Counterargument to Paul Johnson’s Position on WASPI

1. Equalisation was not the issue — implementation was.

Johnson repeatedly frames the dispute as if WASPI opposed equal pension ages. That is factually incorrect.

• The 1995 Pensions Act introduced equalisation.
• WASPI’s core argument concerns how the change was implemented: the lack of timely, individualised notice, and the sudden acceleration of the timetable after 2011.

You can support equalisation and still argue that the state failed in its duty to communicate life‑altering changes. Johnson sidesteps this distinction entirely.

2. The state has a legal and ethical duty to provide clear, personal notice of major financial changes.

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) found maladministration in the government’s communication. That is not a trivial finding.

Women born in the 1950s:

• paid National Insurance for decades under one set of expectations
• were not individually notified of changes that would delay their pension by up to six years
• often discovered the change only when planning to retire or after leaving work

In any other financial context — pensions, mortgages, insurance — failing to notify customers of a major contractual change would be unlawful. The state should not be held to a lower standard than a private company.

Johnson’s argument treats this as a minor inconvenience. For many women, it meant years of lost income, lost employment opportunities, and forced hardship.

3. “They should have known” is not a defence when the government itself failed to communicate.

Johnson suggests that women “did not notice” the change. This is misleading.

The PHSO found that:

• government communications were inconsistent, delayed, and inadequate
• many women received no direct notification at all
• official leaflets and campaigns were poorly targeted and often inaccurate

Blaming citizens for not discovering a change the state failed to communicate is an inversion of responsibility.

4. Policy efficiency does not erase procedural injustice.

Johnson praises the policy for saving money and keeping older women in work. But:

• Saving money is not a justification for breaching procedural fairness.
• Forcing people to work longer because they were not informed of their rights is not a policy success.
• The fact that the Treasury benefited financially does not mean the affected group was treated lawfully or ethically.

A policy can be fiscally sound and still implemented unjustly.

5. The “if we compensate them, government can never do anything” argument is a false dilemma.

Johnson’s final claim — that compensating WASPI would make policymaking impossible — is rhetorical exaggeration.

Compensation would not punish government for making changes. It would hold government accountable for:

• failing to notify
• failing to plan
• failing to uphold basic administrative standards

Compensation is not a threat to policymaking. It is a safeguard against maladministration.

6. The women affected were a uniquely vulnerable cohort.

Women born in the 1950s:

• faced a labour market with fewer opportunities
• often had interrupted careers due to caregiving
• had lower private pension accumulation
• were disproportionately dependent on the state pension timetable

A sudden, poorly communicated shift hit them harder than any other group. Johnson’s argument ignores this structural reality.

7. The Ombudsman recommended compensation because harm was real, measurable, and caused by maladministration.

This is the key point: the PHSO did not recommend compensation because women disliked equalisation. It recommended compensation because:

• the state failed in its duty
• women suffered quantifiable financial loss
• the harm was avoidable

Johnson’s argument never engages with this.

---

In short

You can support equalisation and still argue that the government mishandled the process so badly that compensation is justified. Johnson collapses these two issues into one, which allows him to dismiss the women affected as simply resistant to equality. That framing is inaccurate, unfair, and inconsistent with the findings of the Ombudsman.