If you heard a faint fizzing sound around 2.30pm yesterday, it may have been your local economist popping open a celebratory bottle of Champagne.

That was the moment Andy Burnham did something in his speech to Labour conference that, even 24 hours beforehand, felt politically impossible – he announced the end of the .

Actually, not even that. He signalled that Labour would put an adjustment to the triple lock in its party manifesto at the next election, with the savings going towards the cost of the . It wouldn’t come into effect until April 2030.

Currently, the annual rise in the state pension is decided by the highest figure out of 2.5%, the inflation rate, and wage growth. Under the change, the automatic link to wages would be dumped.

So, the state pension would still rise by a minimum of 2.5% each year and more in times of high inflation. But it wouldn’t grow faster than earnings – which makes sense, economists argue, since it’s the taxes on those earnings that fund the state pension.

There are arguments to be had over whether Burnham’s plan is the best possible solution to the triple lock quandary, and there’s already widespread scepticism of the suggestion that the savings would make much of a dent in the mammoth cost of a National Care Service.

But the reason Champagne corks may have been flying yesterday is that a party leader willingly launched a debate that was widely thought to be too toxic to touch.

The triple lock is maligned by many economists but the public quite like it – after all, it’s hard to argue against giving more money to people in their old age.

That’s resulted in a situation where all the major parties (including Labour, in its 2024 election manifesto) back the policy, despite warnings about its unsustainability.

Get more political analysis direct to your inbox

Want to understand more about how wild world of British politics works and how the changes made in Parliament affect your life?

In Brighton last week, I watched as Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey argued in favour of the triple lock on a conference stage even as a majority of his own party members put their hands up to say they’d end it.

Reform UK and the Tories also threw their weight behind the existing system immediately after Burnham’s speech, arguing the PM was throwing pensioners under the bus.

Conventional Westminster wisdom dictates that this is the way to play it: respond to any proposals to end the triple lock by calling it an attack on older people and reap the electoral rewards.

So, imagine my amazement when I saw a YouGov poll last night that found 48% of Brits supported reducing the strength of the triple lock to help fund a National Care Service, compared to 28% who were opposed.

Could it be that the conventional Westminster wisdom was overblown all along?

Yesterday, I wrote about the experience of sitting in the room for Burnham’s remarkable speech.

I’m not sure we’re appreciating yet just how big an effect that hour-long address will have on politics for years to come.

Yes, it exploded the debate about the triple lock – might the other parties eventually have to change their approach, for fear of being portrayed as economically naïve?

But it also did the same for several other issues. My mind immediately goes to the EU (with Burnham now suggesting rejoining may be on the cards) and electoral reform (with potential Labour backing for a transformative new voting system).

These long-suppressed arguments have been launched to the surface, and Burnham seems eager to have them. Even before any of his plans are put into action, the transformation has begun.

MORE: Nick Ferrari: ‘Andy Burnham’s greatest asset? Simple – he’s not Keir Starmer’

MORE: I deserve the pension triple lock – Andy Burnham shouldn’t scrap it

MORE: Andy Burnham wells up as he remembers dad in first Labour conference speech as leader