Barry I wasn't trying to be rude, but I think there's a genuine concern that as a heck of a lot of people don't take advice now (when the cost of advice is basically subsidised for the likes of us smaller investors by the people with 'proper' lump sums) how many people will take advice next year when pretty much every adviser will be charging people up front for giving you advice. Answer? Not many, it's a dig at the FSA more than the people of the UK.
So not only are they doing their best to destroy pensions, by constantly changing the rules, which the general population aren't keen on, investments are next on the list, and it won't be long before protections hit too. Well as things look like panning out.
Ignore me, I get precious and defensive!
To be honest, I've always had an issue with Tied Advisors, so if all Advisors charge up front, I think it's a good thing making things more transparent. (Of course, I don't know much about the industry so could be completely wrong, it just feels better to me.)
With regard to pensions, I've always thought they're a fucking joke. As I think you allude to, they always seemed unnecessarily complex (I'm guessing that's to protect the government from handing over too much tax relief?) and with constant changes (I know not of the changes, I just note you mention them) it can't make them any easier, or more desirable, to use as something to put money into. Annuity rates always seemed sickening to me as well. It just seems there's no real incentive to even start one - at least not in an obvious and enticing way to the layman like me - hence why many need financial advice I suspect.
It used to seem to me that unless you could go into Drawdown, which again is far, far worse than it was, or you had one of the older ones, where you were entitled to 33% up front, the whole "investment" ends up looking like a bitterly disappointing waste of years of premiums for a tiny token annual payment.
You can also look online to do your research, instead of paying a financial advisor, who generally will point you to the best option he can get a good (not best) deal for you as well as the best commission for him
This is something that is illegal. An advisor should always give you the advice that best benefits you, not him/her. The trouble is, and this is my main bugbear, some advisors are tied to one or several financial organisations, and although they should advise if they can't provide a suitable product, I've always felt it wrong that they can only provide "independent advice" for products from one provider or a small group of providers.
Also, I think getting advice online, from places like Yahoo Answers and what not, is probably a very bad idea. After all, everyone online thinks they're an expert and invariably they're nothing more than a pedantic keyboard warrior with a love for their own words and Wikipedia gleaned knowledge.
