Tories and Lib Dems snatch money left to 'the government' for their own parties

[edam]

they've now had to give the money back. What on earth were her solicitors thinking?

Interesting to see the two parties that have spent so much time and effort smearing the unemployed, the disabled and the poor as 'scroungers' caught out stealing from the taxpayer. Next time they attack vulnerable people, someone should remind them about this...

DH asked me about that last night, re how would I interpret the clause.

I said either put it in the Treasury pot or split it equally between every MP in the coalition as a personal bequest.

Giving it to the parties is icky.

She did leave the money to "whichever party was in government at the time". Not "the government". So it should have gone to the coalition, split along the ratio of MPs in parliament of the respective parties.

According to the article in the link, she left it to "whichever government is in office....to use at their absolute discretion as they see fit".

How anyone can misinterpret that as a gift to a "party" when it was clearly to benefit society at large, is utterly beyond me.

yup. she left it 'to the government' NOT to any political party. She mentioned 'whichever government is in office' to make it clear it didn't matter who was in power, the money was to go to the government.

Her solicitors need shooting. It's their job to draw up clear wills that ensure the client's wishes are followed. It is not their job to start pretending that the word 'government' actually means 'political party', FFS. They are supposed to understand words and use them accurately!

The parties need a good kicking too - they must have realised this wasn't right when they were told to split it between them.

Apparently, it's a DM cock up (surprise, surprise). She did leave the money to political parties. It was clarified by the solicitor at the time. They have now donated the money to the treasury.

Nope, she didn't, Daily Mail got a copy of the will. It was left 'to the government' not to any political party or parties.

They are thieving bastards and the solicitors have behaved in a bizarre manner. Surely a firm of solicitors understands the difference between 'the government' and a political party?

I think this is a bit less clear than the media are making out, as the executors originally approached the parties. It wasn't the political parties who interpreted the will. I think what happened was 'oh you've both been left money', they accept, then it becomes murkier. There is no way they would have been stupid enough to try and get money they knew was on such shakey ground.

It sounds as though this was dreadful legal work. The solicitors are saying she actually wanted the money to go to the relevant parties (weirdly) and that's what she instructed them to put in the will but they wrote a very poor version of that referencing the government not the parties.

I can't see how this was the parties' fault. They will have been told they had a bequest but wouldn't have had any reason to check the will. But when it seemed a bit odd they actually did go back to the executors who confirmed that this is what she intended (although not what they wrote). The law firm should be feeling absolutely mortified.

Indeed it should.

I read it differently - that Miss Edwards signed a will saying she wanted her money to go to the government that was in office at the time of her death. I think this means she intended the money to go to the government, no matter which party was in power.

Her solicitors seem to be recalling a conversation where they tried to clarify, are you sure you mean the government, no matter which party? And she said yes. And she signed a will to that effect. Then she died, and the solicitors weirdly tried to give the money to the political parties, not the government! Despite her clear intention in writing.

Very odd indeed.

But it is equally true that both political parties were only too happy to grasp what they knew full well was an extremely odd bequest for themselves. A sum like £520k is significant, one of the largest donations declared for that year. They knew it was very odd that the donation was being split between two parties.

It does make them hypocrites for being too quick to grab the money and too slow to ask questions, especially when they are constantly trying to portray anyone vulnerable, poor, or in receipt of public funds as a scrounger. In fact the Lib Dems and Tories were only too ready to scrounge off the public purse.

It was the executors who paid out the monies from the Estate in this way.

It's surely their responsibility to pay the right people?

You'd have thought, wouldn't you? Astonishing behaviour by the solicitors. I certainly wouldn't trust them with my will.

Still isn't nearly good enough validation from CCHQ. They should thoroughly investigate any donation of this size, and employ considerable discretion.

The real funding scandal is the way Len McCluskey et al influence policy, MP selections, and even Labour leader selections. Being able to point to Falkirk etc. is a goldmine of political opportunity; worth far more than electioneering money. The Tories need to exploit and drive this point home at every turn - and in order to do that, they need to be whiter than white themselves. They failed, badly.

Hah! Turns out both parties did see the will. So they knew she'd left it to the Government, not the Tory and Lib Dem parties. Thieving little so-and-sos. And they have the cheek to call people on benefits 'scroungers'!

Apparently they did query the will, yes. But when they went back to the executors, the executors insisted that her intention had been "the party". They confirmed it again in a statement they released two days ago. Which doesn't help the lawyers - just makes their drafting look very shabby.

Oh yes, agree, very shabby indeed. Hard to get my head round a firm of solicitors who don't understand what words mean, or imagine that somehow their recollection of a conversation carries more weight than the actual signed, witnessed, will.