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?

Where is the hypocrisy?

You mean like, as just one example, berating the Tory government for supposedly considering cutting WFA - which they never did - and then cutting WFA as soon as Labour entered government?

No hypocrisy there. 🙄

So disappointing!!!

A total non-story. He bought a field for his nearly immobile mother to use to keep donkeys in and you find that disappointing? He had no way of knowing how much the value would increase when he did so and his parents were far from wealthy so I highly doubt inheritance tax was at the forefront of his mind when dealing with this. I imagine he didn't sign the field over to them or create a trust or whatever as he wanted to keep it simple for them - they had enough to deal with by the sounds of it - so he just told them they could use the field. The Guardian suggests it is the business with Angela Rayner that has made him double-check again that everything was done properly. What an outrage.

Strong feel that every time someone tries to make a thing out of his particular story Kier Starmer's personal ratings go up 5%, that vicious abandoned donkey protecting affectionate and loving son.

Hate to do another Starmer post.

Well just don't then. The forum will be no worse for it. And if you feel the need to start yet another thread on immigration or Reform, don't do that either. We'll manage without.

The reason you are disappointed is that you expected better and instead realised that people are people are people. That’s what happens when you berate people for holding conservative values whilst pretending to be socially minded but act in a way that aligns with those conservative values. It’s messy.

I'd vote for "a little disappointing" over the other alternatives which are "racist, nasty and fucking shit".

I feel like this is a non- story. IHT evasion is more likely when your parents sign over the house they live in and carry on living there. The field was always his, he just gave parents use of it. I feel like that’s more akin to buying a house and letting your parents live there.

Genuinely don’t see any problem with it. If this is the worst thing they can come up with shows he’s doing pretty well!

I liked him but felt let down by his fence sitting on women’s rights and hanging out Rosie duffield to dry.

I had gone off him a bit until the donkey field story. It made me cry. He loved his mum.

What’s wrong with buying an asset letting your parents use it but retaining ownership of it yourself as you’ve paid for it? If i heard a friend did that i wouldn’t give it a second thought.

It has been mentioned before on other KS threads. Keir Starmer and his Labour party are more than a disappointment. They’re an embarrassment!

Resign Sir Kier - From Donkey Field to Dirty Deal Keir’s £295k Loophole - Starmer Exposed. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dDu5umA1Vbg

Rachel Theives Says Judge Her On Her Record. We Have. The 3 R's Rachel Reeves Resign
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OPtr8TvXQFg

How is buying anything and letting someone else use it avoiding inheritance tax? His parents didn't buy it, so it shouldn't be part of their estate. My dad has used my car a few times, does that mean I should pay IHT on it if he dies? What a bizarre allegation.

You're suggesting that he was seeking to avoid paying inheritance tax on land that he himself purchased in the first place?

Sorry, there are plenty of things to criticise Starmer about, but this is clutching at straws.

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?

I certainly have some issues with Starmer. Him being the first member of his family to have any money and using some of it to buy a field for his disabled mum to keep donkeys in is not one of them.

Wouldn’t it be capital gains it came under rather than inheritance?

Unless his parents actually bought it and he just pretended he did, I don’t see the issue.

I’m more worried about what happened to the donkeys after his parents died.

Presumably he sacrificed them to the Dark Lord. Or he ate them.

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

No, it's bollocks. As you've illustrated anybody who knows even a little bit about IHT can see it's bollocks. But the intended audience for the story is not people who are going to do their own research from primary sources, it's people who think ranty Youtube videos count as evidence. The 'story' boils down to 1. Keir Starmer bought a field to let his parents use, 2. some IHT dodges involve people buying things and giving them to others, 3. Well then...could this be tax avoidance then? Eh? He's bought something and given it to someone else...wink wink...sounds similar doesn't it?...we're not saying it is tax avoidance...nudge nudge...oh no we're not saying that at all...but it 'raises questions' doesn't it?...Lots of questions...which we're not going to ask or answer because it would reveal this for the non-story it is...instead we'll leave you to make your own mind up, based on this and the other drivel you've seen on social media.

Yes, he paid the capital gains tax.

They seem to be suggesting that maybe he put it in a trust to avoid IHT, he is saying he didn’t. And why would he? It belonged to him, so doing nothing at all and just keeping ownership (which is what he says he did) would mean IHT wasn’t relevant anyway, because it never belonged to his parents.

I understand that it take time to turn an oil tanker. However, I don't understand why Labour supporters don't understand that at some point you have to start to break and turn the steering wheel, rather than just pressing the accelerator a bit harder (I'm not sure if oil tankers have accelerators). The Government keep shouting growth whilst taking action that will slow growth.

I'm a chartered tax advisor specialising specifically in IHT and trusts.

If no trust was created, i.e KS bought the land and let his parents use it, then no IHT has been avoided as the land was never his parents in the first place. Had KS kept hold of it, it would have become part of his estate when he died.

If a trust was created and his parents had an entitlement to it during their lifetime, then it would have formed part of their estate when they died and in theory IHT would have been payable. 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) once you account for the NRB and the RNRB. So once again, no tax was avoided.

In other words, no tax was avoided whichever way you slice it.

I can't see where this alleged avoidance or evasion comes in. This story is being magnified to try and make it look bad when really, from a tax perspective, it is rather dull.

Gift with reservation of benefit doesn't apply in this case, because it would have been his parents who would have had to gift him the land but then continue to use it as though it was theirs - that's a completely different scenario.

I think the interesting question is why a £20,000 field turned into a £300,000 field! One assumes it got planning permission or was sold as an option to a house builder.

I bought land at around that time joining my garden, for double that amount, it won’t get pp so it’s definitely not worth £600,000! Land has gone up in price but not by that much.

If he let them use it, he could have charged rent but it remained his land and forms part of his estate. It wasn’t included in his parents estate. You would not hand it over as they were old and would then pay IHT on it! Madness. If the money it realised is in Starmer’s estate, he pays IHT assuming his estate goes over the threshold. As its land I’m assuming no CGT was payable.

I had cautious high hopes for Starmer. The conservatives needed a good kicking. Reform wasn’t happening. Lib Dems get the votes but too spread out to get the actual seats. So cautious hope that Starmer would step up to the plate and crush the people smuggling gangs and look after the working people. Nope. And now the digital ID fiasco. That’s an Orwellian svengali move. That’ll eventually be tied to the groceries you eat, how often you visit the gym, how much alcohol you drink, how much carbon you’re producing in your travels, your bank accounts, what you watch online, what you post online, and so on. It’s the Chinese model of social credit. Arguably some of it is positive for society. Ultimately it’s about control. I’ve gone from cautious optimism to despair.