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

ash28

N1AK wrote: »

Good for you. Not knowing either of you, I'm inclined to trust the intelligence of the solicitor who wrote the will thus having met the woman over your own opinion of clarity.

So the government and every political party needs to hire lawyers to read the will of anyone wishing to donate to them to ensure that the executor is doing their job right?

The wording of the will isn't clear to me (but I'm not experienced in drafting wills). I don't know why she would want to give the money to the political parties in power as she apparently told her solicitor she did; but that's none of my business. It is possible that she was senile, or didn't understand what she agreed to.

All that said. She expressed, admittedly via notes, what she wanted done with the money. We have now ignored her stated wishes. Why? Because we don't think she meant what she said? We're judging a dead old woman to have been too doddery or confused to deserve her wishes to be respected.

The argument that the will is unclear is not overly persuasive. It is the same solicitor who drafted it who also wrote the notes. It's not like the lady wrote down clear (or any at all in fact) instructions that contradict what the solicitor has written on her behalf.

There is copy of the will in the Guardian..

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/14/tories-lib-dems-urged-return-bequest

If the will is ambiguous then the fault lies with her solicitors.......they would have been paid handsomely for drafting the will and carrying out probate. And if they are unable to make the will unambiguous or perhaps interpret the phrase "absolute discretion" to mean the party(ies) in government can use the money to help fund their next election campaign then perhaps their competency needs to be called into question.

In this country there is a distinction between a party in government and government....

I think trust in political parties is low and this (small though it is) just erodes further what little trust there is.

People do actually leave money to the state in their wills......and I imagine in most instances it actually goes into the Treasury coffers and not used as a party donation.

N1AK

ash28 wrote:

I think trust in political parties is low and this (small though it is) just erodes further what little trust there is.

People do actually leave money to the state in their wills......and I imagine in most instances it actually goes into the Treasury coffers and not used as a party donation.

Firstly, I have seen nothing what-so-ever thus far that shows the parties involved did anything to encourage, support or otherwise direct the money. If they didn't then they are being blamed for something they didn't decide, and it's hardly surprising that people don't trust politicians if the media makes a huge story of their greed when they've done nothing greedy.

Secondly, I have no issue with the idea that she may not have intended for her money to be spent that way. The will does seem unclear to me, but my opinion (along with the rest on here) is pretty worthless unless theirs a closet solicitor about. She's dead, her executor believes that she specified the money be distributed in that manner, why some media hacks and armchair legal experts think it's fine to decide what she really meant is beyond me.

All that said, given the size of the donation if I was the treasurer of the conservative party I'd like to think I would suggest that the party use its portion of the money for something like an bursary or some such. It would seem like the right thing to do and would fit with the woman's wishes.

System

You would have thought a solicitor would have been alert to the possibilities of doubt or challenge when allowing a phrase as vague as the "government of the day". Even if he was absolutely clear that it meant a political party, he should have been aware that political donations receive intense scrutiny, and are a sensitive topic.
I wonder if he considered that the party in power on the day of his client's death might well not be the same one as that when the will was signed or received probate?
Did she really intend to fund a possible opposition party?

BobQ

N1AK wrote: »

Secondly, I have no issue with the idea that she may not have intended for her money to be spent that way. The will does seem unclear to me, but my opinion (along with the rest on here) is pretty worthless unless theirs a closet solicitor about. She's dead, her executor believes that she specified the money be distributed in that manner, why some media hacks and armchair legal experts think it's fine to decide what she really meant is beyond me.

.

I agree that its unfair to blame politicians for what her solicitor decided to do.

You do not need to be a solicitor understand that a Government is not the same as a Political Party so I cannot see how you think it is unclear.

I think the issue is whether a solicitor (in his capacity as an executor) is entitled to interpret what was meant by the deceased, based on information in a document the deceased has not signed, while fulfilling the requirements of the law.

dryhat

I find it remarkable that someone could amass £500k while being stupid enough to believe that "giving it to the government" would benefit anyone.

But then of course, we all know that the root of her wealth is HPI.

HPI - wealth generation for stupid people with no other means to achieve it.

wotsthat

dryhat wrote: »

But then of course, we all know that the root of her wealth is HPI.

HPI - wealth generation for stupid people with no other means to achieve it.

Lived in a council house all her life according to this..

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/14/joan-edwards-quiet-dignified-hated-fuss

Though nobody knows her political allegiances, one clue might be that she declined to buy her council house when others around made the most of Margaret Thatcher's right-to-buy policy. "I don't know if it was out of principle," said Dunleavy. "She once said to me she wasn't going to bother buying hers. She was happy with her lot."

Maybe a combination of a thrifty lifestyle (plus subsidised housing), a long timescale and compound interest might explain her accumulated wealth?

Of course, she couldn't live without essentials like her Iphone, 50" 3D TV, Subaru Impreza and Converse trainers - she was only human after all.

dryhat

OK my mistake.

But you get the point.

J_i_m

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

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.."

Yes, though I would some how imagine that the majority of her fortune came through either;

* Inheritance
* Savvy investing
* Some kind of major windfall like winning a lottery

I highly doubt she'd have amassed significant savings like that from an NHS Nurses salary.

wotsthat

J_i_m wrote: »

Yes, though I would some how imagine that the majority of her fortune came through either;

* Inheritance
* Savvy investing
* Some kind of major windfall like winning a lottery

I highly doubt she'd have amassed significant savings like that from an NHS Nurses salary.

Why do you doubt it?

To get £500k in today's money you need to save £400/ month and increase contributions by inflation for 70 years at 4% return.

What's £400 as a savings ratio from a nurses salary?

That's doable especially if you live in the same council house your whole life, live thriftily, don't go on holiday and don't have kids.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Why do you doubt it?

To get £500k in today's money you need to save £400/ month and increase contributions by inflation for 70 years at 4% return.

What's £400 as a savings ratio from a nurses salary?

That's doable especially if you live in the same council house your whole life, live thriftily, don't go on holiday and don't have kids.

That's fine doing it from today. But go back 40-50 years (as she didn't start today, clearly) and she wouldn't even have been earning £400, possibly even in a year, let alone a month. So rather impossible to save more money than she would have been earning.

I don't even know why you are bothering to try and argue that she "might" have been doing something else when none of us will ever know, but the absolute greatest liklihood is this amount of wealth didn't come from an NHS nurse pay packet. Thats just, well, blimmin obvious.