Does Britain's democracy face a big problem?

There will be a problem for a while, maybe twenty years or so, but eventually the country will get through it. Once the large number of elderly people start dying off they will die off faster than the birth rate can keep up so the population will start to drop, so long as government will have the guts to tackle the immigration problem that is. There is a limit to how long people can work for, everyone is different so some are able to work longer than others. Those in hard physically demanding jobs sometimes struggle to continue to work until 65 so extending the retirement age for those sort of jobs will eventually be challenged.

Look you can't have your cake and eat,,, it ain't on, only yesterday were we told on the news that men were on average a stone heavier than 20 years ago, and up an recently we were and probably will still be, be endlessly told that a bad diet coupled with a lack of exercise was condemning a generation for the first time to live a shorter and less active life than their parents, so which is it, like I said you can't have your cake and eat it,,, its either one or the other, so which is it.....

If this prediction that 1 in 6 will live to be a hundred or more comes true, then get ready for conscription of the young to care for the old, I'm telling you, that's on the cards, because if that prediction does come true then it will be a nightmare for the younger and more able bodied in society, a nightmare, and even worse for those who live to be a hundred or more, because there's also going to be a lot more people in their 70s-80s-90, what about these people, who cares for them.

People are indeed living longer but they ain't getting any younger.

Medical science can do wonders even today its capable of doing remarkable things, but I doubt in 50 or 60 years that it will be able to turn a Sows ear into a silk purse, because that is what will be needed.

Oh, I wouldn't worry too much as the world will most probably all blow up before we get to 100. Hope I am wrong about that, but things do look rather apocalyptic. I cannot imagine so many old people being sustained by so few highly burdened taxpayers, something will surely happen. There could be a revolution, or a mega outbreak of 'roast turkey' or 'KFC Bargain Bucket' flu before we get anywhere near 100 that would murder anyone over the age of say 81.6.... That would be the answer to any LibLabCon govt eh? Satire - don't you love it? I sincerely don't wish our elderly people any harm.

What really annoys me most is the way that 20-30 years ago they encouraged us to take out personal and private pensions and / or join company schemes so that we would have some regular income money in our retirements. Since then, pensions have been STOLEN or RAIDED by successive govts and employers to the tune of billions. I thought I was doing the right thing, I saved for my retirement into my company final sal pension scheme, then a huge black hole appeared in it and they said we'd all have to work another 5 years and the prospect of retiring at 60 sounded beautiful, but alas I will now have to work till 65 / 66 / 70.... who knows?. Also, Flash Gordon taxed the dividends on pensions when he became Chancellor and raided them by (I think) 5 billion a year, then 911 happened and further widened the black hole. The greedy govt did virtually nothing to help people to save for their own retirements.

My second annoying point about all this, is that they knew people were starting to live longer lives 20-30 years ago and even before that! I remember even reading about it in the early 80's. Again though, little has been done in Britain to encourage people to help themselves, but instead chose a route that created a system whereby people should always rely on the state, and that is just ridiculous, and it's unsustainable.

This living longer hasn't just happened over night, but various govts have allowed this ticking time bomb to go unchecked. So, in 2066 if I'm still around, I'm going to form the Wrinkly Anti LibLabCon party. I dare say that if we get 1 in 6 of all the votes without too much trying, we could seriously challenge the leadership.

OK, so we're saying that 1 in 6 people born today will still be alive in 2110.

(By way of comparison, in the UK, about 1 person in 4000 born in 1910, is still alive today, and about 1 person in 200,000 born in 1810 was still alive in 1910.)

The retirement age will simply have to rise to compensate for this trend. No point in having people retiring at 65 or 70 if they're going to live for another 20-25 years, and be capable of working for at least 10 of those years.

I mean, if you retire at 60 and live to age 100, chances are you've spent more time retired than you did working! That's clearly unsustainable, you don't have to be a genius economist to realise that.

It may also mean thinking outside the box and moving beyond an employment/taxpayer based economy - as the future will inevitably lead to more automation, artificial intelligence, and less need for human employment.

Rich B has thought this through.

If we, as a society, accept that it is better that more people are gainfully employed than not, then we have an obligation to create a system that enables all these people to earn a living and thus pay taxes.

It cannot be left to the market. Nor is it a recipe for a civilisation worth living in to have a handful of megarich lords - the ones who got themselves watertight contracts with huge bonuses, and a huge underclass of destitute paupers and beggars, holding down enormous debts and at the mercy at any time of ruthless bailiffs.

The very first thing that needs to be done is to put an end to the obscenity of overtime working, for as long as there are others who are underemployed. It means taking lunch breaks, observing the Working Time Regulations, and covering for these 'lost' hours with more staff and more training. Those in work should not be expected to work themselves like dogs to show antisocial bosses that they can 'go the extra mile' if the result of this is a large number of others who are not given the opportunity to work at all.

Yes, Lord Sugar - he of New Labour aspirations - I am addressing this at you. Of all those who took part in your TV show, only one was actually taken on, and the rest are presumably still scratching around. I also notice that not one who made it to the shortlist was over 35, let alone over 65. While the theme of that show was not of your making, and is only really a reality TV show to provide entertainment, the underlying message of The Apprentice is sinister.

If companies cannot open up their opportunity base without some protection from unscrupulous competitors or predators, then this is an excellent reason for Government intervention. After all, it will be repaid in extra taxes from these new workers.

The next thing is to haul in all the experts in human resources management and oblige them to rethink recruitment policies. Instead of encouraging the cherry picking those aged 25-35, paying them extravagant yuppie salaries with bonuses, such behaviour should be penalised by heavy taxation and fines on employers that indulge.

Employees should be selected for suitable work up to the age of 75 and beyond, put to work and paid sufficiently that they can meet their public obligation in taxes and still support themselves and their families. Nobody under 75 should be denied good paid work if they are willing to do it and are fit for it, even if this means rationing the work that is available. Those over 75 should not be thought strange if even they are still up to earning a living. Right up to 100 and beyond if needs be.

From each according to ability and to each according to need is a Marxist doctrine. Instead of getting hysterical about Socialism, this principle should be attached the to more efficient and workable systems of the free market and free enterprise, and the best features of both combined.

Our politicians have for some years been telling us that we are an ageing population, the latest statistics simply give substance to that. It is precisely the problems you highlight (and more) that have caused the retirement age to be increased in the near future (and don't think it will not increase again later on), and one of the reasons why there must be a return to work for the majority of the unemployed. Who knows, at some future date there may have to be some curtailing of available benefits too. The problems will multiply exponentially unless provision is made now. It is no good waiting for the events to happen, plans have to be made. That is what our politicians are paid for, but it will not be easy.

the only ingredient that has come to the exterior are some stolen emails from one corporation. each and all the handfuls of alternative worldwide clinical agencies, NASA NOAA national Academy of technology, American Society of Meteorology stand in the back of their study indicating AGW is actual. This so reported as scandal is a pitiful desperate attempt by way of deniers to locate something to back their unscientific claims.

Yep, got to set the youngsters and fogies straight on how it's going to be. Fogies get off their butts and teach values that were lost, and youngsters will listen and learn OR ELSE; No free rides!!

You've got Bolsheviks at the head of both major parties, don't you. Yep, I'd say you're in big trouble. They've captured them both.

yes