Tugendhat backs colleagues on triple lock and attacks £100,000 tax cliff edge
Tom Tugendhat says he supports his colleagues' alternative approach to the pensions triple lock and calls the £100,000 tax cliff edge punitive for aspirational workers.
The Full Story
A plain summary built from the channels that reported this story.
Tom Tugendhat has defended the Conservative position on the pensions triple lock, saying he now supports an alternative approach put forward by his colleagues after he previously argued the policy was not affordable.
He was challenged over those past comments in an interview. Tugendhat said his concern had been intergenerational fairness and that he had made his case. He added that he recognised being part of a team and that when colleagues Andrew and Kemi set out a good alternative, he took them at their word and was happy to support them. He said the priority was an economy that grows and delivers for every part of the community.
The interview also turned to tax. Tugendhat criticised the £100,000 cliff edge, calling it hugely punitive on people who are aspirational. He said the data showed a dip in earnings at £99,000, where people choose to take a pay cut so they do not lose a benefit. He argued that this dip costs the whole of society, because it means less taxable income, less growth, and less hiring, buying and spending.
He said tax rates should be smoothed out and that Andrew and Kemi had set this out. He rejected the suggestion that this was an odd pitch for a party seeking the centre ground. He said it was about being a one-nation Conservative party and standing with people who work hard, take a pay rise and seek promotion. He noted that the effective tax rate at the cliff edge is about 60%, or up to about 70% for those with a student loan, and said Kemi was showing a route through.
The exchange followed a challenge from the interviewer, who said he could not find an economist who thought maintaining the triple lock was sustainable. The interviewer also said the Conservatives were prepared to spend billions on pensions while promising tax cuts, including removing the withdrawal of the childcare allowance for those earning around £100,000. Tugendhat did not accept that this was a contradiction and focused on the damage caused by steep effective tax rates at thresholds.
On screen
Stills are sampled automatically at 60-second intervals. Where shown, the still is the nearest available frame from the relevant broadcast segment and is included to show what was on screen during that part of the broadcast. A still may not correspond to the exact second of a quoted phrase.
Key Claims
Claims reported during this story's coverage, grouped by how many channels reported each one. Select a dot to see the source excerpt.
| Claim |  |
|---|---|
| Only on one channel | |
| An interviewer said he could not find an economist who considered maintaining the triple lock sustainable. | |
| Tugendhat said his concern about the triple lock was intergenerational fairness and that he now supports his colleagues' approach after making his case. | |
| Tugendhat said people earning £99,000 take pay cuts to avoid losing benefits, reducing taxable income and harming growth. | |
Channel Perspectives
What each channel focused on, with key quotes.
The Peston segment pressed Tugendhat on his past description of the triple lock as unaffordable and on the cost of pensions against promised tax cuts. The questioning framed the £100,000 cliff edge as a political choice for a party trying to win the centre ground. Tugendhat used the exchange to align himself with Andrew and Kemi while attacking steep effective tax rates.
- “I will not be able to find an economist who thinks that maintaining the triple lock on the state pension is a sustainable approach.”
- “I take them at their word and I am very happy to support them.”
- “you look at the fact that it's hugely punitive on people who are aspirational.”
Broadcast Timeline
News broadcasts tracked for this story, in time order.