For a week, the Labour Government looked as though its new Downing Street grid was working. There have been a series of carefully planned announcements from clean power to planning reform to local government aimed at showing the Government is speaking to voter priorities after a bumpy start.
Yet just as the Christmas break beckons, the Prime Minister finds his Government embroiled in a fight that risks dividing his own party: the plight of the Waspi women.
The final week of Parliament before Christmas tends to be a place for awkward government announcements – shuffled out in the hope that few are looking. “It’s take the trash out week,” explains a Labour staffer.
On Tuesday, Liz Kendall took to the Chamber to announce that the Waspi women – born in the 1950s – would not be compensated for a Civil Service mess up which saw some not given sufficient warning that the pension rules were changing and the age would be increased from 60 to 65. It quickly led to a pummeling from her own side – with Labour MPs raising concerns.
The long running Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign has been a part of UK politics for some time. They argue that women born in the 1950s weren’t properly informed that their state pension age would rise and now deserve compensation for cost of living struggles they have suffered as a result. The campaign is one of the most prolific in politics and has received support from a mix of politicians over the years.
In 2019, Jeremy Corbyn pledged in the election that he would deliver full compensation. In the 2024 Labour manifesto no financial commitment was made – but several senior ministers posed with members of the campaign and held up signs indicating their support.
They include Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves and the work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall. It’s a case that elicits some sympathy and has merit – the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) earlier this year found thousands of women had been adversely affected and suggested compensation between £1,000 and £2,950 each.
However, in a time when Cabinet ministers are regularly told “no” or “there is no money”, this report’s suggestions have been rejected by the new Labour Government. The Chancellor has said there will be no such payments – as the compensation that would have rang up to £10.5bn is “not the best use of taxpayers’ money”.
There’s a few arguments to be made in Reeves’s defence, even if she is currently the subject of friendly fire from her own side. Firstly, there is not much money going round and she already has various commitments and demands that could provoke an even bigger backlash if ignored.
The Chancellor has gone from being seen as the shining light in Starmer’s Government to having the toughest brief around. Growth is sluggish to non-existent – she faces a range of spending demands from departments and is also trying to stay good on her claim that she would not come back with a begging bowl for more taxes after opting for £40bn of additional tax rises from the Budget.
Secondly, compensation payments are already being made by the Government – to eye-watering amounts – it’s just they relate to other scandals. One of the things that gave the Waspi women hope was not simply that Labour politicians had made friendly overtures. It’s that money had been found for victims of the infected blood scandal and the Post Office horizon scandal. If compensation can be found, surely the Waspis were next in line?
However, here is where the campaign runs in to a problem. No one can deny that many of the Waspi women have undergone a difficult time as a result of failures on guidance flagging the change.
Yet is the scandal on the same scale as those whose lives have been wrecked as a result of contaminated blood transfusions leaving them or a loved one with a disease and little accountability – even denial – as to why? And is it on the same scale of the anguish suffered by the sub-postmasters?
These are uncomfortable questions to ask – particularly when there are plenty of heartbreaking stories about women hurt by the pension change. But to govern is to choose, and in Government the view is that the other state failures have to be prioritised – they are the priority.
The problem for Reeves and Starmer is that plenty of their MPs disagree. A range of Labour MPs have come out to criticise the decision. But there’s more than one way of looking at the issue. What about the younger voters who fear by the time they try to retire there won’t even be a state pension, or it will come so late it won’t be any good to them?
It means Reeves has a case she can argue on denying these payments – as much anguish as it may cause those affected. The blame that can be laid on the Labour Government, however, relates to the false hope campaigners were given.
Next time ministers and politicians are asked to join a campaign and smile in a photo with a banner, they ought to consider whether the demands being asked of them are something they can actually deliver on.
Katy Balls is the political editor of ‘The Spectator‘
'President Musk' is flexing his muscles and revealing how weak Trump is