Yes, I accept that explanation and I do receive a pension but what I do not understand is why the discrimination on where I should live. Can you tell me and others that are interested in this topic why living in the USA or the Phillipines for example should make a difference to the amount that we get ? I don't think so. If other people around the world get the going rate of pension then so should everyone and that is the argument. Of course it is a policy by the British government and you like to think that the British are all for honour and justice. I rest my case.
ps. If any of you would like to join the Canadian Alliance of British Pensioners where you will find answers to all of your pension queries then go to : www.britishpensions.com There are members from many places other than Canada so you do not have to be Canadian and they are working hand in hand with BPiA in Australia.

I don't think the British are for honour and justice. I think that, if the government were to accept your argument, it would just stop paying the increases to everyone living abroad; you'd upset other pensioners while doing yourselves no good. Why rock the boat, if the pension increases are so important why not move to somewhere that they're paid?

It's not the actual amount - it's a matter of principle!!!!!!!!

Some people just don't get it. You're supposed to not claim a pension after having paid into for years. And if you claim, just because you get less than in other - non-commonwealth - countries, you're supposed to not complain. Sorry, I just can't follow that argument.

If, as in the case of the OP, when you moved to Canada, you know what affect it will have on your pension then you have no complaint at all; you could have chosen to move somewhere else.

If at the time of the move you didn't know then, ok, you have a minor beef but it's unrealistic to expect governments to care about people who have emigrated.

The problem has been with the pensioners in the frozen countries for a long time. The question that the British government have to answer is why did they discriminate in the first place and now that there are people like myself complaining, are you saying that we are wrong. I have an aunt and uncle in New Zealand and they emigrated when they retired because their only daughter had done so a number of years before and they wished to be with her naturally. They have been there for over 26 years and you can imagine what their pension is worth. Thank god they have family. I am doing my complaining as much for them as I am for myself and those that come after me. I am also in Canada because of family, so it is an unrealistic argument to say that I should have moved somewhere else or stayed in the UK. We are still British citizens as well. Do you not think it is morally wrong to continue this policy when they are throwing money at immigrants to the UK who are there for what they can get out of it, many of whom will be a drag on society. At least we spent all of our working lives there and paid our taxes.
I served 26 years in the RAF, many of those years separated from my family to serve my country - Singapore Malaya Germany Aden and others. Does not that deserve some recognition? I say to dbd33 get real and have some compassion for your fellow countrymen, most are probably ex-service as well, and join the crusade to put an end to discrimination. I accept that you have the right to your opinion but it is not very understanding or sympathetic.

Support your argument entirely - it's easy to say 'should have looked at it when you decided to move and it could have influenced your decision' but that seems a pretty yes sir, no sir - narrow vision view. Have not made the move yet and it won't make a difference - but I feel for all those it affects. Make it fair across the board and everyone will be happy. Split it for no foreseeable reason and there will always be complaints.

Why? That's utter garbage. They've had our money all these years, and the issue is simply EQUITY. Future government is treating Joe Blow in Florida or Botswana a whole lot better than those of us in commonwealth country, and we've paid the same into it. But we could state that till we're blue in the face and you still don't get it.

Botswana's a commonwealth country, isn't it? Pick another one

Oops, have my dumb blonde head on today. How about Bolivia????

Excellent post! I also agree with you about dbd33's attitude - could it be sour grapes as he perhaps doesn't qualify for a British pension?

You cannot, of course, demonstrate that immigrants will be a drag on UK society while expatriate pensioners certainly are. I don't think morality influences governments, while economics certainly does. The economic argument says "give the money to the immigrants".

Would ending indexing pensions for everyone who has left the country work for you?

dbd33's suggestion of ending indexing for ALL expat pensioners would at least mean all expat pensioners are treated the same and would leave the government with more money to spend on their beloved immigrants - who contribute SO much to the British economy!!!!

(By the way - this is a sarcastic post!)

Well, yes, our positions are entrenched. I think:

- trusting the government is naive, if you trust your money to a government you may as well be trusting it to a lawyer; you'll be lucky to see it again

- people who have the facts and make a decision based on those facts have nothing to moan about. If the money's better in Bolivia and money's important then move to Bolivia. If moving to Canada is more important than having the money don't complain when you don't get it.

- all bureaucratic decisions are capricious; there's no point expecting sense or fairness.