A person dedicated to fighting for pensioners is still needed according to research from PP.
While the Treasury did get its way a lot of the time, a pensions minister could still have influence within that framework, 78% of Pension Buzz's 149 respondents said.
A majority also believed younger trustees would not boost interest in pensions and it was very unlikely voters would rather pay more income tax to protect pensions tax relief.
There is still a need for a pensions minister despite the political interference from the Treasury according to 78% of respondents.
Some said the tenure of Steve Webb showed the right person could make a difference and the importance of pensions required an official in government to focus on this policy area.
A commentator said: "While HM Treasury and the Chancellor may have the last word, pensions or at least long-term saving towards retirement is important and needs to be encouraged as the state cannot provide support for all for the length of time we may now spend in retirement. A pensions minister can at least challenge the Chancellor and ensure that all issues are fully considered."
However, 19% disagreed and responses touched on several areas. Some criticised Ros Altmann's credentials and Webb's record; others argued an independent pensions commission would do a better job.
A pundit said "we need a savings minister" rather than a pensions minister.
Only 3% sat on the fence.
The greatest number, 48%, replied it was very unlikely voters could be convinced to pay more income tax to protect pensions tax relief.
Tax relief was low hanging fruit and people preferred lower taxes sooner rather than later.
A commentator said: "Higher income taxes affect people's standard of living today; cutting pension tax relief affects their standard of living ‘sometime in the future'. The majority of people find it hard to think about something more than a year in the future. Politicians know their audience."
Just over a fifth thought it was possible to convince the electorate otherwise. "The whole principle of pensions is deferring expenditure now for long-term saving and benefit in old age," said a respondent.
Around one in seven believed it was impossible to change people's minds. A pundit said: "The public are generally more concerned about disposable income each month and do not appreciate the impact of a deficit."
Only 6% replied it was very likely and 11% did not know.
A majority of respondents (76%) rejected the idea younger trustees would boost awareness of pensions among younger people.
Respondents said experience was valued and trustees needed to be competent while some said other financial factors aside from pensions were important for the young. "The age of the trustees isn't the problem. Young people have other demands on their resources. I don't think young people should be all that interested in pensions. They should have them but we can't expect them to want them," said a respondent.
Another made the analogy that pupils do not necessarily find school lessons more interesting just because their teacher is younger than their parents and grandparents. "If anything, the younger generation would probably want trustees to have a bit of experience," the same person continued.
Only 16% answered ‘yes' to the question. "I think the communications would be better and better understood," said a pundit.
Just 8% were not sure.
Most respondents (55%) were unsure whether schemes were moving away from investing in fossil fuels due to fears about climate change.
A number replied they did not have enough information to take a firm view while others thought different factors could explain divestment.
One person said: "Divestment is more likely to be as a result of the fall in oil prices rather than any environmentally orientated decisions."
Another asked: "And invest where? Anyone else think that fields of wind farms are nothing more than a blot on the landscape and therefore damage the environment in a different way?"
Just under three in ten disagreed. A pundit said the fall in oil price and pressure from some members over supposedly "unethical" investments was more important. "If climate change was the main reason for divestment, the money would be going towards research into nuclear fusion power generation instead," he added.
Among those who agreed (18%) schemes were divesting, a commentator said: "As the Hinkley Point debacle shows, it's far too soon to write off fossil fuels."
The industry had mixed reactions on whether master trusts were actually in danger of failing and if they were badly run.
Slightly more (38%) thought regulators were not overplaying the problem and believed action was needed. "History suggests we will see master trusts fail so we need clear guidance to minimise member losses and further reputational damage to the pensions industry. The focus is too biased towards small trusts," said a commentator.
Meanwhile another suggested there were too many master trusts with poor governance, no solvency standards and no member protection. "Standards are too low and won't drive member engagement," he added.
Yet 30% replied there was not as big a problem as many thought. "The majority of master trusts are established and administered within reputable organisations who take their role as pension advisers/administrators seriously and operate within a compliant and well governed infrastructure," said a respondent.
A third was undecided.
To see the results in full click here.
This week’s top stories included the rejection of an automatic guidance amendment in the Pension Schemes Bill, while The Pensions Regulator posted a sharp increase in the use of its powers.
The majority of the pensions industry agrees an eventual net-zero target should not be mandated for schemes as part of the Pension Schemes Bill, according to a Professional Pensions poll.
Local Pension Partnership Administration (LPPA) has become the latest organisation to join the Pension Scams Industry Group (PSIG) forum.
Two-thirds of UK fund managers are reducing investments in companies that fail on diversity and inclusion scores, according to a survey by Edelman.
England and Wales have seen a fourth successive week of increasing excess death figures as the countries battle through the second wave of the coronavirus pandemic.