to see how much pressure can be applied by nations acting together under Article 41. Currently, that can be vetoed, but not if the Charter is amended.

References:
[1]  https://occidentis.blogspot.com/2026/01/trumps-actions-are-illegal.html
[2]  https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text.
[3]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power