The WASPI confusion sees Andy Burnham stumble at his first spending test

The damning accusation against Keir Starmer from his colleagues, and one which may cost him his premiership, is that he is unwilling to confront (and stick to) difficult choices. That is the message of John Healey’s resignation letter over the much-delayed Defence Investment Plan. But it was also the message in the initial wave of resignation letters earlier this year. The second concern for his colleagues was the frequency of U-turns.

The hope of many is that Andy Burnham, if he manages to persuade a sufficient plurality of the people of Makerfield to elect him, 81 Labour MPs to nominate him and then the Labour membership to vote for him (if necessary), will be a different kind of prime minister. This week’s dalliance with WASPI compensation has raised questions about whether he is capable of that. 

One brave decision the Starmer government stuck to was to say no to the WASPIs

When in opposition, lots of Labour MPs took the route of less resistance and signed the pledge to correct the WASPI “injustice”. This campaign, which claims to speak for women in their 60s and 70s who found their state pension age delayed as a result of decisions by the Major government, is asking to be compensated for their losses. In 2019 Jeremy Corbyn wanted full restitution – with a mere £58bn price tag. The Ombudsman suggested a slightly less eye-watering £10bn pay out to recompense for information failures by the DWP – a figure that would take a lot of women who feel they are owed nothing by surprise and fall far short of satisfying those who want compensation in full. Liz Kendall, as work and pension secretary, said no. ¹³ Department for Work and Pensions and The Rt Hon Liz Kendall MP, Government response to Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) report, 17 December 2024, www.gov.uk/government/speeches/government-response-to-parliamentary-and-health-service-ombudsman-phso-report  More information then came to light, Kendall’s successor, then said no again. ¹⁴ Department for Work and Pensions and The Rt Hon Pat McFadden MP, Government response to Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s (PHSO) Investigation into Women’s State Pension age communications and associated issues, 29 January 2026, www.gov.uk/government/speeches/government-response-to-parliamentary-and-health-service-ombudsmans-phso-investigation-into-womens-state-pension-age-co…  That decision has stuck.

But it wasn’t just MPs who signed the WASPI pledge. Andy Burnham did too. The – very persistent – WASPI campaigners thought they already had him in their bag with a meeting days after the Makerfield by-election was called. ¹⁵ WASPI Meet Andy Burnham, 22 May 2026, https://waspi.co.uk/waspi-meet-andy-burnham/  And earlier this week, Burnham told a hustings that he would “stick by the WASPI women because they deserve some recompense for the unfairness”. ¹⁶ Fisher L and Smith I, Andy Burnham rules out cash for Waspi women after Labour backlash, Financial Times, 11 June 2026, www.ft.com/content/fc90116d-519d-4fa1-b418-ce3f49ead012?syn-25a6b1a6=1  A day later he was forced to reverse and say that this would not involve a cash payout.

Burnham needs to confront the difficult choices he would face as PM

There is still a lot of support for WASPIs. Being nice to them and sticking to an earlier pledge was an obvious move for a by-election candidate taking on a range of populists. But Burnham is standing in Makerfield so that he can challenge Keir Starmer, and his indulgence of the WASPIs is an indication that he has yet to wake up to what would face him if he walked into Downing Street.

His WASPI U-turn was rapidly overtaken by the more dramatic resignations from the Ministry of Defence over the failure to fund the Defence Investment Plan. John Healey, the now ex-defence secretary, accused Starmer of being “unable” to take the difficult decisions needed to boost the defence budget, a reminder to would-be prime ministers that spending decisions – and choosing winners and losers – need to be confronted on a regular basis – and in a way that Burnham has hardly had to face as Mayor of Greater Manchester. Even in Manchester, Burnham cannot have been unaware of the Westminster row over funding the defence plan – and must have known that was a bill he might be called on to pay. He should, perhaps, have concluded that this was hardly the time to be making extravagant promises for more spending.

The DIP is far from the only fiscal challenge that he would face, should he enter Number 10. The chancellor presented her spring statement just as the Iran War was started, with the OBR warning that this could mean their forecasts were substantially wrong. This could, said the OBR, leave Reeves facing a rapidly disappearing fiscal headroom and, if energy prices stay or go higher, increase pressure to cushion the impacts for many households. So far, the government has resisted the sort of packages seen in other countries, and it claims it can target support at those most in need – but it is far from clear if it can do that with precision. That could come with a big price tag.

Burnham will need to avoid more hostages on the road to No.10

The autumn budget – and the 2027 spending review – are already shaping up to be extremely miserable for whoever is in charge. Andy Burnham will need to contain his crowd-pleasing instincts as he tries to make his way to Downing Street. 

Having already reiterated the 2024 manifesto tax pledges, his room for manoeuvre is limited. But while he may have backed off on WASPI after a Labour backlash, a leadership contest will put pressure on Burnham – and any other candidate – to pledge further giveaways. They would only have to look at Keir Starmer to see what happens to leaders whose pledges on the campaign trail can impossibly constrict their ability to make difficult decisions once they are in power.