WASPI women forced ministers to act on decades of injustice – but they are not alone. Across the country, from the two-child cap to inheritance tax for family farms and businesses, the government consistently reacts to pressure rather than leading with principle.
The latest developments for WASPI women are a stark reminder of what happens when governments act only under pressure, not principle.
Only because WASPI women took the government to court has it agreed to a root-and-branch reconsideration of its response to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s findings of maladministration and injustice. The government is now bound, by a court-sealed order, to revisit its position within a 12-week timetable.
But this is not yet vindication. No compensation has been agreed. The action comes only on the doorstep of a judicial review, when ministers could no longer risk losing in court and facing a public relations disaster. Without sustained campaigning, fundraising, and legal challenge, this injustice might still be ignored.
A campaign in full force
The fight is far from over. WASPI supporters have launched a nationwide push to ensure the government delivers a proper compensation scheme. The campaign is calling for a “herculean effort” in the first weeks of the new year: the goal is one million letters to MPs, urging them to guarantee redress when Parliament is updated in February.
Women, their families, friends, and colleagues are being asked to use the interactive map on the WASPI website to send ready-made messages to their MPs. If the government fails, it faces the prospect of a national tsunami of outrage. This mobilisation underscores the truth: it is grassroots pressure – not principle – that is driving the government to act.
Governing by reaction, not principle
The WASPI case is part of a wider pattern in how this Labour government governs. Across multiple issues – WASPI compensation, the two-child cap, inheritance tax for farmers and family-owned businesses, and business rates for pubs and other hospitality venues – the government has talked of reform or change, but its actions suggest it is led more by fiscal calculations than by moral or political principle. Many policies appear poorly thought through: assumptions about cost savings fail under analysis, or promised efficiencies do not materialise.
Only after public backlash, political dissent or legal threat does the government recalibrate. These U-turns are presented as deliberate decisions rather than the result of pressure or fear, often with ministers implying they led the change when they are responding to dissent, reform pressure, or the threat of electoral punishment.
We have seen this with the two-child cap, initially framed as immovable until a national strategy was in place, only to be softened once political reality intervened. Similarly, proposals around inheritance tax for farmers and family businesses were originally set to reduce relief for assets above £1 million, sparking concern that family farms and small enterprises would be hit hard. After sustained lobbying and pressure, the government increased the threshold to £2.5 million, protecting most smaller estates while still taxing larger ones. Backtracking on planned rises in hospitality business rates provides a further example, with targeted relief offered to pubs only after warnings of closures and job losses from the sector and MPs. In all cases, early assumptions about affordability or savings proved questionable, and retreat occurred only under pressure.
From solidarity to silence
The WASPI case is made worse by the contrast between Labour’s rhetoric in opposition and its conduct in government.
In opposition, many senior Labour figures publicly aligned themselves with WASPI women, pledging to “right that injustice.” Sir Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves, and Liz Kendall all attended photo opportunities with campaigners, made public statements of support, and criticised the Conservative government for delaying redress. Some even backed parliamentary bills aimed at forcing action on compensation.
Yet once in government, that support largely shifted. Ministers now argue compensation is unaffordable, while the Prime Minister has stated that most women “knew” about the pension changes – a figure disputed by campaigners who argue it misrepresents whether women were adequately informed. Chancellor Rachel Reeves echoed that position, framing it as a fiscal constraint rather than a moral question.
A number of Labour MPs have voiced their disappointment with the government’s refusal and called for the issue to be reconsidered.
For WASPI campaigners, the juxtaposition is not just disappointment – it is a sense of betrayal. Those who criticised Conservative inaction are now using cost and technicality to justify their own delay. The hypocrisy is stark, and it highlights the government’s broader tendency to react only when public or political pressure makes inaction untenable, rather than acting from principle.
A local failure too
When the Tyne and Wear WASPI delegation attended Newcastle City Council, some members of the Labour administration failed to engage constructively. The delegation came seeking recognition and justice for women who have suffered clear injustice, yet moving a serious issue and a campaign for fairness to a later point in the evening caused unnecessary inconvenience for these valiant campaigners.
A motion and a choice
I have submitted a motion to the January meeting of Newcastle City Council calling on the administration to urge its national party to do the right thing: to agree full and fair compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s findings, and to issue a public apology for the manner in which WASPI women have been treated.
Over the next twelve weeks, parliament has an opportunity – created not by government leadership, but by WASPI determination – to finally resolve this injustice properly.
The question is no longer whether the state can afford to put this right. It is whether it is prepared to continue governing by reaction rather than principle.
WASPI women should never have had to go to court to be heard. They certainly should not have to wait any longer for justice.
