Why do politicians keep talking about keys?

Have you heard of a fiscal lock? Do you support a triple lock on nuclear deterrence? What about a triple lock plus?

During this election campaign, we’ve heard a lot of talk about political “locks” – promises made by politicians to do (and increasingly, to) certain things.

For political parties, adopting such slogans has become an essential part of the political process, allowing them to present their commitments in complex policy areas to voters in a format suitable for headlines and election leaflets.

Trust in British politics Continued decreaseSince then, the lock has become a popular political metaphor.

But why has it become a staple phrase for politicians trying to sell their policies? And will they ever stop using it?

The language of political pledges remains dominated by the “triple lock.” Widely adopted policies Public pension payments will increase each year according to the higher of inflation, average earnings, or 2.5%.

This was originally a pledge made by the Liberal Democrats in the 2010 election, but was later supported by the Conservative Party when the two parties came into power together.

since then, pause The bill has also been adopted by the Labour Party as part of its efforts during the Covid-19 pandemic.

In a 36-page document jointly drafted by the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives in 2010, the clause was called the “triple guarantee”.

The only “lock” in the document was Prime Minister David Cameron’s “referendum lock” to hold a vote if the UK handed over more powers to the EU.

The pledge was eventually given legal backing but then ended up in the political dustbin as Prime Minister Cameron promised, and then famously lost, a broader vote on Britain’s EU membership.

Unlike the referendum pledges, the pensions pledges were never enacted into law, although they were renamed the “new triple lock” in the 2010 Budget.

But Chris Hopkins, director of political research at polling firm Savanta, said the very fact that the policy has endured could explain why politicians today are keen to adopt the same language in their own campaign pledges.

“The triple lock has become such a thing in British politics that any attempt to undo it would be a political minefield,” he added.

Whether that’s because of the policy itself or the metaphor is “hard to say,” he said, but added that there is an “assuming” among politicians, at least, that the language of pension promises resonates with voters.

He also suggested that in “a time when trust in politicians is very low”, the system could be an effective tool to convince voters that they are making promises “that cannot be broken”.

The Labour Party has also tried out this analogy. In the 2014 independence referendum, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown told Scottish voters: Three types of “lock-ins” If they choose to remain in the UK, further powers will be transferred.

In the general election the following year, the party included a related policy, a “budget responsibility lock,” in its manifesto, convincing voters that it could be trusted to manage the economy responsibly.

Neither event lasted long in the political memory.

But that hasn’t stopped Sir Keir Starmer’s party, along with Rishi Sunak, from re-adopting the Cameron-era political lexicon when drawing up their manifesto pledges.

This time, we have the following:

• Triple Lock Plus: The Conservatives’ promise to increase personal allowances for pensioners and ensure they never pay income tax on their state pensions, which are increased every year.
• Tax Lock: Sir Keir Starmer has proposed not increasing the rates of income tax, National Insurance or VAT (similar promises made by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats).
• Financial Lock: Since Liz Truss became chancellor, the Labour Party has pledged not to prepare a budget without the influence of decisions pre-calculated by official economists.
• Triple Lock on Nuclear Deterrence: Three related Labour pledges to preserve the UK’s nuclear weapons systems.

Perhaps it is telling that Labour’s policies are largely focused on maintaining the status quo in relevant policy areas.

Karl Pike, a former Labour adviser and now a lecturer in British politics, said adopting Locke’s language had enabled the party to strengthen its security pitch to key sectors of the electorate.

It also gives the impression that something is “beyond the scope of normal political decision-making” and therefore “irreversible,” they say.

He also said this was not the first time Starmer’s Labour party had appropriated a political slogan for its own purposes.

He says the party’s pledge to introduce a “Take Back Control Bill” to hand more powers to local mayors is an attempt to cash in on the success of a slogan made famous during the official Brexit campaign.

But while political “rock” seems likely to persist, is there a danger that the power of the metaphor might begin to wane?

“The less trust people have in the promises politicians make, the more they seem forced to use stronger rhetoric when making those promises,” said Robert Colville, director of the think tank Centre for Policy Research and co-author of the 2019 Conservative manifesto.

He explains the logic behind the “rock” trend. The so-called Edstone – Ed Miliband’s attempt to gain credibility by inscribing his key 2015 election promises on a large stone slab was widely criticised.

“The problem is, the more people use the term, the less persuasive it becomes,” he added.

Carl Pike agrees, warning that overuse can “lose its meaning.”

He added that rock has become the “rhetoric of the moment” in political circles, but New Labour prefers a different metaphor – “the covenant” – which may come back into the spotlight in 10 years’ time.

“Politicians tend to stick to certain kinds of phrases,” he added.

“Whether it’s been tested or not, whether it works or not, they’ve decided that it’s a kind of political currency.”