The Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) campaign has again been denied compensation after ministers rejected their claim on 29 January. For many campaigners and supporters, this feels like a betrayal. After all, promises of action were made across the political spectrum: Jeremy Corbyn during the 2019 election campaign, Boris Johnson while Prime Minister, and most damningly the March 2024 Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report, which found that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) had committed maladministration and that WASPI women deserved compensation. With the government again closing the door on their campaign, the question is unavoidable: is this decision fair? And are WASPI women truly a disenfranchised group?
There is no doubt that the WASPI campaign has a legitimate grievance. The organisation was established in 2015 and represents an estimated 3.6m women born in the 1950s who were affected by changes to the state pension age. The 1995 Pensions Act raised women’s pension age from 60 to 65 to equalise it with men’s, with the transition later accelerated by the 2011 Act. For some women, this meant waiting up to six extra years for their pension. Poor communication exacerbated the issue, leaving many feeling blindsided.
However, sympathy alone does not automatically mean compensation should be a political priority. The government estimates that around 90 per cent of affected women were aware of the changes. Any compensation scheme would have to apply to all of those technically affected, not just the women who were genuinely misinformed. This is the logic behind Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ position: while she has expressed sympathy, she argues that spending billions on compensation for a group who largely knew about the policy change is not an effective or responsible use of taxpayer money. In that light context, Work and Pensions secretary Pat McFadden’s recent claim that women “did not suffer any direct financial loss from the delay” is understandably inflammatory, but it reflects the government’s broader calculation.
This is also where comparisons made by some WASPI supporters begin to feel strained. Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey likening the case to scandals such as contaminated blood, Windrush deportations, or the Post Office Horizon prosecutions is troubling. Those were cases of unmistakable, devastating state failure: people were wrongfully imprisoned, deported, or killed. The pension changes were poorly communicated and disruptive, but they do not sit in the same moral category.
The real question, then, is not whether WASPI women deserve sympathy, but whether they should take precedence over other urgent crises. According to figures cited by The Guardian, the estimated £10.5 billion cost of WASPI compensation is enough to abolish the two-child benefit limit and household benefit cap for three years, lifting thousands of children out of poverty, or expand free school meal eligibility. There are currently around 4.5m children living in poverty in the UK – a staggering number, only one million fewer than the entire population of Scotland. Against this backdrop, it is hard to argue that pensioner compensation should be at the very top of the agenda.
WASPI women are a politically engaged and effective campaigning group. Many are retired and have the time and resources to make their voices heard. But their success also highlights an uncomfortable truth. If children in poverty, or low-paid working women today, had the same lobbying power, would the national conversation look very different?
The WASPI campaign has merit, and the anger behind it is certainly understandable, but it is not the most pressing injustice facing Britain. Governments cannot right every historic wrong, especially when doing so risks diverting resources from present-day moral failures. Perhaps the most constructive way forward would be for such a powerful movement to turn its attention towards contemporary issues facing women: insecure employment, the gender pay gap, and the erosion of social security. Sympathy is justified. Priority, however, is another matter entirely.
“Pat McFadden delivers a speech at UCL East” by UK Government is licensed under CC BY 2.0.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
WASPI Compensation Shouldn’t be a Government Priority
The Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) campaign has again been denied compensation after ministers rejected their claim on 29 January. For many campaigners and supporters, this feels like a betrayal. After all, promises of action were made across the political spectrum: Jeremy Corbyn during the 2019 election campaign, Boris Johnson while Prime Minister, and most damningly the March 2024 Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report, which found that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) had committed maladministration and that WASPI women deserved compensation. With the government again closing the door on their campaign, the question is unavoidable: is this decision fair? And are WASPI women truly a disenfranchised group?
There is no doubt that the WASPI campaign has a legitimate grievance. The organisation was established in 2015 and represents an estimated 3.6m women born in the 1950s who were affected by changes to the state pension age. The 1995 Pensions Act raised women’s pension age from 60 to 65 to equalise it with men’s, with the transition later accelerated by the 2011 Act. For some women, this meant waiting up to six extra years for their pension. Poor communication exacerbated the issue, leaving many feeling blindsided.
However, sympathy alone does not automatically mean compensation should be a political priority. The government estimates that around 90 per cent of affected women were aware of the changes. Any compensation scheme would have to apply to all of those technically affected, not just the women who were genuinely misinformed. This is the logic behind Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ position: while she has expressed sympathy, she argues that spending billions on compensation for a group who largely knew about the policy change is not an effective or responsible use of taxpayer money. In that light context, Work and Pensions secretary Pat McFadden’s recent claim that women “did not suffer any direct financial loss from the delay” is understandably inflammatory, but it reflects the government’s broader calculation.
This is also where comparisons made by some WASPI supporters begin to feel strained. Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey likening the case to scandals such as contaminated blood, Windrush deportations, or the Post Office Horizon prosecutions is troubling. Those were cases of unmistakable, devastating state failure: people were wrongfully imprisoned, deported, or killed. The pension changes were poorly communicated and disruptive, but they do not sit in the same moral category.
The real question, then, is not whether WASPI women deserve sympathy, but whether they should take precedence over other urgent crises. According to figures cited by The Guardian, the estimated £10.5 billion cost of WASPI compensation is enough to abolish the two-child benefit limit and household benefit cap for three years, lifting thousands of children out of poverty, or expand free school meal eligibility. There are currently around 4.5m children living in poverty in the UK – a staggering number, only one million fewer than the entire population of Scotland. Against this backdrop, it is hard to argue that pensioner compensation should be at the very top of the agenda.
WASPI women are a politically engaged and effective campaigning group. Many are retired and have the time and resources to make their voices heard. But their success also highlights an uncomfortable truth. If children in poverty, or low-paid working women today, had the same lobbying power, would the national conversation look very different?
The WASPI campaign has merit, and the anger behind it is certainly understandable, but it is not the most pressing injustice facing Britain. Governments cannot right every historic wrong, especially when doing so risks diverting resources from present-day moral failures. Perhaps the most constructive way forward would be for such a powerful movement to turn its attention towards contemporary issues facing women: insecure employment, the gender pay gap, and the erosion of social security. Sympathy is justified. Priority, however, is another matter entirely.
“Pat McFadden delivers a speech at UCL East” by UK Government is licensed under CC BY 2.0.
Share this:
Like this:
Related