We can't afford such generosity to the elderly On this score, tomorrow's Queen's Speech should be a timely chance to make some progress. It looks set, however, to be a missed opportunity. The Pensions Bill will introduce a new flat-rate pension that will increase at the fastest possible rate for years to come: under the "triple lock," it will rise in line with whichever is highest out of inflation or earnings growth - and by at least 2.5 per cent a year come what may. This will, in time, cost the Exchequer more than £10 billion a year. Tories might reflect that one of the early reforms of Margaret Thatcher's government was to impose a strict limit on the basic state pension, so that it would only rise in line with prices. The Bill on social care is much better. It accepts that government cannot afford to pay for all of the costs of care homes. It tries to help people provide for themselves by capping their payments (excluding bed and board) at £72,000. But the Coalition is leaving unchallenged the main NHS budget - which, at more than £100 billion a year, is six times bigger than social care. Last week, Lord Warner of Brockley, the former Labour health minister, argued that ring-fencing the health budget "creates the illusion that people don't have to change the way they deliver services." Areas subject to cuts, such as the police, fire and rescue and local government, are using the financial pressure as a catalyst to update their thinking. They are leaving behind expensive ways of working and styles of employment that should have been culled years ago. The NHS has barely begun. The Government has to go further. Its ideas should include lower and more realistic increases in the state pension. It should embrace the idea that people must share some of the costs of the NHS as well as social care. Professor Malcolm Grant, the chairman of NHS England, observed last month that future governments will inevitably have to consider charging for NHS services unless growth returns - and at unprecedented levels. Other developed countries devote roughly twice as much of GDP towards private payments for health care. These countries are better prepared for the future - and, in time, will have far more freedom to reduce taxation. Part of the problem in Britain is the strength of the elderly voting bloc. Between 2005 and 2010, the number of retired voters increased by nearly 10 per cent. At the next election, fully a quarter of the electorate will be 65 or older; by 2050, it will be a third. Faced with these numbers, any politician could be forgiven for kicking the can down the road. Yet there is a new mood in politics. Figures such as Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage are popular because they are seen to speak honestly, warts and all. Voters want the right policies - but they also want authenticity and truth. And the honest truth is that the welfare state can no longer honour the promises of the past. Through no fault of their own, pensioners have received a level of support that cannot now be afforded. And if ministers grasp the nettle now, Britain will be in a much better place - with families able to prepare for their own future, higher levels of saving, and, eventually, lower burdens on the taxpayer. If that was the message of the Queen's Speech tomorrow, we would all be better off. Andrew Haldenby is director of the independent think tank Reform