This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
Couple of observations on our bending author's latest missive.
Increasing the retirement age for longevity seems an inevitability. Either that or reduce the annual pension. Unfortunately, pensions have to be paid, ultimately by the person receiving the pension, though the state pension scheme also serves as a redistributor of income. How much (if any) of that you want is down to your political persuasions.
So with increasing lifespans, you pretty much have to increase revenue and decrease expenditure, which an increase in retirement age does. As much as we all want more out for less in, it doesn't work in aggregate.
We also aren't putting the yoof in competition with grandpa for jobs - that's the "lump of labour" fallacy. Demand for labour simply isn't a constant, nor is it unresponsive to the amount of labour already employed. Those who work have to employ others to do more things they no longer have the time to do (but do have the money to pay other people to do). Britain simply doesn't have the horrendous youth unemployment problem that countries such as Spain or Greece have, even there that is down to a whole range of factors that have nothing to do with which end of the age spectrum you cut benefits to.
All I know is that retirement age is an ever moving target - as you get close, the move the goal posts.
Of course, this could be one reason Labour let in so many foreigners.... expecting them to bolster the youth sector employees so they could pay for all the old folks pensions and health services..... though what happens when they reach retirement age is anyone's guess (Tony may have been fooled by the lower life expectancy in some of the countries of origin into thinking that they'd all die off before claiming a pension. Labour certainly got their expectations about the number of immigrants all wrong so we shouldn't be surprised if they got everything else wrong as well).
I think the salient point of our bending author's post is that Gordon Brown, for all his other sins, trashed such pension schemes as there were and Two Brain Willets seemed to think this OK. Two brains apparently not better than one which says that since we need pensions, if they are in trouble what you do is try and fix the problem. Not come along and administer the coup de grace.
Most memorable of all is the continuing disparity between those who work for a living and get a "money pot" from which their pension is then calculated (and it helps to find a friendly health screening agency because this is the time when claiming to smoke 60 cigs a day, drink copious amounts of alcohol and occupy your spare time with dangerous sports has benefits - they figure you will probably kick the bucket within a year of retiring and this ups the payments) while "public sector workers continue to be paid exorbitant amounts of tax payers money, get golden hallos on taken up a post and golden parachutes on leaving and get a healthy index linked pension on retirement (or, if disgraced and forced from office, a nice lump sum into their pension fund).
It's beside the point how many years a person can work. To make an annuity or pension make sense, it has to pay out for a limited number of average years. A person can draw down savings till he hits retirement age.