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

[Tigerthatcametobrunch]

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?

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.

1.) This is a very old story.
2.) They don’t have a magic wand.

Starmer is such a disappointment. I have never liked him and didn't vote for him, but after all his pious hair-shirtery in opposition I thought he might at least be squeaky clean himself and that he would deal robustly with any hint of scandal in his party.

Instead, his party have been involved in one sleazy scandal after another almost from the first day of being in government. And it's not just a case of his party unexpectedly letting him down. In some cases he has appointed and promoted people in the full knowledge that they are sleaze-buckets and then tried to cover up or excuse their sleazy, fraudulent or corrupt behaviour.

Now, it seems it's not just other people in the Labour Party, Keir Starmer, their "holier-than-thou" leader is pretty murky too...

So he bought a field that his parents used for their donkey sanctuary?

The horror

The country is in a mess and not just because Labour have been in power for a year. It’s been coming for years.

Just let them do their job running the country instead of dragging up these stories. And if you don’t like them, or the field is an issue for you, come the next election then don’t vote for them.

I recall far, far more sleazy behaviour from the Tories when they were in government.

We had some pretty sleazy behaviour from the Tories, I agree. However, despite "St Keir the Pious" and his promises, Labour are doing an great job of matching tory-sleaze of 14 years in little over a year. With such a good start, just imagine what they can come up with in five whole years!

We've had government ministers at the higgest level with their greedy snouts snuffling in Lord Ali's trough, fraud, tax evasion, assault, corruption, dodgy landlords friends of paedophiles. I hope they'll forgive me if I've forgotten anything.

All in all, a stunning "achievement" in so short a time and probably their only "achievement" so far.

This is such a non-story

Man buys Donkey Field so disabled parent can run a Donkey Sanctuary… what a bastard

He must have also bought a magic Time Machine, that showed how much the value would increase.

At least the Labour people tend to properly declare things. And interestingly, when incidents are investigated, there seems to be less to them rather than more….

Agreed. And I don't think you "hate" doing the post really, if you feel that you had to scrape around to find an old story.

This is such an old story

It’s going to take a lot longer than 15 months to sort the mess out.

Some of you don’t like him - that’s just life.

@Tigerthatcametobrunch The fact that it was worth considerably more when he sold it is an absolute non-story. Every bit of land and property that any Tom, Dick or Harry bought decades ago is worth ten fold now. Was he supposed to sell it for the same money he bought it for? I mean, c'mon. As for Inheritance Tax, the transaction was above board and declared. You seem to have amnesia when it comes to sleaze and the Tory party. They are indeed the supreme masters, and we ain't talking about Donkey Sanctuaries. If you really want to beat your chest about IHT, I suggest you focus on the Royal Family.

It was in the guardian yesterday. That's not scraping around for an old story.

Yes. For which labour quite rightly gave them a hell of a lot of grief over. In my mind that should mean they hold themselves to a higher standard, not say that if the Tories were worse, that allows them a licence to just be a little less shit.

He is just the typical woke leftie hypocrite. We were all taken in by him.

That doesn’t mean it’s okay for him to do it.

Surely the obvious way to avoid IHT here would just have been not to have given it to his parents, just to let them use it when they were alive. It seems so much more straightforward than setting up a trust to give it to them so they could pass it back when they died without it being subject to IHT. I'm thinking that this is probably what happened, and it wasn't a gift or a trust, but a loan. But I don't know! Just seems to make the most sense.

You don’t say.

He said on national TV there was no trust created over the land. Is that true?

Oh here we go again.

I really can't take anyone seriously who throws terms like that around.

He bought it with his own money, and let his parents use it? How does that avoid IHT, it was his money to begin with? Not his parents to pass down?

I’ll happily leave out ‘woke’. It doesn’t mean much.

But Starmer and Labour are nauseating hypocrites. You can’t sensibly say otherwise.

’Leftie’ isn’t much more than a description that I imagine Labour supporters would happily own.

I know. Imagine letting his parents use his field for free, what a bastard.

I don’t like Keir Starmer, but this is a total non-story.

Do what?