> I'm not sure how the UK pension system works,

In principle, unless the Government reverses it (which they are semi-consistently somewhat threatening to do), UK pensions are supposed to be protected by a "Triple lock". They increase each year by whatever is the highest out of inflation, average wage, or 2.5%. So if the country tanks and inflation skyrockets, they are supposed to get an increase to match it.

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

The triple lock only applies to the state pension, which is not generous - it's basically about the bare minimum to live on I think. That's part of the reason why the government is willing to increase it so aggressively.

That's true, the state pension is tiny. So small it has to be topped up with other benefits if it's all you have, especially if you're renting as the state pension usually isn't enough to cover rent. Some people don't even qualify for the full state pension.

But a large number of pensioners have a ridiculously tiny private pension (or none), so the state pension is a large and essential fraction of their income and the triple lock remains relevant to pension-age voters.

Many pensioners have a spre property by one means or another (often inherited - "accidental landlords"), which they rent out to supplement their pension. As rents have tended to go up with or even faster than general inflation until recently, this buffers the effect of inflation on those pensioners too.

I think it's not even an act of betrayal - they did exactly what they said they were going to do. It also wasn't like there was nobody saying how bad of an idea it was - basically anyone who had any kind of knowledge of economics was screaming that it was a horrible idea and people still voted for it because they saw it as a rejection of the outgroup social exercise which is, unfortunately, one of the most egregious bugs in the human firmware.