Lock, Stock

Last night, the Government was defeated in the House of Lords on the Triple Lock. But it will have no trouble in the House of Commons. Of course, it has a majority of 81. And on 20th September, no one who had been elected as a Labour MP voted to save the Triple Lock that itself guaranteed only the most meagre pension in the developed world. No one. Even the DUP managed it. The Liberal Democrats managed it during their Conference. But none of them. Not even Jeremy Corbyn.

Adherence to the Triple Lock would still have left Britain with a lower pension than any comparable country. But if an eight per cent increase in wages is "a statistical anomaly", then precisely what increase would not be, and why not? Where, exactly, is the line beyond which the figure is "anomalous"? And why, exactly, is that line there, in particular?