Taxpayer 'Bonus'. £520,000 we don't need to find.

Loughton_Monkey

I simply love this one.

For reasons of her own, retired nurse Joan Edwards left £520K to "whichever government is in office".

Clearly, it evokes all sorts of subsidiary thoughts like 'thank God she didn't die during Brown's reign', or 'Surely the NHS pay can't be that bad if she can throw over half a million into the pot.."

But most of all, it shows the absolute sleeze, greed, and cant of our government.

A £520,000 bequest shared between the Tories and Lib Dems will be handed to the Treasury, amid claims it was meant to be left to the nation.

Retired nurse Joan Edwards left the money to "whichever government is in office" and it was divided up as a donation between the coalition parties.

But after some criticism, both parties said they would give up the cash.

David Cameron said it was the "right decision" having seen the wording of Miss Edwards's will.

He said it was his understanding that the executors of the will had decided the money should go to the parties of government - but the words in the will suggested it was meant to benefit the nation.

The money would go to the Treasury to "pay down the national debt", he said which would "meet the spirit" of what Miss Edwards intended.

"We accepted the money in good faith... but having been able to look at the wording of the will and consider the matter, I think this is the right decision," the prime minister said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23691209

For the life of me, I cannot understand how any normal person could believe that the money should be applied as 'donations' to the two parties that happen to be in government. But I can believe that Cameron (and others) would be so sleezy as to hi-jack the money into 'party funds' as opposed to the National Coffers.

I'm of a mind to think that even the original thoughts (of party donation) were a concession. Probably Cameron & Clegg were sitting down saying "... er... 307 Conservative MP's, 57 Liberal MP's... er.. that's 364 of us. Now £520,000 divided by 364 is £1,428.57 each - tax free... but let's round it off to £1,000 per MP and us in the cabinet can trouser £7K or more each... I'm going to Bali with mine. Where are you going?......"

Anyway, the national debt is now smaller than it was, thanks to the late Miss Edwards.

Mrs LM and myself will be rushing down to the Solicitors to change our wills first thing in the morning. They will dictate that our entire estate is to be divided equally amongst every renter in the land with a little note [posthumus of course] on the back of each cheque apologising personally for being a 'boomer' and thereby directly causing the squaler and high-rent situation in which they are being forced to live.

Graham_Devon

Shouldn't go to simply paying down the debt either.

Should be used to provide something people need in her memory, probably in her local area.

To simply "pay down the debt" (as if it even comes close to simply touching it) is the easiest way to simply forget about it.

BobQ

Its incredible

Miss Edwards' will specified the money should go to "whichever government is in office at the date of my death for the government in their absolute discretion to use as they may think fit".

This seems very clear to me: it was intended for the Government not the Party that happens to form the Government.

So as the trustee of her Will, a solicitor decided that what was stated in the document was subject to their interpretation based on notes they made at the time..

However Davis Wood, the solicitors handling Miss Edwards's estate, said that when the will was drafted in 2001, they had checked with her "the unusual nature of her proposed bequest".

"It was confirmed by Miss Edwards at the time of her instructions that her estate was to be left to whichever political party formed the government at the date of her death," they said.

If this is what she meant, surely the solicitor failed in his duty by not making it clear in the Will? Either way its not right that a solicitor interprets the meaning of a Will when it clearly makes no reference to party political beneficiaries. If any private executor had done this they would surely be challenged about it?

The fact he checked this interpretation with the Attorney General and still did this is amazing.

No responsible Government should have agreed to the money being given to political parties based on those words.

vivatifosi

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Shouldn't go to simply paying down the debt either.

Should be used to provide something people need in her memory, probably in her local area.

To simply "pay down the debt" (as if it even comes close to simply touching it) is the easiest way to simply forget about it.

I wish I could thank that twice Graham. It's shocking to think that in a country of this size, that there's not one single worthy thing of that value that could be attributed to her memory.

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

.....Should be used to provide something people need in her memory, probably in her local area......

Good idea.

I'm thinking of a Joan Edwards Charitable Trust that would provide a free gin & tonic, for every MP who turns up in the House of Commons on a Friday.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23687183

Taxpayers subsidised Parliament's bars and restaurants to the tune of £7m last year - £600,000 less than in 2011/12.

BobQ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Shouldn't go to simply paying down the debt either.

Should be used to provide something people need in her memory, probably in her local area.

To simply "pay down the debt" (as if it even comes close to simply touching it) is the easiest way to simply forget about it.

I agree. Of course the Will as quoted just refers to Government. It might even have been intended for local government?

michaels

So what is the law? Should the executor act on the letter of the will or if there is for example an oral request (probably documented) slightly altering/clarifying the meaning should that be acted on?

Say it was the other way round and the will said the governing party but the solicitors notes said she meant the government not the governing party would the executor be failing in his duty if he failed to act on the additional information?

chewmylegoff

vivatifosi wrote: »

I wish I could thank that twice Graham. It's shocking to think that in a country of this size, that there's not one single worthy thing of that value that could be attributed to her memory.

Well she could have left the money to a charity of for the purpose of paying for something if she wanted but instead she left it to the government to be chucked into the general pot of tax revenue. It is not the job of government to arrange memorial projects on behalf of individual citizens who happen to leave their money to the state.

Many people die without wills and relatives. The govt gets their money as well. Is it supposed to use this money to buy a park bench with a plaque on it for every one of them? If people want memorials they are free to specify as such. There are enough non jobs without having to have a load of people employed to spend all this money in a 'constructive' way.

Loughton_Monkey

I doubt if we will get a true legal opinion on here (from a lawyer) because he/she has no way of charging us all on this forum....

But I cannot believe 'oral' recollections would be worth anything. Most wills involve a family, and in the case of a dispute, the courts would surely have endless pleas saying "... well I know she said that I could have all the paintings, while the silverware goes to my sister...."

The message, to me is, if you want a will doing properly, and you want it unambiguous, then go to a proper solicitor...

...whoops!

She did, didn't she!

vivatifosi

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Many people die without wills and relatives. The govt gets their money as well. Is it supposed to use this money to buy a park bench with a plaque on it for every one of them? If people want memorials they are free to specify as such. There are enough non jobs without having to have a load of people employed to spend all this money in a 'constructive' way.

Nope, that's different because they have made no provision.

While I appreciate that 'it's not the government's job', they've made such a pig's ear out of things (partially due to circumstances beyond their control) that they could have arranged a better outcome. It's now just swirled down a black hole and I'm sure that's not what the lady in question intended. After all, it was a very civic-minded gesture.

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Well she could have left the money to a charity of for the purpose of paying for something if she wanted but instead she left it to the government to be chucked into the general pot of tax revenue. It is not the job of government to arrange memorial projects on behalf of individual citizens who happen to leave their money to the state.

Many people die without wills and relatives. The govt gets their money as well. Is it supposed to use this money to buy a park bench with a plaque on it for every one of them? If people want memorials they are free to specify as such. There are enough non jobs without having to have a load of people employed to spend all this money in a 'constructive' way.

I don't think memorial is the right word.

However, there must surely be loads of projects that require money, and loads that require this sort of amount.

It would just be nice to think that the government could do something a little more with such a donation to provide something that's required for the community she lived in. I'm not sure the lady in question would have assumed at the time nothing at all would have been done with it. Seems like a total waste of her kindness to her fellow taxpayers.

Whether they have to or not is neither here nor there. It would just be nice to think that for once, they showed some humility and did something that took a little more effort when getting gifts such as this.

Be a sad old world if we only ever did what was "required". If someone goes out of teir way to do me a favour I'll always turn up at their door with a bottle of wine or whatever I think they would like. I'm not required to, it's just nice, IMO, to show appreciation. In this case, it would have been nice to think the government could have done the same with such an amount of money. I'm sure most voters would prefer to see something made of this money.