Sound the alarm bells: the UK’s annual welfare bill is well in excess of £300 billion a year.
It’s about a quarter of total government spending. What’s worse is that a hefty portion of that is given to people who do not need it.
Unfortunately for the young, most of the people who are getting it but do not need it are pensioners – i.e. people who are much more likely to vote than anyone else and in today’s supine world, only the bravest politician will risk offending serial voters (see the 2017 General Election).
For most Conservatives, welfare is not an abstract policy area but a test of our governing philosophy. It goes to the heart of what we believe about work, responsibility, fairness, and the proper limits of the state. Yet too often in recent years, welfare policy has drifted as it’s driven more by crisis management than by first principles.
Well over 40 per cent of our total welfare bill is spent on the State Pension alone. That’s some £140 billion every year. As of 2023, 27 per cent of UK pensioners lived in millionaire households; it is almost certainly higher today. Thus, we can estimate the annual state pension payments to retired millionaires to be around £37.8 billion. Now that’s a budget black hole!
Because it’s been protected with the triple lock, the State Pension is one of the fastest-growing items of public expenditure. It rises almost regardless of economic conditions, productivity, or the increasing tax burden on working-age people. Meanwhile, younger voters face higher taxes, unaffordable housing, student debt, and shrinking public services. Forcing young people to fund universal pension payments to millionaires isn’t compassionate; it’s politically toxic.
Critics will say that pensioners “paid in” and are therefore entitled. But the State Pension has never been a personal savings account. Today’s workers fund today’s retirees. Entitlement is political, not contractual. Means-testing already exists throughout the welfare system; pretending the State Pension is uniquely sacrosanct is an evasion, not a principle.
Electorally, this is not the risk many assume. Polling consistently shows public support for welfare being targeted at those who need it most. Voters are far more resentful of perceived unfairness than of means-testing itself. When framed as a choice between cutting support for the vulnerable or ending handouts to the wealthy, the public instinct is clear.
There is also a clear moral case grounded in Conservative ideas of fairness, responsibility, and reciprocity between generations. A welfare state can command public consent only if it is seen to be just, limited, and rooted in need. Asking younger, working-age taxpayers to fund universal benefits for those who are already comfortable — often with significant property and pension wealth — stretches that consent to breaking point. Conservatism has always understood that solidarity depends on mutual obligation, not permanent entitlement. Independence from the state should be recognised as a success, not treated as a grievance. If welfare becomes something people receive regardless of circumstance, it ceases to be a safety net and becomes a distortion. A rebalanced system, which protects poorer pensioners while easing the burden on working families, would strengthen both the moral authority and long-term sustainability of the welfare state.
This presents a strategic opportunity. A party willing to tell uncomfortable truths stands out in an era of evasive politics. By openly acknowledging that serious welfare reform must include the State Pension (and by doing so in the name of fairness, sustainability, and intergenerational justice) Conservatives could reclaim the mantle of fiscal responsibility without appearing callous.
Crucially, this reform should be positioned not as a “cut”, but as a reallocation. Savings could be used to strengthen pension provision for poorer retirees, fund social care, or reduce the tax burden on working families. The message should be simple: support where it is needed, restraint where it is not.
This approach also aligns with the Conservative values which voters recognise instinctively. Most people understand that the state should not subsidise those who are already comfortable. Ending pension payments to the wealthy is not an attack on aspiration; it is a recognition that independence from the state is a success, not a grievance.
The alternative is continued drift: rising costs, growing resentment, and a welfare system that protects universality for the powerful while tightening conditionality for everyone else. That path is neither fair nor electorally wise.
Sound the alarm bells: the UK’s annual welfare bill is well in excess of £300 billion a year.
It’s about a quarter of total government spending. What’s worse is that a hefty portion of that is given to people who do not need it.
Unfortunately for the young, most of the people who are getting it but do not need it are pensioners – i.e. people who are much more likely to vote than anyone else and in today’s supine world, only the bravest politician will risk offending serial voters (see the 2017 General Election).
For most Conservatives, welfare is not an abstract policy area but a test of our governing philosophy. It goes to the heart of what we believe about work, responsibility, fairness, and the proper limits of the state. Yet too often in recent years, welfare policy has drifted as it’s driven more by crisis management than by first principles.
Well over 40 per cent of our total welfare bill is spent on the State Pension alone. That’s some £140 billion every year. As of 2023, 27 per cent of UK pensioners lived in millionaire households; it is almost certainly higher today. Thus, we can estimate the annual state pension payments to retired millionaires to be around £37.8 billion. Now that’s a budget black hole!
Because it’s been protected with the triple lock, the State Pension is one of the fastest-growing items of public expenditure. It rises almost regardless of economic conditions, productivity, or the increasing tax burden on working-age people. Meanwhile, younger voters face higher taxes, unaffordable housing, student debt, and shrinking public services. Forcing young people to fund universal pension payments to millionaires isn’t compassionate; it’s politically toxic.
Critics will say that pensioners “paid in” and are therefore entitled. But the State Pension has never been a personal savings account. Today’s workers fund today’s retirees. Entitlement is political, not contractual. Means-testing already exists throughout the welfare system; pretending the State Pension is uniquely sacrosanct is an evasion, not a principle.
Electorally, this is not the risk many assume. Polling consistently shows public support for welfare being targeted at those who need it most. Voters are far more resentful of perceived unfairness than of means-testing itself. When framed as a choice between cutting support for the vulnerable or ending handouts to the wealthy, the public instinct is clear.
There is also a clear moral case grounded in Conservative ideas of fairness, responsibility, and reciprocity between generations. A welfare state can command public consent only if it is seen to be just, limited, and rooted in need. Asking younger, working-age taxpayers to fund universal benefits for those who are already comfortable — often with significant property and pension wealth — stretches that consent to breaking point. Conservatism has always understood that solidarity depends on mutual obligation, not permanent entitlement. Independence from the state should be recognised as a success, not treated as a grievance. If welfare becomes something people receive regardless of circumstance, it ceases to be a safety net and becomes a distortion. A rebalanced system, which protects poorer pensioners while easing the burden on working families, would strengthen both the moral authority and long-term sustainability of the welfare state.
This presents a strategic opportunity. A party willing to tell uncomfortable truths stands out in an era of evasive politics. By openly acknowledging that serious welfare reform must include the State Pension (and by doing so in the name of fairness, sustainability, and intergenerational justice) Conservatives could reclaim the mantle of fiscal responsibility without appearing callous.
Crucially, this reform should be positioned not as a “cut”, but as a reallocation. Savings could be used to strengthen pension provision for poorer retirees, fund social care, or reduce the tax burden on working families. The message should be simple: support where it is needed, restraint where it is not.
This approach also aligns with the Conservative values which voters recognise instinctively. Most people understand that the state should not subsidise those who are already comfortable. Ending pension payments to the wealthy is not an attack on aspiration; it is a recognition that independence from the state is a success, not a grievance.
The alternative is continued drift: rising costs, growing resentment, and a welfare system that protects universality for the powerful while tightening conditionality for everyone else. That path is neither fair nor electorally wise.