Hilary Simpson is fed up of being asked how she feels about the government’s failure to tell her that the pension age had changed and its refusal to compensate her.

“It’s abundantly clear how we’re all feeling,” she said “Campaigners have given endless interviews, spelling out the devastating effects of the initial injustice – and now the government has said it won’t compensate us, we’re moved beyond feelings: this is now a serious, constitutional issue.”

Simpson took early retirement in 2009, when she was 55, from her job in local government. She wanted to help her daughter get on in her career by taking on childcare responsibilities. “Because I had no evidence to the contrary, I assumed I’d be getting my pension at 60,” she said. “I draw up a spreadsheet for how to make my lump sum last five years, then signed on the dotted line.”

It was only after she retired that she discovered she had been affected by legislation, passed in 1995, that meant she would not get her state pension until she was 63.

“There was no excuse for either my employers or the DWP not having told me,” she said. “I worked next door to the HR department. I’d never moved house – the government had all my details.”

With no other choice, Simpson adapted her spreadsheet to make the lump sum last eight years instead of five. But then, in 2011, the pension changes were accelerated: suddenly, a lump sum that looked perfectly reasonable for five years now had to stretch over 10 and a half years.

“But we’ve had enough of sob stories. Let’s look at now,” she said. “For a start, where has the government got the figure that 90% of women knew about the changes? The DWP have said they don’t know how many letters they sent out or to whom. That certainly doesn’t chime with any research we’re aware of, not to mention people’s personal testimonies, of which Waspi has many thousands.”

For another thing, said Simpson, the government cannot just ignore the Ombudsman’s decision that all those affected are eligible for up to almost £3,000 compensation each.

“This is an important, fundamental point,” she said. “Ombudsmans’ decisions are final and there is no appeal. To reject their rulings is a serious constitutional issue with far-ranging political implications.”

Judith Robertson agreed. “I’m deeply shocked and disappointed but more than that, it’s the undemocratic nature of the decision that has outraged me most,” she said.

The decision has led Robertson to question her life-long membership of the Labour party. “Abiding by the ombudsman’s decision is the check and balance of a democratic society. Ignoring it is the start of a slippery slope,” she said.

“The democratic process required this to be subject to debate in the house and an open vote,” added the former deputy headteacher. “The values being demonstrated today are not those of a caring party. It does make me question what Labour stands for now.”

Elizabeth Stanley, a Labour party councillor, is also critical. “I remain committed to the party but this isn’t right,” she said. “The argument that it’s a wrong use of taxpayers’ money is bizarre: all us Waspi women are taxpayers. It’s like we’re invisible.”

But other women born in the 1950s say the decision is the correct one. Anne had to wait an extra year for her pension. “But I knew this was going to happen because all the information was on the government’s website,” she said. “Coming up to retirement and pension age, I made it my job to keep myself informed about state pension rules.

“I agree with the government,” she said “I would rather £10bn was spent on children, especially those in poverty.”

Gill, 69, agreed. “Paying everyone out of limited funds is not proportionate,” she said.

But women born in the 1950s who have also lost out with cuts to the winter fuel allowance feel yesterday’s announcement particularly keenly.

Christine not only had to work an extra two years before she could claim her state pension and is on the old-style pension payments, so gets £40 a week less than the newer £200 payment.

“I lost my winter fuel allowance and my income has almost halved since my husband died earlier this year,” she said. “The government seem to be in some sort of strange bubble: are we the ‘broadest shoulders’ which they said would pay their fair share?

“I will find it difficult to vote for Labour again – and I have voted Labour all my life. Frankly, I’m very, very disappointed in them,” she said.

Jacqueline criticised Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves, Angela Rayner and Liz Kendall, all of whom backed the women’s campaign in opposition. “Blaming the previous government for this about-turn is disingenuous,” she said. “Yes, there’s a black hole in government finances but there are now huge numbers of vulnerable people whose lives will be much worse in this first winter of a Labour government than before it. That’s not the kind, caring party we voted for.”