Give 500,000 UK overseas State Pensioners with frozen pensions parity - Petitions @MIUI| https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/642749

We need 10,000 signatures before the UK government responds!

Moved to the UK & Europe Topics and Events forum.

The last basic State Pension rise was £203.85 a week, up from £185.15. So that's £18.70 a week x 500,000 frozen pensions = roughly £486m a year.  Good business if you can get away with it.

 

I've never seen a reasonable explanation as to why they do it, other than a cash grab. 

Signed up even though chances are remote, at best.

 

Also signed up for the overseas vote, which appeared as an option on one of the pages.

 

Was interested to see that, if asking for a postal vote, you are required to fill in an application form which needs to be sent to the applicable UK local council. This form is sent out by email and can also be returned by email. So, why is a similar routing process not possible for the UK state pension Life Certificates? Hmm.

Is this the same petition that I already signed - several months ago - or is this a new one?

56 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

I've never seen a reasonable explanation as to why they do it, other than a cash grab. 

Agree or disagree with the policy, I think the rationale behind it is that a GBP sent to a UK resident circulates around the economy several times, paying UK taxes, supporting UK jobs (who spend it yet again in the UK), etc.

 

A GBP sent overseas is lost to the UK economy.  Disappears into the ether...

 

37 minutes ago, impulse said:

Agree or disagree with the policy, I think the rationale behind it is that a GBP sent to a UK resident circulates around the economy several times, paying UK taxes, supporting UK jobs (who spend it yet again in the UK), etc.

 

A GBP sent overseas is lost to the UK economy.  Disappears into the ether...

 

Thanks for that, impulse. 

 

If that is indeed the case then it seems a little short-sighted to me as that would apply to the whole pension not just the increase.

 

Moreover, a lot of us are still U.K. tax-payers and an increase will be kept as savings and will attract a higher tax levy. 

 

Perhaps a compromise would be to withhold the increase for one year. That way the U.K. economy would benefit for one year on the withheld funds and we would eventually get the increase. But of course why should they? The amount of the increases must pale into insignificance compared to the amount tourists spend abroad each year.

 

Then there's the huge sums that expats save the economy by not claiming benefits or NHS services.  Erosion of the pension will only lead to more pensioners going back home to rely on the state. 

 

Oh well, whistling in the wind.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

Thanks for that, impulse. 

 

If that is indeed the case then it seems a little short-sighted to me as that would apply to the whole pension not just the increase.

 

Moreover, a lot of us are still U.K. tax-payers and an increase will be kept as savings and will attract a higher tax levy. 

 

Perhaps a compromise would be to withhold the increase for one year. That way the U.K. economy would benefit for one year on the withheld funds and we would eventually get the increase. But of course why should they? The amount of the increases must pale into insignificance compared to the amount tourists spend abroad each year.

 

Then there's the huge sums that expats save the economy by not claiming benefits or NHS services.  Erosion of the pension will only lead to more pensioners going back home to rely on the state. 

 

Oh well, whistling in the wind.

Good points, but I think it's always more palatable to stop an increase than it is to claw back some benefit that's already there.

 

I absolutely agree about saving to the NHS.  I know it'll never happen in either the USA or UK, but it would probably save a lot of money if they paid airfare and hospital costs for people to fly to Thailand to get treated, either NHS or Medicare funds.  It would relieve the backlog in either country as well. 

 

My heart bypass cost about 1/10 of the same surgery in the USA, and that was at the most expensive hospital in Bangkok.  Excellent care, BTW, and 100% covered by my employer's insurance.  Under Medicare, the US gub'ment could have flown me to BKK, put me up for a month in a nice serviced apartment, paid for my surgery and my food for less than half of the hospital bill back in the US of A.  I suspect it's similar in the NHS, though the numbers may be less transparent because it's the NHS.

 

2 hours ago, impulse said:

Agree or disagree with the policy, I think the rationale behind it is that a GBP sent to a UK resident circulates around the economy several times, paying UK taxes, supporting UK jobs (who spend it yet again in the UK), etc.

 

A GBP sent overseas is lost to the UK economy.  Disappears into the ether...

 

your rationale is incorrect as there are several countries (including the Philippines) where a UK pension is not frozen.

3 hours ago, impulse said:

Agree or disagree with the policy, I think the rationale behind it is that a GBP sent to a UK resident circulates around the economy several times, paying UK taxes, supporting UK jobs (who spend it yet again in the UK), etc.

 

A GBP sent overseas is lost to the UK economy.  Disappears into the ether...

 

We’ll make a Keynesian of you yet.

15 hours ago, PPGuy said:

So, why is a similar routing process not possible for the UK state pension Life Certificates?

Because the UK Government as a whole is out to make our lives in LOS just as difficult and miserable as they humanly can be, with the eager and willing assistance of its Thai counterpart.

 

On 10/5/2023 at 7:24 PM, Cardano said:

your rationale is incorrect as there are several countries (including the Philippines) where a UK pension is not frozen.

As far as Southeast Asia is concerned, Philippines is the only country. 

On 10/5/2023 at 3:08 PM, hashmodha said:

 Give 500,000 UK overseas State Pensioners with frozen pensions parity - Petitions @MIUI| https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/642749

We need 10,000 signatures before the UK government responds!

This seems poorly timed to me. While the chances of this happening are still probably remote even under a Labor government, there's absolutely no way the lot in charge right now would ever agree to it.

7 hours ago, JayClay said:

This seems poorly timed to me.

There will never be a good time. A petition on this subject crops up on average every couple of years or so, and none of them have had any effect at all. I don't sign them any more, because I've realised that they are a con job, a Blair invention to give us little people the illusion that our opinion counts for something. If a petition achieves 10k signatures the Government department concerned is obliged to respond, which it does by trotting out a justification of its current policy - and that's it. If 100k signatures are racked up, it triggers a debate in the House of Commons, to which a Government Minister responds, again with a repeat of current policy. There was such a debate a few years back, although it wasn't triggered by one of these petitions, but by a Private Members Motion (10 Minute Rule Bill, or something like that). It was sponsored by Sir Roger Gale MP, who as part of his speech actually read out an email I had sent him on the subject.* After a glib response by a Junior Minister, that was that.

 

From memory, only once has one of these petitions ever succeeded in shifting Government policy, in the Blair/Brown era when there was a massive protest against a fuel duty increase, with many millions of signatures. Otherwise all that happens is that a civil servant waves the bit of paper denoting the few thousand signatures and says, "Well, Minister, there is no great demand for any change, I'll just respond as before, shall I?" - and another one bites the dust.

No-one should be under any illusion that there is any great support back in Blighty for the anachronistic rules governing our pensions to be changed, in fact there are some who say that having chosen to desert the country we're not entitled to anything at all. So don't waste your time signing these petitions. Writing to your MP occasionally makes an impression, although that too is a long way from getting any change.

 

*Hansard, 20 April 2017, Volume 624, Column 828

1 hour ago, Eff1n2ret said:

From memory, only once has one of these petitions ever succeeded in shifting Government policy, in the Blair/Brown

Right. So Tories 0 and Labour 1.

 

Pretty much backs up exactly what I was saying...

4 minutes ago, JayClay said:

Right. So Tories 0 and Labour 1.

 

Pretty much backs up exactly what I was saying...

If you imagine a Labour Government will do anything about this, dream on.

1 minute ago, Eff1n2ret said:

If you imagine a Labour Government will do anything about this, dream on.

Sorry. I understand that you only quoted the first line of my post when you originally replied to me, but I was working under the clearly -erroneous assumption that you had actually read the entirety of the post. My bad.

57 minutes ago, JayClay said:

Sorry. I understand that you only quoted the first line of my post when you originally replied to me, but I was working under the clearly -erroneous assumption that you had actually read the entirety of the post. My bad.

I inferred from your subsequent post that Labour in power might be more sympathetic to our cause. It was the Blair government that fought for the status quo tooth and nail all the way to the European Court of Human Rights, so I don't expect Starmer to view us as a priority. Perhaps we agree that at any time, these petitions are worse than useless.

On 10/5/2023 at 4:23 PM, impulse said:

Agree or disagree with the policy, I think the rationale behind it is that a GBP sent to a UK resident circulates around the economy several times, paying UK taxes, supporting UK jobs (who spend it yet again in the UK), etc.

 

A GBP sent overseas is lost to the UK economy.  Disappears into the ether...

 

But it is saved by the fact that when expats leave the UK, they are saving the country money by NOT using the NHS, the dental system, they do NOT get free medicine, they do NOT get the pension updates and the myriad other "free" things that UK pensioners receive.

 

They ARE however taxed on their income if it exceeds GBP 12,500 wherever they live in the world.

 

After 15 years out of the UK they are no longer allowed to vote. They have NO  MP representatives after that point.

 

They get to fill in a certificate of life form to fill in every 2 or 3 years and that is at their own expense.

 

It seems that soon if they live offshore the UK banks will close their accounts even if they have had the accounts for decades.

 

If they need a passport replacing they MUST go through the agency the government has designated and pay extra for the "privilege" of doing so.

 

All the "little things" that you conveniently omit to mention in your biased post.

 

I am sure that there are a few or even many things that I have forgotten

16 hours ago, lamyai3 said:

As far as Southeast Asia is concerned, Philippines is the only country. 

So what? The point being is that if it is not frozen in even one country outside of the UK then it should not be frozen in any country. Anything other than that is blatant discrimination based on where you decide to live.

2 hours ago, Cardano said:

So what? The point being is that if it is not frozen in even one country outside of the UK then it should not be frozen in any country. Anything other than that is blatant discrimination based on where you decide to live.

Of course it's not discrimination. It's a reciprocal agreement - look it up. 

15 hours ago, billd766 said:

After 15 years out of the UK they are no longer allowed to vote. They have NO  MP representatives after that point.

That is no longer the case but the rest of your post is bang on the money ????

16 hours ago, Eff1n2ret said:

I inferred from your subsequent post that Labour in power might be more sympathetic to our cause. 

Yes I did. But, had you read and understood the first post of mine that you originally quoted, you would also understand that I believe that possiblity to be extremely low.

 

If you were going to run a campaign and you had two choices of when to run it, would you choose to run it when there's very little chance of success, or would you run it when there's zero chance of success?

7 hours ago, Pumpuynarak said:

That is no longer the case but the rest of your post is bang on the money ????

Has the law on voting in UK elections after 15 years living outside the UK been repealed yet?

 

I believe that it was/is supposed to happen this year, but I haven't seen any updates so far.

20 hours ago, lamyai3 said:

Of course it's not discrimination. It's a reciprocal agreement - look it up. 

Reciprocal with whom? The Thai government?

6 hours ago, billd766 said:

Has the law on voting in UK elections after 15 years living outside the UK been repealed yet?

 

I believe that it was/is supposed to happen this year, but I haven't seen any updates so far.

The 'votes for life' under the Elections Act 2022 is now due to be fully implemented in 2024.

 

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05923/

2 hours ago, PPGuy said:

The 'votes for life' under the Elections Act 2022 is now due to be fully implemented in 2024.

 

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05923/

Thank you for that information. I thought I had missed it.

 

I will probably be a phantom voter. I was registered in Wellington, Somerset where my proxy voter used to live, but she has since moved to Tiverton in Devon.

 

She is now my proxy postal voter and gets a proxy form from Wellington sent to Tiverton to return my vote.

 

If it ever happens.

 

From your link.

 

quote "

‘Votes for life’
The Elections Act 2022 received Royal Assent on 28 April 2022. It includes provisions to removing the 15-year rule.

Manifesto commitments have been included in each Conservative Party manifesto since 2015 to remove the 15-year limit on overseas voter registration. This is the so-called ‘votes for life’ policy. The Labour Party favoured maintaining the 15-year limit."

 

I wonder why the Labour party are in favour of maintaining the 15-year limit?

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

Thank you for that information. I thought I had missed it.

 

I will probably be a phantom voter. I was registered in Wellington, Somerset where my proxy voter used to live, but she has since moved to Tiverton in Devon.

 

She is now my proxy postal voter and gets a proxy form from Wellington sent to Tiverton to return my vote.

 

If it ever happens.

 

From your link.

 

quote "

‘Votes for life’
The Elections Act 2022 received Royal Assent on 28 April 2022. It includes provisions to removing the 15-year rule.

Manifesto commitments have been included in each Conservative Party manifesto since 2015 to remove the 15-year limit on overseas voter registration. This is the so-called ‘votes for life’ policy. The Labour Party favoured maintaining the 15-year limit."

 

I wonder why the Labour party are in favour of maintaining the 15-year limit?

Labour reasons for maintaining the 15-year limit don't make sense

here they state

Cat Smith, the shadow minister for voter engagement and youth affairs, said the party would not support the bill because it would involve too much administration.

“Abolishing the 15-year rule would completely overstretch electoral administrators who have described the sector as ‘pushed to the limit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/27/labour-betraying-british-citizens-abroad-who-cannot-vote

And here is a current view that they do support

The Labour party is working on a package of proposals that includes extending voting rights to about 5 million EU citizens and other non-nationals permanently residing in the country. At the same time, it is considering changing the law to allow over-16s to vote.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/15/what-are-labours-plans-for-giving-foreign-nationals-the-right-to-vote

Maybe its the case that their thinking is  the majority of overseas voters that are no longer eligible to vote due to 15 year rule are conservative

16 hours ago, billd766 said:

Has the law on voting in UK elections after 15 years living outside the UK been repealed yet?

 

I believe that it was/is supposed to happen this year, but I haven't seen any updates so far.

I'm only quoting what i have read in the press. I assumed that at next years election we would be able to vote but...............????????

8 hours ago, billd766 said:

Manifesto commitments have been included in each Conservative Party manifesto since 2015 to remove the 15-year limit on overseas voter registration

Unlike the Tories to renage on manifesto commitments....

 

8 hours ago, billd766 said:

I wonder why the Labour party are in favour of maintaining the 15-year limit

I'd imagine it's because the majority of expats are older and, if this forum is in any way representative, far more likely to vote for the Tories than any other party.