The tasks before us are huge. We begin with reforms to Incapacity Benefit, trying simultaneously to help disabled people live healthy, fulfilling lives, while at the same time persuading the long-term unemployed that sick leave isn’t an advantageous or acceptable alternative to work. The first of these aims is technically difficult, but at least it’s uncontroversial. The second will kick off huge protests over the tone of language used, the size of the problem itself, the political style of any potential solutions, and the dangers of accidentally but systematically stigmatising or victimising vulnerable disabled people.

But if that isn’t enough, the next gorilla we’re expected to wrestle is pensions. Adair Turner’s report is due out late this year, and will set the scene for one of the most important and potentially far-reaching debates since the welfare state was originally created. If it isn’t fudged, the policies which come out of it could set the tone for an entire generation of people as they enter work, move through their careers and ultimately retire.

One of the most fundamental issues is whether our children’s pensions should be fully funded or pay-as-you-go. There’s no doubt that fully funded schemes need strong protection against fraud, but at least they’re underpinned by real money. Pay-as-you-go schemes are backed by nothing more than political promises that today’s workers will get a decent pension when they eventually retire. The escalating row over the size of the state pension, especially compared to rapid rises in Council Tax, shows this is a slender and wobbly foundation for anyone’s retirement plans. And switching from a pay-as-you-go to a fully funded scheme is incredibly expensive, because the current generation of workers has to pay twice – once for itself, and once to maintain its parents’ pensions too.

Equally important is whether pensions should be individual or pooled schemes. Individual schemes establish a starkly simple and direct link between the amount you work and your pension. There’s no escaping personal responsibility and the consequences of not saving. Pooled schemes blur this individual responsibility, but generally carry less risk of poor investment decisions leaving people with a smaller pension than they’d expected.

Both of these issues are important for future generations, but for anyone currently in work there’s a more immediate problem: how to cope with a system that, fundamentally, has too many people and not enough money. This is the famous ‘demographic timebomb’ of more and more pensioners supported by fewer and fewer workers.

There are only three basic policy choices available to defuse the bomb. Governments can either pay lower pensions, raise the retirement age, or introduce compulsory saving through increased taxes and NI or private schemes, to plug the gap. All of them are horribly bitter pills for voters to swallow.

Of course, there may be creative variations which could sweeten these pills. The Government is already considering including property assets in pension portfolios. Other possibilities include abolishing mandatory retirement as part of an anti age discrimination package. Surveys show that people value being able to choose for themselves whether to stop work at 65 or carry on, because it gives them more flexibility and control over their lives. But voters would probably rebel at any hint of a stealthy increase in the mandatory retirement age, and industrial relations might worsen if employers have to manage out low performing staff instead of simply allowing them to retire.

These are some of the toughest and most difficult political nettles to grasp, but they will only spread if the Government ignores them. David Blunkett will need to bring his stoutest gardening gloves to work this autumn.