WASPI women have issued a warning to prime minister Sir Keir Starmer after a bruising set of local election results for Labour last week. The government has refused to pay out the sum owed to the women, which was calculated by a Parliamentary Ombudsman report last year.

Founded in 2015, the Women Against State Pension Inequality group, or WASPI, campaigns against the way in which the state pensions ages for men and women were equalised. They say the change in women’s retirement age from 60 to 65, which was mandated by the 1995 Pensions Act, was poorly communicated, leaving millions of women badly affected. Women born between 1950 and 1955 were implicated in the transition, which was meant to be phased in over a decade from 2010 but was sped up by the 2011 Pensions Act. WASPI argue the government should provide transitional payments to the women concerned, which were calculated at £2,950 in last year’s report.

Group chair Angela Madden said this week: “The local election results makes grim reading for both the Labour and Conservative parties and show the political cost of failing to deliver on your promises.

“Waspi women have clearly fired warning shots this week and if the Government continues to ignore their calls for compensation, they risk handing the next General Election to Reform.

“If ministers want to avoid electoral catastrophe, they would be wise to get round the table to put this historic injustice right.”

Sir Keir recently said on the topic: “I just set out the factual background and the percentage that knew about the change, and the simple fact of the matter is, in the current economic circumstances, the taxpayer can’t bear the burden of tens of billions of pounds in compensation."

Chancellor Rachel Reeves added: "I understand that women affected by the changes to the state pension age feel disappointed by this decision, but we looked in full at the ombudsman recommendations and they said that around 90 per cent of women did know that these changes were coming.

"As chancellor, I have to account for every penny of taxpayers’ money spent. And given that the vast majority of people did know about these changes, I didn’t judge that it would be the best use of taxpayers’ money to pay an expensive compensation bill for something that most people knew was happening."