The overwhelming majority of Pension Buzz's 166 respondents thought nationalising pension provision would be detrimental for the country.
Nine out of ten rejected the idea, put forward by a Pensions Buzz contributor last week.
One pundit said: "I think the peer who asked this question is a Jeremy Corbyn supporter who has been carried away by his/her excitement at the probable Labour leader election results. I hardly know where to begin other than to say a firm ‘no!' We need to rebuild trust in pensions, not ensure the utter destruction of the very concept."
Another said it was the 2010's not the 1970's while one commentator said that they hoped the question was "asked tongue in cheek".
One commentator said: "The old age pension, the basic statement, national graduated pension scheme, EPB, GMP, the married woman's stamp, SERPS, S2P, flat rate state pension. What a history of state provision! It doesn't inspire confidence. However, they could do a little more by allowing and encouraging Nest and the PPF to provide DC decumulation services."
Another critic asked: "Can you seriously imagine rich Tories allowing the government to do that?"
"What a Neanderthal idea," another said. "Sorry this is the 21st century, we need to empower the public - government is not fit to manage pensions , look where they are currently!"
Only 7% supported the nationalisation of pensions. "And we should look forward to this when Jeremy Corbyn is elected Prime Minister," said one enthusiast.
Nationalising pension provision would remove the multiple pockets of self-interest and inefficiency which existed at the moment argued one supporter.
Making pensions compulsory and administered by the government would remove the need for tax relief another contributor added.
Most respondents said trustees generally had enough influence over scheme assets to do the job of safeguarding members' interests.
Six out of ten said all trustees had the tools to fulfil their fiduciary duties, while a further quarter said this was restricted to the biggest schemes.
However, a number of respondents wondered if trustees were keen to use the full scope of their powers. "Are they using their influence?" asked one pundit.
Contributors said trustees were not doing their job if they were failing to do this, while several said trustees should sell any assets they were concerned about.
One pundit said trustees "needed to insist on transparency around costs and charges".
But others were worried some trustees were not astute in financial and investment matters. A commentator said: "How many trustees actually understand what their fiduciary duties are in relation to investments? Most trustees seem to think they can ignore the employer who funds the whole scheme."
Those who thought trustees in smaller schemes would find it more challenging to fulfil their duties said fund managers were the true holders of power.
"The growth of passive management and the lack of availability of segregated mandates for all but the largest schemes mean that most trustees have to rely on the managers for voting and trustees cannot take into account ethical or stewardship concerns easily," said one.
The use of pooled assets was an arrangement which made it especially hard for trustees to make their voices heard another argued.
The Association of Member Nominated Trustees has launched an initiative that is intended to address this problem, by making it easier for schemes to instruct their managers on voting.
Only 8% of contributors said trustees did not have the tools to fulfil their fiduciary duties. "The opinion of the advisers far outweighs the opinion of trustees," said one respondent.
A majority of respondents said the pensions industry had to move with the times and do everything it could to engage with members.
Contributors said social media should be part of a broader system of communication tools but was a better way to communicate with younger members.
A pundit said pension schemes should use all available means and the more technology was used, the cheaper communication became.
Another observed the pension industry was a decade or more behind in technology. They said: "My recent deferred pension statement from a high profile CARE scheme stated that if I apply in writing I can get an early leaver pension quote within two months, or a transfer quote within six months. These should be available within ten seconds, or less for 'super-fast broadband'."
Conversely three in ten were sceptical of the idea.
Confidentiality was a concern as messages could be too easily forwarded to the wrong audience.
It was also said analyses of how much of a workforce had registered to use a scheme provider's online tools always showed less than 10%.
One critic asked: "How much useful information can you impart in 140 characters? # bonkers idea."
Another respondent said: "People want social media for lightweight gossip about friends, celebrities, or sport. Pinging messages about pensions would be like trying to introduce the subject at a party. I would leave any party where the conversation was about pensions, house prices, or the best schools. These are all important subjects, but there is a time and a place."
To read the results click here.
Tim Shepherd and Beth Brown look at the legal implications of working from home and how pension professionals can mitigate the risks.
The Pensions Regulator (TPR) has substantially increased the usage of its powers against trustees – posting a sharp rise in the use of formal information gathering powers and High Court production orders during the three months to the end of September....
The Pension Schemes Bill has completed its third reading, crossing its latest hurdle in the House of Commons.
An amendment to the Pensions Schemes Bill which would have seen people given a pre-booked Pension Wise appointment ahead of accessing their retirement savings has been defeated.
A proposal to ensure savers receive a Pension Wise appointment prior to accessing their retirement pot has received cross-party support in parliament, while Labour seeks net-zero pensions by 2050.