JimmyH:]Or maybe 70, 73, 76??
I think it was inevitable. With the aging population, the costs were climbing sharply and this is one way to soften the hit the government's finances take.
Personally, I would rather have the age raised to 67 or 68 and have some confidence that the scheme was affordable and would be there when I eventually need it, that run with a much lower age and risk something more drastic having to be done. Also, I would greatly prefer rasing the age to other options like cutting the rate or a complex and expensive (and potentially avoidable) system of means testing being put in place.
Plus, the rising age doesn't mean that you have to wait longer to retire. If you save your pennies then you can retire earlier if you can afford it. I'm trying to arrange my affairs so that it would be feasible for me to retire at 60 if I want to. Irrespective of the super rules. Whether I can manage it is, or course, another question.
The rise from 60 to 65 a few years ago didn't seem to be too problematic. I don't see why the increase to 67 should be.