The Waspi issue could be argued to be the most contentious subject, with people having very strong opinions on both sides of the argument.
The Waspi campaign has fought ferociously in recent years to prove 1950s women have been left out of pocket by the state pension age change, were not properly notified, and therefore should receive redress from the government.
But on the flip side, there are strong arguments that these people knew this change was coming, the state pension is a benefit and therefore nobody is entitled to it and so no compensation is therefore needed.
But a recent Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report has put the government in a sticky situation after it ruled that the Department for Work and Pensions had failed to properly communicate changes to the women’s state pension age and that the government should pay compensation and apologise to those affected.
It recommended payouts of between £1,000 and £2,950 per person, which could cost between £3.5bn and £10.5bn.
But it is worth noting that the DWP is not legally obliged to carry out these recommendations and can refuse to pay out, something which is looking increasingly likely after work and pensions secretary Mel Stride refused to commit to compensate women in a recent statement to the House of Commons.
So what should the government do – pay compensation or not?
Whatever it decides, one thing is for certain: one group will be rather unhappy.
And the whole Waspi issue has now turned into a political issue as we head into an election year.
The political issue
All eyes will be looking for what the various parties decide to do, but it is unlikely any will come out and promise compensation for fear of being tied to it and called out if they backtrack.
The Conservatives are dragging their heels and playing for more time, saying they will consider the report fully.
Meanwhile, Labour is also yet to set out its position on the issue of compensation, but speaking over the weekend the party's chair Anneliese Dodds also refused to make any commitments.
However, SNP MPs have said they “stand shoulder to shoulder with these women”, and have called for compensation to be paid.
Going into an election this is a tricky situation to navigate as it could be both a vote winner and vote loser.
If a party were to promise compensation in their manifesto it could win the votes of all Waspi women and their supporters.
But on the flip side it could lose the votes of all those who are against forking out, especially younger voters whose national insurance contributions pay towards the state pension.
It will be interesting to see how long parties can kick the can down the road and who will be the first to cement their decision.
But why does the Waspi issue invoke such passion among both supporters and challengers?
A touchy subject
The campaigners for the Women Against State Pension Inequality (Waspi) group formed in 2015, and have been fighting their cause ever since, with still no clear end in sight.
It could be ages until any decision is made on compensation, and even then it will take a while to set up a scheme and make these payments.
Putting it frankly, some of these people could be dead before they see a penny.
While Waspi is not against equalisation, it believes the way changes to the state pension age were implemented with inadequate or no notice was unfair.
Hence their passion.
But there is equal passion among its contenders who ultimately do not understand how people can say they didn’t know about the changes.
Also many are against paying out so much in compensation when the UK is in a technical recession and people are still battling their way through a cost of living crisis.
I don’t think these two groups of people will ever agree, and the state pension age change issue will forever remain a delicate subject that will ignite fury among those who believe they are right.
Ultimately we need to move on from this issue – frankly if I never heard the word Waspi it would not be a day too soon – but for that to happen parliament needs to make its mind up.
Amy Austin is news editor at FT Adviser
This article has been updated to reflect the report was from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and not the Financial Ombudsman Service.
