AIBU in thinking the government have made the correct decision not to blanket pay all WASPI women £3k? This goes against the Ombudsman recommendations to pay between £1k-3k to every WASPI women.

Just say it’s a just cause but there’s no money, ffs.

That's basically what this says.
"I do understand, of course, the concern of the Waspi women. But also I have to take into account whether it's right at the moment to impose a further burden on the taxpayer, which is what it would be."

I'm a Waspi woman and I didn't vote Labour in.
I don't vote Conservative in either because they all make false promises and an arse of everything

It wasn't on their manifesto before this election. The economy wasn't as bad in 2019 as it is in 2024.

Giving money to these women, who have had to simply work a little bit longer until they got their pension (but not as long as I will have to do) would be totally ridiculous given all of the other things it could and should be spent on.

As usual, the media coverage of this just illustrates their massive anti-labour bias.

It was said by the PM today , there is no money to deal with this.

The Tories did well here. The ombudsman found that there should be payouts, so they kicked the can down the road until after the election. Now Kier and his pals, all of whom were vociferous supporters of the WASPI women have egg on their faces.

Much rather they spaff our money away on ridiculous energy schemes they are for greed not green reasons and continue funding overseas wars than give to woman of the UK. The whole thing is a mess and women are easy targets.

Seem to be a lot of people conflating the change to the state pension age with the communication of the change. To be honest I think the WASPI campaign do this themselves (blur whether they're campaigning about the maladministration point or the fairness of the change to the state pension age).

The parliamentary ombudsman ONLY found that there was maladministration in the communication.

There's an argument that an Ombudsman finding in any other sector would lead to a payout (think the PPI mis-selling scandal).

But given that the £10bn would have to be found from cuts or tax rises, not hitting shareholder payouts, I think it's much harder to justify. Basically - that £10bn would be better spent elsewhere. Put some of it into a fund to help retired women in financial hardship - at least then it'd be targeted rather than a blanket payout that would pay for at least as many holidays as it would energy bills.

Then why not be transparent? We all know there’s no money for anything so be clear that’s the reason, Liz Kendall was offered a get out clause by one of the Labour backbenchers yesterday and didn’t take it. I’m enough of a cynic not to have expected any money but Starmer, Reeves, Rayner and Kendall all purported to support the WASPI cause. Just say it’s a just cause but there’s no money, ffs.

Nations finances have changed though.

Starmer, Reeves etc believed compensation was due when they were in opposition, the ombudsman agreed. Neither the case nor the principle has changed.

I agree Marmite.
I (and obviously many of my friends) am / are in our 60s and don't recognise this at all.

most women did not stay in education past 16, few had careers and those that did often had massive interuptions in their working lives due to parental responsibilities. They didn't get to worry about the cost of nursery or how many free hours they could get and when they got them, because there were few nurseries and no free hours at all. If I am brutally honest, educated, thinking working class women were pretty rare. The normal expectation was leave school, work for a few years, court, marry and have babies (preferably in that order, but often not). News was something that many men and women paid scant attention to - the big stories, yes, but being "well informed" wasn't often an agenda item. And thinking about pensions was like the far distant future anyway.

This is a class thing, not an age thing.

Yes, I know MN doesn't like the word 'class' so substitute 'cultural' or 'socio-economic' or whatever you prefer.

I think this would be accurate if we were talking about women in their 80s, but my mum is 67 and her generation is not as you described - maybe some of her eldest sisters (81) would fit this description.

What facts changed? Starmer supported Waspi women, the Ombudsman decided in their favour… what changed ?

My problem is that an independent body has found maladministration. And this has just been disregarded. I worry that this sets somewhat of a dangerous precedent.

Also, - a number of high profile members of the current government have made statements previously supporting the WASPI women’s position. Then, once elected the government has seemingly changed position. I’m not affected but I’m concerned by a number of actions by the current government.

Ignoring the Ombudsman decision isn't wise but the Ombudsman did say that 90% were informed correctly, so why then has he suggested a flat rate payment to everyone?

This leads onto Starmer et al, they didn't know what the Ombudsman was going to say, hence from their POV, the change of mind, is that the facts changed....

It also wasn't in their manifesto, so what are you holding them too?

I was born in the 60s myself so not actually ignorant thanks. I just have a different opinion to you. I'm not saying life was easy for everyone but it isn't for young people today either.

I don't think life has been so much harder on average for women born in the 50s and 60s

Given that through your numerous posts you’ve displayed a fair degree of ignorance about what life was like for those women I think we can probably discount your opinion.

Surely the issue here is not whether you agree that the WASPI women should be compensated or not.

IMO the bigger issues are that:

(a) the current government has ignored the ombudsman's decision, which sets a bad precedent; and

(b) Starmer was saying as recently as summer 2022 that it was disgraceful and that he was fully supportive of the WASPI campaign (as were many Labour MPs) but now he has completely backtracked. It's almost like he said anything that the public wanted to hear, just to get elected. What else will it turn out that Labour have misled us on?

But relatively easy to get a council house in the 1970s and buying a house was much more affordable than today too. I don't think life has been so much harder on average for women born in the 50s and 60s compared with younger women and you are not going to get sympathy because your retirement age was increased at short notice especially as it will still be lower then their retirement age will be.

Although they have to wait longer, women often get a much higher annual income on the new state pension brought in in 2016. They get £11,500 rather than £8,814 per year. Many women will actually be much better off under the new system.

I am a WASPI woman, only just (by date of birth).
I honestly never expected a pay out, and given the state of the nation's finances, things like education, NHS, social care and so on are far more important for our national finances.

It is true that the move of retirement date wasn't communicated properly. The change first came in the 1990s somewhere; I never knew at the time. I was in the late stages of a difficult marriage and family situation and had more going on. We had no TV at the time, nor newspapers. There was no social media discussing this sort of thing then, so I truly had no idea.

I carried on thinking I would retire at 60 years....I'd grown up all my life knowing that. But by the time I was divorced, helped the children get over it and moved a couple of jobs to set myself up in life, I became aware things had changed. That must have been somewhere around 2010. I was quite surprised but still didn't fully understand the implications until a few more years had passed by. Those that say we "must have known", well, there were those of us who didn't.

However, would it have made any difference? To me, no. I had neither the wherewithal nor the resources so I couldn't have changed anything. For others, I guess they might have done things differently if they'd known soon enough.

But a pay out? No, I am not 'owed' compensation because I didn't know, even though individual letters would have been helpful. Nor can the nation afford it, as I have said. It isn't all bad though, changes to pension amounts (the 'new' state pension) and the triple lock have been helpful to people like me, and I can actually afford to live on my state pension amount. That does balance it out.

What I do think is problematic is the support shown by Labour MPs for WASPI women during opposition, but now going back on their word. That really looks bad and won't be received well. The general public do understand that times change, and will accept genuine apologies and a full explanation; what they aren't so happy about is hypocrisy.

Depends when you got it. I got one in 1996, not in 2011.

Exactly! The entitled attitude and selfishness of some women on here is breath-taking!

I wonder why I got a detailed and clear personal letter while others did not. It seems odd.