Members comfortably said no to compensation, and the most-respected No case was brisk rather than bitter: notice was given, and plans had to adapt. The Yes side had the Ombudsman on its side, but not the vote.
The top No argument held that the women “all had *at least* 18 months of notice”, and that people must adjust their plans. Another No voter asked simply, “Was fifteen years of notice not enough?” A second strand called the change equality delivered: “You wanted equality. Deal with it.” Some voices turned scornful, with one calling the claimants “WASPI clowns”.
The most-respected Yes cases rested on the state's own failing. One said the Ombudsman found maladministration that left women unable to plan, so “the state owes them redress”. The other said the government changed things for a vulnerable group and could have offered protection in NI credits. A personal voice added, “I never got a letter”. The Yes side also argued that changing conditions retrospectively breaks an unwritten agreement.
Cost gave the No side a second front. One reluctant No voter said “we simply cannot afford more liabilities”, while another argued that the Ombudsman found no direct financial loss. A Yes voter conceded that payment is unlikely to be affordable now, but held that the answer stays the same in theory. That is where the argument sat: whether notice was actually received, and whether the bill could be met.
Even among No voters, one complained that the caricaturing of claimants was unnecessary. The vote closed with the Ombudsman's finding of poor communication on one side and plenty of notice on the other.
68 Opinions
No. They all had *at least* 18 months of notice. The world changes. Requirements change, and we must change our plans to adapt. All they had to do was choose to continue working, or find themselves a small job to tide them over. Is it a bit of a crap situation? Yeah, sure, it is, but life happens and if your plan was just to scrape by up to the last second without a back-up plan or a contingency in place, you're kind of asking for it when something throws a wrench.
The Government introduced a change that affected a vulnerable section of the population, which didn’t understand the implications of this change. It was a very different, paternalistic society in those days (remember the MWNP national insurance stamp?) . Those affected could have been afforded some kind of protection in NI credits.
The Ombudsman explicitly found that government maladministration left millions of women unable to plan for their retirement, meaning the state owes them redress. Paying this compensation is a necessary step to honor our welfare commitments and protect citizens from abrupt, poorly communicated policy changes.
When people starting first job and paying taxes they also starting a unwritten agreement with the state regarding their pensions. If during this period state decides to change conditions for less beneficial for people, compensation is due.
Pushing back retirement ages without proper warning stripped working people of years of financial planning. WASPI taking this to a fresh judicial review in the High Court shows just how badly the government handled it. Pretending there's no responsibility after the Ombudsman called out clear maladministration is typical government arrogance
Women were given plenty of notice that this change would happen to level the playing field between women and men. We cannot as women expect to be treated on equal terms with men when it comes to employment rights, wages and pensions, then bleat about it when that happens.
You wanted equality. Deal with it. Equalising the State Pension age for men and women was precisely that: equality. The Ombudsman found failures in communication, not proof that every affected woman suffered financial loss. Taxpayers should not be expected to fund a compensation scheme costing up to £10.5 billion simply because an equal retirement age was introduced. Equality means accepting the same obligations as well as enjoying the same rights.
NO simply because I've never understood why women should be allowed to retire 5 years earlier than men particular when on average women live 8 to 10 years LONGER than men. If anything men should retire earlier! Plus I don't understand the argument about women being worse off, by extending their retirement age, if anything it's given them longer to top up their pensions.
They were the canaries in the coalmine of the UK's great pension betrayal.
Was fifteen years of notice not enough?