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?

Cannot get excited about this at all
Wealthy lawyer buys a field 30 years ago when the land was cheap for his parents to enjoy donkeys on adjoining land.
He made a profit from it around here lots of inherited landowners are making a fortune for housing plots which people don't like as it's not them.
It's never been hidden.

Lol recycling their narrative.
wake up.

I am disappointed in KS but not because of this silly story.
I read it yesterday and thought how bloody ridiculous.
Once the knives are out anything and everything is dragged out to try and discredit someone.

I don’t think the issue now is whether IHT was in fact avoided or whether there was an underpayment of tax. It seems clear enough that neither is true.

What Dan Neidle and the Sunday Times wrote about was whether Starmer had - pointlessly - created a trust (by documents or by conduct) over the land so that it would revert to him on his parents’s death. So, as I understand it, he owned the legal title and they owned the beneficial interest. The only reason to do that would be to gift the land to the parents but lessen the chance of exceeding the IHT threshold.

But on the BBC Starmer denied creating any trust. Was that true?

It’s all on the Tax Policy Associates website (and Dan Neidle is a Labour supporter).

Since there was no need to confer a beneficial interest, apart from the ‘feel’ for his parents being the owners, I agree that the underlying issue is a nonsense.

The other issue is Starmer’s honesty.

What a massive, massive hypocrite.

Im sure the farmers and parents with children at fee paying schools only concern was their famillies well being as well. Shame non MPs without access to KCs cant afford to not think about tax too, not to mention all the people with jobs currenlty sitting themselves at what damage the incompetent Reeves is going to do at the next budget.

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.

This isn't really very interesting. Last year I saw a £65k field turn into a £20m one (exact figures changed of course but the scale of the increase is right) - now that is an interesting transaction.

£20k to £300k over several decades however is entirely predictable and was probably just down to basic planning permission which is very common.

You haven't understood how the trust works. If KS had given his parents a life interest via trust in the land then it would have formed part of their estate for IHT and increased it, thereby increasing the chance of paying IHT.

There are other reasons as to why a life interest might be favourable, because it certainly isn't for tax. It would have given his parents more control over the land and any alterations or works to it, which given they were using it on a day to day basis, may have been a practical consideration.

Are you sure? That’s not what Dan Neidle says. 🤷‍♀️

I’m no expert on trusts but what you’ve said doesn’t sound right.

If you’re a trusts specialist, my apologies!

Also, when watching him on the Laura Kuenssberg show, he explained that it was to enable one of his parents to have better access to the Donkeys by making the land wheelchair friendly, quite sweet really.

Yes, I agree, is it in Surrey, if so, not that surprising at all!

That's quite the leap to ID cards being used to monitor your eating and drinking habits, gym going etc. It's a bit tin foil hat

Yes you're right, as if we had a trust and KS would be the settlor and IF the land reverted to him on the death of his parents then the rules are different. My mistake - I have not had my coffee yet! In most IIP cases the land would form part of the estate of the deceased.

But see my point on the previous page, his parents estate was still under the threshold where they would have paid IHT regardless of whether the land was included (which it wasn't).

I am glad the donkey has had a good life with a nice field. You can never have enough love for donkeys 🫏

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

Honestly, the desperation in bringing up this non story, where he did nothing wrong, that has been dealt with in huge depth years ago.

Fucks sake.

Yes, I agree. As Dan N points out, the values and the allowances would have made IHT liability v unlikely in any event.

That’s why it would seem to have been pointless to let a trust arise. Starmer might just as well have granted his parents full permission to use his field (a licence?).

So it’s really back to whether Starmer knew there was a trust over the land when he said there wasn’t.

Given it makes no difference either way in terms of tax, I don't think it's anyone's business to be honest.

If there had been avoidance then I'd agree he should answer the question properly. But the arrangements he had with his parents who died long before he became prime minister or even before he became leader of the Labour party are really none of our business I think, unless there is evidence of criminal activity.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

A field can easily appreciate that much in 30 years.

Still waiting, @BetterTheOnesYouKnow….