Tory leader, Kemi Badenoch, caused a kerfuffle last week by mentioning the words "means-testing" and the state pension in nearly the same sentence.

The idea that the triple lock might not be affordable in the long run was once again up for discussion following the appointment of Labour's new pensions minister, Torsten Bell.

Mr Bell, in his previous think tank role, once called to scrap the triple lock and said that the rising state pension was "indefensible" when compared to the decline of working age benefits.

The possibility of means-testing the state pension has also come up because Labour is keen to emulate Australia's model - where retirement benefits are stripped from the very wealthiest.

These conversations are unavoidable as the cost of paying the state pension to nearly 13 million people is now £137.5bn a year (though increasing amounts are eventually clawed back through income tax).

But what is not mentioned anywhere near as often is that the cost of paying public sector pensions is now around £54bn a year - and that amount is shared between an exclusive club of just three million retirees, who also will likely be collecting the full state pension too.

No government should be even considering means-testing or diminishing the state pension until the ticking timebomb that is public sector pensions is diffused.

For many who do not have the luxury of gold-plated, inflation-proof pensions, the state pension is the bedrock of their retirement, the only stability that they can rely on to protect them from the rising cost of living.

And yet while the threat of cuts never seems to escape the state pension, rarely do ministers have the courage to broach the subject of public sector pensions. It's the elephant in the room that no civil servant will ever dare to mention.

Civil service job adverts boast of 28.9pc pension contributions, although the real cost of paying these pensions is far higher. In the private sector, we are offered "generous" contributions of 3pc and there's no guarantee of growth on the stock market.

It is time to admit that gold-plated public service pensions should be reserved only for the very few true public servants - soldiers, nurses, teachers - those who make real sacrifices for the greater good of the country. Handing them out to civil servants who refuse to go into the office for more than three days a week is indefensible.

But while no minister will question the eye-watering cost of public sector pensions, our private pension savings are regularly tampered with, eroding confidence and providing a deterrent to sensible saving. Rachel Reeves's inheritance tax raid on pensions is but the latest example.

The state pension is so valuable (buying an inflation-linked annuity paying £11,500 a year would cost you £250,000 on the open market). Pound for pound, it is better than any private pension savings you may amass.

Cutting the state pension for those who have also responsibly saved for retirement would be an unforgivable betrayal, especially if the public sector pension gravy train is allowed to rumble on at ever-greater taxpayer expense.

Of course, it would be great if we could all have final salary, index-linked pensions, but they are not affordable in reality. This is a truth that the Treasury will one day have to confront.