Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Hate to do another Starmer post. But really, why are they so bloody disappointing

93 replies

Tigerthatcametobrunch · 29/09/2025 10:02

Has anyone else seen this donkey field story about Keir Starmer
www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/28/keir-starmer-donkey-field-what-are-allegations-how-has-he-responded

So he bought a field behind his parents house in the 90s for twenty grand andsold it in 2022 for nearly three hundred thousand. He kept the legal title in his name the whole time but “gifted” it to his parents while they were alive. Legal experts have said that sounds exactly like the kind of setup people use to avoid inheritance tax.

And Downing Street has actually put out the line that “He did not give any thought at the time to any tax considerations.” Imagine being able to say you just did not think about tax. Normal people cannot forget about tax when we buy a car let alone a field.

Now I am wondering if this is why he did not go too hard after Angela Rayner for her mess, because he knew his own situation was not exactly squeaky clean.

How are we meant to swallow this idea that it was all innocent? Is everyone in the Labour party going to prove to be a massive disappointment when it comes to their personal affairs?

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Clavinova · 30/09/2025 20:54

Bagsintheboot
However it seems that KS' parents estate was below the taxable threshold for IHT (the net value of their estate was ~£375k, and even if you added the land in it would "only" come to £675k)

I thought the valuation of his parents' estate seemed a bit low based on the property they owned, even though it was in disrepair. On Right Move the property sold for £455,000 (£80,000 more than the value of their estate) - could the property have been undervalued for probate although I don't know for what purpose?

persephonia · 30/09/2025 19:55

InsectsMatter · 30/09/2025 16:05

Tax avoidance and using loopholes is not a good look in politicians who have stopped others from using them.

The whole thing stinks and it’s depressing that Liebour voters are still trying to justify it.

Show quote history

But it doesn't sound like a loophole exactly? At first I thought it was- I thought it was his parents land and he took ownership before they died.to avoid paying tax. (Which is dodgy although less so when farming families do because it's a family business and you'd expect succession planning)
But, it sounds like the parents never owned or paid for the land. I think it would be a nice thing to buy your parents some land and transfer ownership to them. But equally it seems normal to buy the land and let them use it. It just doesn't feel like an inheritance tax dodge in the way most people would understand it. Unless the expectation is that he should have thought to transfer the land ownership so that he could then pay inheritance tax later on.

Original poster
Tigerthatcametobrunch · 30/09/2025 18:51

CurlewKate · 30/09/2025 16:00

I’m obviously completely misunderstanding this. Does an MP have to register any asset they own? Like the house they live in? Or a holiday home?

A holiday home they would. It's anything worth over £100k or that brings in more than £10k a year. The rules are very clear, and they are encouraged to take advice if they aren't sure.

OP posts:
ShesTheAlbatross · 30/09/2025 17:58

CurlewKate · 30/09/2025 17:44

Only over £100,000 though? Or am I wrong about that too!

Show quote history

No that’s right. So I don’t know if the policy is that for a piece of land bought for less than £100k, they’re meant to get it valued periodically (annually?) to make sure it hasn’t gone over £100k, and then declare it at that point.

CurlewKate · 30/09/2025 17:44

PrizedPickledPopcorn · 30/09/2025 16:10

Yes. Even Parish Councillors do!

Show quote history

Only over £100,000 though? Or am I wrong about that too!

PrizedPickledPopcorn · 30/09/2025 16:10

CurlewKate · 30/09/2025 16:00

I’m obviously completely misunderstanding this. Does an MP have to register any asset they own? Like the house they live in? Or a holiday home?

Yes. Even Parish Councillors do!

ShesTheAlbatross · 30/09/2025 16:10

CurlewKate · 30/09/2025 16:00

I’m obviously completely misunderstanding this. Does an MP have to register any asset they own? Like the house they live in? Or a holiday home?

They don’t have to declare their main home, but any other house or land over a certain value they do.

InsectsMatter · 30/09/2025 16:05

HilaryThorpe · 29/09/2025 10:39

Your OP seems to be a bit selective in terms of the Guardian article.
it also says:
"Some lawyers may still argue that the gift of land while retaining ownership in itself creates a trust but this would not be the case if he was simply allowing his parents to use land that he bought.
A Downing Street spokesperson told the Sunday Times: “Keir Starmer bought a field for his parents to use for their donkeys during his parents’ lifetime. He did not give any thought at the time to any tax considerations. His only consideration was the wellbeing of his parents … Keir Starmer engaged a leading tax KC to give him comprehensive advice on all the taxes paid. He confirmed that there had been absolutely no underpayment of taxes.”

I am not commenting on what actually happened, but I think you should have included the whole paragraph for accuracy. Otherwise it sounds a bit biased.

Tax avoidance and using loopholes is not a good look in politicians who have stopped others from using them.

The whole thing stinks and it’s depressing that Liebour voters are still trying to justify it.

CurlewKate · 30/09/2025 16:00

I’m obviously completely misunderstanding this. Does an MP have to register any asset they own? Like the house they live in? Or a holiday home?

Original poster
Tigerthatcametobrunch · 30/09/2025 15:36

CurlewKate · 30/09/2025 15:13

Why should he have declared it? Obviously if it was declare then of course he should-but I don’t see why…..

Show quote history

Because that's what the register of members interests it there for. And when it was discovered that he had this land he registered it- so it was something he was meant to declare.

The register of interests gives clarity on any vested interests that MPs have outside their work. At one point for instance it was mooted that this land would be worth £10million with planning- so for example if he was voting on planning regulations people might find it relevant that he has land.

It isn't up to MPs to decide what is relevant, there are strict rules that govern what they should declare.

OP posts:
tiredangry · 30/09/2025 15:18

I am disgusted by the heart strings “justification/explanation” about his dm being in a wheelchair and having the little pleasure of seeing donkeys when Two Tier did not give a shit about my autistic dc’s private education being vatted and demonised.

CurlewKate · 30/09/2025 15:13

Tigerthatcametobrunch · 30/09/2025 14:38

No the alternative is can't somebody just be bloody decent. The Labour party were always criticising the Tories for their behaviour, so obviously know what the right thing to do is. They just don't do it. Starmer should have declared this land on the register of interests, but he didn't. They're cheering Rayner today at the Labour party conference and Wes streeting is calling for her return.

The alternative isn't reform, the alternative is just somebody who knows the rules, upholds the rules, but follows the damn things themselves.

Show quote history

Why should he have declared it? Obviously if it was declare then of course he should-but I don’t see why…..

Original poster
Tigerthatcametobrunch · 30/09/2025 14:38

Goldenbear · 30/09/2025 09:09

OP, what is the alternative then, Reform? Do any of their party members or MPs have any Donkey Sanctuary history or worse?

No the alternative is can't somebody just be bloody decent. The Labour party were always criticising the Tories for their behaviour, so obviously know what the right thing to do is. They just don't do it. Starmer should have declared this land on the register of interests, but he didn't. They're cheering Rayner today at the Labour party conference and Wes streeting is calling for her return.

The alternative isn't reform, the alternative is just somebody who knows the rules, upholds the rules, but follows the damn things themselves.

OP posts:
Bagsintheboot · 30/09/2025 12:51

OhDear111 · 30/09/2025 11:33

@CurlewKate I own land! We bought it in 1998 for £48,000. It’s agricultural land with a wooded area. It categorically is not worth over £600,000. The only way a donkey field is worth that much in 30 years is because it’s been bought by developers who have an option on it. There is NO WAY £20,000 worth of pony paddock is now £300,000 IF it’s still a pony paddock.

Again, it depends.

The land may be much improved since they bought it. They could have installed water or electric connections, improved access, built stables, installed good fencing etc.

The land could have its own planning permission.

It could also be in an area ripe for development which would make it an attractive option.

None of the above are any kind of dodge or nefarious activity, but they could all bump up the value of the land considerably.

Regardless, the larger the selling price the larger the CGT bill would be. Most people would prefer to understate the value of their land rather than overstate it.

CurlewKate · 30/09/2025 12:24

OhDear111 · 30/09/2025 11:33

@CurlewKate I own land! We bought it in 1998 for £48,000. It’s agricultural land with a wooded area. It categorically is not worth over £600,000. The only way a donkey field is worth that much in 30 years is because it’s been bought by developers who have an option on it. There is NO WAY £20,000 worth of pony paddock is now £300,000 IF it’s still a pony paddock.

It may very well have planning permission. Is that an issue?

OhDear111 · 30/09/2025 11:33

@CurlewKate I own land! We bought it in 1998 for £48,000. It’s agricultural land with a wooded area. It categorically is not worth over £600,000. The only way a donkey field is worth that much in 30 years is because it’s been bought by developers who have an option on it. There is NO WAY £20,000 worth of pony paddock is now £300,000 IF it’s still a pony paddock.

persephonia · 30/09/2025 11:24

CurlewKate · 30/09/2025 11:06

A field can easily appreciate that much in 30 years.

Edited
Show quote history

I think the fact that land has gone up by that much in 30 years is in itself a sign all is not well balanced in the economy

But I don't think that that makes everyone who has benefited from this automatically at fault. Especially not when they bought the land for donkeys. It's hard to spin it into a negative story. It would be different if the parents had owned the land but transferred ownership to Starter while continuing to use it themselves. That would look like an inheritance tax dodge.

🐴🐴🐴

CurlewKate · 30/09/2025 11:11

Still waiting, @BetterTheOnesYouKnow….

CurlewKate · 30/09/2025 11:06

OhDear111 · 30/09/2025 10:56

The bigger issue is the huge hike in value between purchase and sale. A donkey field doesn’t go up that much in value.

A field can easily appreciate that much in 30 years.

Bagsintheboot · 30/09/2025 11:04

OhDear111 · 30/09/2025 10:56

The bigger issue is the huge hike in value between purchase and sale. A donkey field doesn’t go up that much in value.

It can do over 30 years and if there is planning permission or if it is in an area desirable for development. We also don't know what improvements were made to the land e.g. stables for the donkeys which would add to the value.

It is really not a particularly remarkable increase in value.

OhDear111 · 30/09/2025 10:56

The bigger issue is the huge hike in value between purchase and sale. A donkey field doesn’t go up that much in value.

CurlewKate · 30/09/2025 10:19

BetterTheOnesYouKnow · 30/09/2025 10:05

It’s called deflection. Keir Starmer is using the donkey story as a way to deflect from the real issues. You say you’re not clear on what Keir Starmer is supposed to have done. Try watching the videos again. If you still don’t understand then you could leave a comment for Ana Boulter (who has 43.7k subscribers) on the video. You never know she might humour you with a response.

Show quote history

Or you could just tell us yourself? Just a thought….

BetterTheOnesYouKnow · 30/09/2025 10:05

ShesTheAlbatross · 30/09/2025 07:49

I watched the first video and am still not clear on what he is supposed to have done. She ranted a lot about IHT, and Bridget Philipson’s mother buying her council house under right to buy.

What is the actual mechanism of IHT avoidance that is being talked about here?
He bought something with his own money.
He let his parents use it.
He sold it.
The estate of his parents remained the same.

I think people are confusing this with a gift with reservation of benefit, which is where (for example) a parent gifts a child their house but still lives in it - so the child owns it but the parents use it, which is why I think people are confusing it here. This is something people think might avoid IHT but actually doesn’t.
That doesn’t apply here because the land wasn’t gifted by Starmer’s parents.

Is there some other IHT avoidance that people think is being used?

Show quote history

It’s called deflection. Keir Starmer is using the donkey story as a way to deflect from the real issues. You say you’re not clear on what Keir Starmer is supposed to have done. Try watching the videos again. If you still don’t understand then you could leave a comment for Ana Boulter (who has 43.7k subscribers) on the video. You never know she might humour you with a response.

Bagsintheboot · 30/09/2025 09:37

DenizenOfAisleOfShame · 30/09/2025 09:25

Well, not quite. If there was a trust, and I’m not saying there was one (although Dan N is sure there must have been, legally) it could only have been created to lessen the chance of IHT liability. Otherwise why not gift it without reversion?

As I’ve said, I’m no expert on trusts but I can’t see any reason for the reversion (if there was one) except to guard against the unexpected future, like a massive increase in value by planning permission, buy out and so on.

So if the government looks at IHT arrangements, it’s a very fair issue to raise about the PM.

And this all came out of public documents that Starmer prepared for the Standards Commissioner. Nobody’s been leaking or prying.

Show quote history

It could have been but it is very far from being the only possible reason.

Trusts allow a measure of control to be given and/or reserved, depending on the structure in place. IF a trust was used then by giving them a life interest KS could have given them a larger degree of control over what they did with the land than they might have had if he retained the land outright and just allowed them to use it.

Most trusts I see created nowadays are not created for the tax advantages - since 2006 those are minimal - but rather to help with legacy planning; for example to ensure the kids don't grow up and splurge it all on a cocaine habit or lose the lot in a divorce to a wastrel.

And yes, this did all come out of public information, but why keep dragging it up if no tax was avoided?

Even HMRC says that every man or woman has the right to arrange their affairs in such a way, within the law, that minimum tax is payable. That applies to everyone, including PMs or leaders of the opposition.

Swipe left for the next trending thread