Give the gift of insight this Christmas with a New Statesman subscription.

Podcast listeners can claim a special discount to get access to all our reporting on

newsstatesman.com. Add free podcast listening via the New Statesman app and our weekly magazine

delivered to your door. Our discounted subscriptions start at just 49 quid, that's 25% off the usual price.

Claim yours at newsstatement.com forward slash pod 24.

The New Statesman.

Hello, I'm Hannah Barnes and this is Politics from The New Statesman, where every Thursday we bring you the latest from Westminster and beyond.

Today I'm joined by Senior Editor George Eaton and Associate Political Editor Rachel Cuniff.

Hello, both.

Hello.

Hello.

Now, later on, we're going to hear from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Emily Thornbury, and discuss Prince Andrews' relationship with

that alleged Chinese spy. But first, I want to turn our attention to the row that's taken

hold of Westminster this week about how to respond to the claims of waspy women, waspy women against state pension inequality.

And of course, these are the women affected by the state pension age, gradually being increased

from 60 to 66 over a number of years.

The parliamentary and health ombudsman found that there had been maladministration in how those changes to the pension age were communicated from 2005 onwards, and therefore they should be compensated for potential lost pension's earnings.

This week, Labour rejected the idea of compensation, which they estimate would cost £10.5 billion pounds and that they argue the taxpayer simply can't afford.

George, why don't you kick us off?

The defence of the government is that actually 90% of these women affected were aware of the pension changes.

So to do a blanket compensation just isn't going to work.

The Waspies have hit back, calling that claim misinformation. Why? What's the reasoning behind this?

...