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?

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 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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

Yes. Even Parish Councillors do!

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

Horrible link, sorry. It’s assets worth £25k I think, and includes your house.
Also loads of other things- employer, where you live (regardless of ownership).

It’s been a while, but the doc below is fairly clear.

www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/DMS/Document.ashx?czJKcaeAi5tUFL1DTL2UE4zNRBcoShgo=%2Bjf7u3KS9mN1dBsx0evLWc8H9pSan4pN2ytz9GodpWqQh3cCNonXsw%3D%3D&rUzwRPf%2BZ3zd4E7Ikn8Lyw%3D%3D=pwRE6AGJFLDNlh225F5QMaQWCtPHwdhUfCZ%2FLUQzgA2uL5jNRG4jdQ%3D%3D&mCTIbCubSFfXsDGW9IXnlg%3D%3D=hFflUdN3100%3D&kCx1AnS9%2FpWZQ40DXFvdEw%3D%3D=hFflUdN3100%3D&uJovDxwdjMPoYv%2BAJvYtyA%3D%3D=ctNJFf55vVA%3D&FgPlIEJYlotS%2BYGoBi5olA%3D%3D=NHdURQburHA%3D&d9Qjj0ag1Pd993jsyOJqFvmyB7X0CSQK=ctNJFf55vVA%3D&WGewmoAfeNR9xqBux0r1Q8Za60lavYmz=ctNJFf55vVA%3D&WGewmoAfeNQ16B2MHuCpMRKZMwaG1PaO=ctNJFf55vVA%3D

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.

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.

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.

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?