OP, to answer your question from yesterday morning (sorry for delay - went to work, went out after work, got home at ridiculous hour in the morning, now nursing hangover), I thought the report was very fairly balanced, and more to the point, cited the assumptions and evidence upon which it relied. As to who paid me (which is a good question, and one we should be asking when anyone tries to persuade us of a position), I read the report so I could better advise my clients, who came from all sides of the argument - so I wasn't paid directly by any side.
And to those who say "this is what we signed up to, 20 years ago, and it's unfair that it's changed", yes, I agree it sucks when your expectations are pulled away from under you. But (as far as I'm aware - haven't yet looked closely at all the new regulations for all the new schemes), anything earned up to April next year is protected, and still linked to final salary. Nobody's taking away anything actually earned, but changing it for the future. I think that if people want to object to that, then they're right to strike, but that decision should be made from a position of knowledge and not relying on soundbites made by either side.
I suspect that it's a vain hope to expect honesty from politicians (in general, they're human, just like the rest of us, and some are genuinely there out of a desire to improve society, but they seem to be disproportionately driven by the need to appear infallible), but I'm slightly disappointed that some of the unions don't seem to want to give the full picture to their members. Though that's probably a whole other argument about the level of political discourse.