reaction from former labour leader jeremy corbyn. and could this meeting mean the world's richest man is on the cusp of donating millions of dollars to reform uk, and how worried are the other political parties? good evening. welcome to newsnight, live from broadcasting house each week night with insights and interviews. nick's here alongside your panellists this evening, conservative peer baroness kate fall, who was deputy chief of staff to prime minister cameron, and newsagents host and newsnight alumni lewis goodall. we start tonight with the government's decision not to compensate the waspi women. nick, who are the waspi women?

the women against state pension inequality campaign. these are the 3.6 million women born in the 19505 who have been hit by two developments in the last 29 years. the first one was the decision by john major's government in 1995 to set out a timetable for equalising, to the age of 65, the age at which you receive your state pension, equalising between men and women, and the idea was you would phase it in between 2010 and 2020. the second development was in 2011, the coalition government decided to speed that up and do that equalisation by 2018. basically, the argument of the waspi campaign is that hasn't been enough time, not enough notice for us to prepare for that delay in receiving the state pension. they had a big victory

recently when the parliamentary and health service ombud5man 5aid recently when the parliamentary and health service ombud5man said they had been the victims of maladministration when the government between 2005 and 2007 sending out those letters would make a big differe between 2005 and 2007 government between 2005 and 2007 took 28 months to send out took 28 months to send out notification letter5. notification letter5. took 28 months to send out took 28 months to send out notification letters. the ombud5man notification letters. the ombud5man 5aid 5aid notification letters. the ombud5man said that these women should receive notification letters. the ombud5man said that these women should receive compensation of between 1000 and compensation of between 1000 and £2950. that would cost between 3.5 £2950. that would cost between 3.5 billion and 10.5 billion. in a billion and 10.5 billion. in a statement at the house of commons statement at the house of commons today, the work and pensions today, the work and pensions secretary, liz kendall, 5aid secretary, liz kendall, 5aid today, the work and pensions secretary, liz kendall, said there had been maladministration. she today, the work and pensions secretary, liz kendall, said there had been maladministration. she apologised about that but she took apologised about that but she took issue with the ombudsman on two issue with the ombudsman on two grounds to say, no, we should not grounds to say, no, we should not pay compensation. rea5on one, she pay compensation. rea5on one, she said there was considerable awareness amongst women said there was considerable awareness amongst women said there was considerable awarene55 amongst women at the time said there was considerable awarene55 amongst women at the time about this change and the second about this change and the second thing is she didn't believe that thing is she didn't believe that sending out those letters would make sending out those letters would make

a big difference. a big difference. when you hearfrom loyalists saying that then you know the government is facing a

loyalists saying that then you know the goveri decision? cing a tricky loyalists saying that then you know the goveri decision? i ing a tricky loyalists saying that then you know the goveri decision?” loyalists saying that then you know the goveri decision?-ul loyalists saying that then you know the goveri decision?— about this decision? i have to say there is a lot _ about this decision? i have to say there is a lot of _ about this decision? i have to say there is a lot of despair _ about this decision? i have to say there is a lot of despair and - about this decision? i have to say there is a lot of despair and a - about this decision? i have to say there is a lot of despair and a lot | there is a lot of despair and a lot of anger. a lot of labour mp5 were saying, wejust had no prior 5aying, wejust had no prior notification of this, there was a meeting of the parliamentary labour party and there wasn't a whiff of it. the view from the government's side is they provided a parliamentary notice from early doors today. there are some supporters. some of the younger members saying it is laughable that all of this money should be handed out and they are siding with the government. a big complaint you have from the critics on the labour side is they said that we campaigned with liz kendall on this issue. she po5ed with waspi liz kendall on this issue. she posed with waspi posters. the future prime minister before the election. he was campaigning again and keir starmer at least showed an emotional commitment to the campaign if he didn't actually sign up to it. we can listen to an interview he did on bbc radio merseyside back in 2022

when he took a question from carol in warrington. i think this is a real injustice and that's why there's been obviously a big campaign around it. you may have been part of that campaign because it's notjust that the age is 67 it's that... and this probably is the case foryou, iguess, carol, that all your working life you've got in mind the date on which you can retire and get your pension and then just as you get towards it the are moved and you don't get it. and it is a real injustice. and we need to do something about it, carol, because that wasn't the base upon which you in. that wasn't the basis upon which you were working and we've got a government that has basically put its fingers in it is as far as i can see in relation to this. keir starmer back in 2022. one of the most high profile supporters of the waspi women isjeremy corbyn, the former leader of the labour party. he's an independent mp and gave me his reaction to the government's decision i'm shocked, to be quite honest. shocked. the campaign of the waspi women has

gone on for a very long time, and they've been absolutely brilliant campaigners, getting the image across and getting the story across. and they convinced a very large range of politicians in the labour party, including keir starmer and liz kendall, of the justice of their cause. i included it in our election commitments in 2019 to settle the issue. it was referred to the ombudsman and the government has done something that's quite unprecedented, which is completely reject the 0mbudsman�*s report. well, liz kendall, the work and pensions secretary, said a state—funded payout wouldn't be fair or value for taxpayers. sir keir starmer called compensation for waspi women a burden on the taxpayer today. the labour government says they're skint. these waspi women, as they describe them, are actually taxpayers also, and they're people that have made an enormous contribution to our lives and society.

they, i believe, have been unjustly treated. and i think the idea that you should sort of set them up as people that don't merit recognition for the injustice they've suffered. i think it's wrong. and i think the government will come to rue the day they've made this decision. it's interesting that you say the government will come to rue the day. what do you mean by that? because sharon graham of the unite union has said the government needs to turn back because voters will not forgive them. what do you mean? well, i agree with sharon's analysis there. the point is that a message was given by keir starmer and liz kendall pretty clear that we will do something to help the waspi women. they were given the opportunity through the 0mbudsman�*s report. the payments required, which they've estimated at up to 10 billion, would not all have been paid in one year. it would be over quite a long period of time. and they've just said flatly they reject the entire argument. so why did both of them say before the election they accepted the central premise of what the waspi women were saying?

perhaps because now they've gone through the 0mbudsman�*s report in detail and, for example, they say letters were sent out to all those affected, 90% knew that the changes were coming. liz kendall said today there was evidence of considerable awareness of the changes. not only that, the state pension age for women increased one year at a time, so they probably wouldn't get to the age of 60, and only then realise they couldn't claim their pension until 65. letters were sent. were they all received? i don't know. were all the women concerned aware of it? clearly not. according to the ifs, most of the women affected aren't in need, despite the fact that when she was in your shadow frontbench angela rayner claimed in 2019 that millions were plunged into poverty by the state pension age changes. full facts say about 10% were probably in relative low income. most of them aren't in need. listen, if they are in desperate

need, then they're in desperate need and obviously need help. but there is a principle here that they were, in my view, shortchanged, by the way in which the state pension increase in age was operated. you promised a payout of 58 billion at the time in a universal compensation scheme, and the health 0mbudsman recommended against a universal compensation scheme. 58 billion. is that what you think the government should pay out now? well, that was the estimate at that time. i don't know what the estimate is now. it could be higher. it could be lower. that is the money that should have been paid to them through pension anyway. so shouldn't we, as a moral duty, say that this is something that we as a society have to do? and where might they get that money from? it would come from all of us, from our taxation, and would come also from government reserves. but the budget has gone through. another budget will come. and this money doesn't all have

to be paid out in one go. it is over a considerable period of time it would be paid. so yes, it should be paid. can i, as you're here, ask you about the informal group of independent mp5 who've got together around common causes? are you going to register yourselves as a political party next year? not as a parliamentary group, no. we are an informal parliamentary group, the independent alliance of mp5. we are five of us. we work together, obviously, on issues surrounding socialjustice and poverty in britain, surrounding issues on the middle east and so on, and we're happily working together and i believe very effectively. we do not intend to become a political party of the independent alliance of mp5. why not? because it's a bit early to decide on that. we've only got to know each other in the last few weeks and months. so is it a possibility in the future? you're trying to get me to admit that this is going to be a new party. no, look.

no, no, no... it's all right. um, i think it's important that there is an alternative political voice in britain. i think that will come from the very large number of independent councillors and independent groups around the country that are campaigning on issues of the two child benefit cap, on issues of the winter fuel allowance, on issues of housing and issues such as we've been discussing, such as waspi women. nigel farage met elon musk at donald trump's florida residence yesterday. it's been reported that elon musk may want to donate potentially up to $100 million to reform. what would you think if that happened? i'm shocked. absolutely shocked. the idea that somebody such as musk with those amount of money would pour it into british politics in order to get a populist like farage elected. we need to clean up our act on political party funding. just as the usa needs to clean it up even more. it has to be limited and it has to be totally transparent. musk pouring those sums of money

into our politics over the next four years is, to me, quite frightening. so should labour tighten up the rules on donations to british political parties? yes, it should. including trade union donations? well, trade unions are not commercial operations like elon musk and don't have the selfish interests of elon musk. a trade union represents its members. it's a democratic organisation. that's a completely different thing. and the politicalfund has to be voted on by the members of the union whether to have one or not. jeremy corbyn, thank you very much for talking to newsnight. you're most welcome. thank you. let's talk to our panellists. jeremy corbyn says labour will rue the day they made this decision to reject they made this decision to reject the waspi compensation. do you think he is right? i do the waspi compensation. do you think he is riuht? ., ~' the waspi compensation. do you think he is riuht? ., ~ , ., he is right? i do think it is a olitical he is right? i do think it is a political problem. _ he is right? i do think it is a political problem. you - he is right? i do think it is a political problem. you have j he is right? i do think it is a -

political problem. you have been showing on the show tonight. i think it is what your david cameron used to call the split screen problem which came about with the tuition fees. in fairness, i think there are good reasons not to do what the waspi women want although i understand why they feel aggrieved. in terms of the pure politics, you just saw, rachel reeves said in the past, so did yvette cooper, that will ring in the ears of labour mp5. kemi badenoch should bring it up. they didn't promise to compensate either. we they didn't promise to compensate either. ~ ~' ., they didn't promise to compensate either. ~ ~ ., , they didn't promise to compensate either. ~ ., , . ., they didn't promise to compensate either. ~ ~ ., , . ., ., either. we know but the charge of h ocris either. we know but the charge of hypocrisy is _ either. we know but the charge of hypocrisy is the — either. we know but the charge of hypocrisy is the most _ either. we know but the charge of hypocrisy is the most lethal- either. we know but the charge of hypocrisy is the most lethal one i either. we know but the charge of| hypocrisy is the most lethal one of all in politics particularly when it is felt by labour mp5 rightly or wrongly that the government doesn't have a strong narrative on what it is trying to do separately so i think it is a political problem. horse think it is a political problem. how will the conservatives attacked labour on this? i will the conservatives attacked labour on this?— will the conservatives attacked labour on this? i think they will start with a _ labour on this? i think they will start with a u-turn _ labour on this? i think they will start with a u-turn which - labour on this? i think they will start with a u-turn which is - labour on this? i think they will start with a u-turn which is the | start with a u—turn which is the point _ start with a u—turn which is the point lewis— start with a u—turn which is the

point lewis is making in that strong _ point lewis is making in that stronu. , , ., , ., strong. they never promised to compensate — strong. they never promised to compensate. they _ strong. they never promised to compensate. they will - strong. they never promised to compensate. they will quote i strong. they never promised to - compensate. they will quote those . uotes compensate. they will quote those quotes you've _ compensate. they will quote those quotes you've been _ compensate. they will quote those quotes you've been showing. - quotes you've been showing. secondly, it shows the fiscal outlook _ secondly, it shows the fiscal outlook is difficult for labour. the choices _ outlook is difficult for labour. the choices they have to take are going to cause _ choices they have to take are going to cause them political problems. we have seen_ to cause them political problems. we have seen that with the winter fuel allowance — have seen that with the winter fuel allowance. we are seeing it with this _ allowance. we are seeing it with this they— allowance. we are seeing it with this. they are tough decisions, they feel uncomfortable for a big party with lots— feel uncomfortable for a big party with lots of mp5 on the backbenches. they look_ with lots of mp5 on the backbenches. they look like they are caucusing atready— they look like they are caucusing atready so— they look like they are caucusing already so it does create an issue for them — already so it does create an issue for them is — already so it does create an issue for them. , ., , ,, ., for them. is there an impression bein: for them. is there an impression being created — for them. is there an impression being created that _ for them. is there an impression being created that labour- for them. is there an impression being created that labour might| for them. is there an impression - being created that labour might have a problem with elderly people? i think that is exactly the problem. this doesn't come in isolation, but it comes off the back of what happened with winter fuel payments. again, ithink happened with winter fuel payments. again, i think it is a justifiable policy. a benefit that had not been increased, basically since it had been introduced. it was declining and depreciating in real time year after year. and depreciating in real time year afteryear. but and depreciating in real time year after year. but as ever, perception

is everything, and that coupled with a sense of... and it is a really lethal attack, when you couple it with a sense of constantly attacking older people. what i would say is, as someone who, particularly those a bit younger than me as well, you often have people, graduates, for example, who have been told with no notice whatsoever that the interest they are being charged on their debt is going up, and now the people involved here, the women again, i can understand why they are aggrieved, but these initial changes there were changes were initially unveiled back in 1995, and changed in the early coalition period. so we are dealing with a different timeframe here, but the politics is difficult. in timeframe here, but the politics is difficult. , ., ., difficult. in terms of handling pensioners. _ difficult. in terms of handling pensioners, you _ difficult. in terms of handling pensioners, you can - difficult. in terms of handling pensioners, you can tell - difficult. in terms of handling pensioners, you can tell liz l difficult. in terms of handling - pensioners, you can tell liz kendall has learned — pensioners, you can tell liz kendall has learned the _ pensioners, you can tell liz kendall has learned the lesson _ pensioners, you can tell liz kendall has learned the lesson from - pensioners, you can tell liz kendall has learned the lesson from the - has learned the lesson from the summer— has learned the lesson from the summer when_ has learned the lesson from the summer when rachel— has learned the lesson from the summer when rachel reeves i has learned the lesson from the - summer when rachel reeves made that announcement — summer when rachel reeves made that announcement about— summer when rachel reeves made that announcement about means _ summer when rachel reeves made that announcement about means testing - summer when rachel reeves made that announcement about means testing the| announcement about means testing the winter— announcement about means testing the winter fuel— announcement about means testing the winter fuel allowance. _ winter fuel allowance. there _ winter fuel allowance. there was _ winter fuel allowance. there was a _ winter fuel allowance. there was a lot from i winter fuel allowance. i there was a lot from liz winter fuel allowance. - there was a lot from liz kendall today— there was a lot from liz kendall today about _ there was a lot from liz kendall today about the _ there was a lot from liz kendall today about the triple _ there was a lot from liz kendall today about the triple lock - there was a lot from liz kendall today about the triple lock for l today about the triple lock for pensioners. _ today about the triple lock for pensioners, which _ today about the triple lock for pensioners, which is- today about the triple lock forj pensioners, which is designed today about the triple lock for i pensioners, which is designed to have _ pensioners, which is designed to have tackled _ pensioners, which is designed to have tackled pensioner-

pensioners, which is designed to have tackled pensioner poverty. i a lot of talk about that because rachel— a lot of talk about that because rachel reeves _ a lot of talk about that because rachel reeves sort _ a lot of talk about that because rachel reeves sort of- a lot of talk about that because rachel reeves sort of did - a lot of talk about that because rachel reeves sort of did it - a lot of talk about that because rachel reeves sort of did it in i a lot of talk about that because . rachel reeves sort of did it in the summer— rachel reeves sort of did it in the summer in— rachel reeves sort of did it in the summer in passing, _ rachel reeves sort of did it in the summer in passing, and - rachel reeves sort of did it in the summer in passing, and that - rachel reeves sort of did it in the summer in passing, and that was| summer in passing, and that was clearly— summer in passing, and that was clearly a — summer in passing, and that was clearly a mistake. _ summer in passing, and that was clearly a mistake. but _ summer in passing, and that was clearly a mistake. but that - summer in passing, and that was clearly a mistake. but that is an. clearly a mistake. but that is an interesting _ clearly a mistake. but that is an interesting parallel— clearly a mistake. but that is an interesting parallel with- clearly a mistake. but that is an interesting parallel with nick. interesting parallel with nick ciegg. — interesting parallel with nick ciegg. who _ interesting parallel with nick ciegg. who in _ interesting parallel with nick clegg, who in 2010 - interesting parallel with nick clegg, who in 2010 gave - interesting parallel with nick clegg, who in 2010 gave a l interesting parallel with nick- clegg, who in 2010 gave a specific pledge: _ clegg, who in 2010 gave a specific pledge: i— clegg, who in 2010 gave a specific pledge: iwiii— clegg, who in 2010 gave a specific pledge: i will not _ clegg, who in 2010 gave a specific pledge: i will not put _ clegg, who in 2010 gave a specific pledge: i will not put up _ clegg, who in 2010 gave a specific pledge: i will not put up tuition. pledge: i will not put up tuition fees _ pledge: i will not put up tuition fees for— pledge: i will not put up tuition fees for universities, _ pledge: i will not put up tuition fees for universities, and - pledge: i will not put up tuition fees for universities, and he i pledge: i will not put up tuition. fees for universities, and he did. keir starmer— fees for universities, and he did. keir starmer never— fees for universities, and he did. keir starmer never signed - fees for universities, and he did. keir starmer never signed on - fees for universities, and he did. | keir starmer never signed on the dotted _ keir starmer never signed on the dotted line — keir starmer never signed on the dotted line on— keir starmer never signed on the dotted line on the _ keir starmer never signed on the dotted line on the waspi - keir starmer never signed on the i dotted line on the waspi campaign. he never_ dotted line on the waspi campaign. he never signed _ dotted line on the waspi campaign. he never signed up— dotted line on the waspi campaign. he never signed up to _ dotted line on the waspi campaign. he never signed up to it. _ dotted line on the waspi campaign. he never signed up to it. as - dotted line on the waspi campaign. he never signed up to it. as i - he never signed up to it. as i was saying. _ he never signed up to it. as i was saying. he — he never signed up to it. as i was saying, he sounded _ he never signed up to it. as i was saying, he sounded emotionally. he never signed up to it. as i was . saying, he sounded emotionally like he was _ saying, he sounded emotionally like he was completely— saying, he sounded emotionally like he was completely up _ saying, he sounded emotionally like he was completely up for— saying, he sounded emotionally like he was completely up for it, - saying, he sounded emotionally like he was completely up for it, and - saying, he sounded emotionally like he was completely up for it, and his| he was completely up for it, and his problem _ he was completely up for it, and his problem is, — he was completely up for it, and his problem is, is— he was completely up for it, and his problem is, is he _ he was completely up for it, and his problem is, is he a _ he was completely up for it, and his problem is, is he a lawyer? - he was completely up for it, and his problem is, is he a lawyer? he - he was completely up for it, and his problem is, is he a lawyer? he is i problem is, is he a lawyer? he is never_ problem is, is he a lawyer? he is never going — problem is, is he a lawyer? he is never going to _ problem is, is he a lawyer? he is never going to sign _ problem is, is he a lawyer? he is never going to sign a _ problem is, is he a lawyer? he is never going to sign a bit - problem is, is he a lawyer? he is never going to sign a bit of- problem is, is he a lawyer? he isl never going to sign a bit of paper, but gives— never going to sign a bit of paper, but gives the _ never going to sign a bit of paper, but gives the impression - never going to sign a bit of paper, but gives the impression he - never going to sign a bit of paper, but gives the impression he does. exactly, _ but gives the impression he does. e>