Best Of

We have been warned:


Zia Yusuf

@ZiaYusufUK
·
7h
Reform will transform the civil service from a bloated, failed organisation hostile to the interests of the British people into a lean, performant machine that makes our country proud. 🇬🇧

On the face of it, this doesn't sound like anything to be worried about. What do you see as problematic with it?

The risk is the criteria will involve a politicisation of the civil service

Honestly it can't be worse than what we have today.

For example, my dad is executor for his best friend's will, he died a year or so ago. The estate value was barely over the IHT limit, the tax is all paid and yet a year later the probate office is still in jobsworth mode asking for the original will, even though multiple copies have been provided, they had the original previously and have sent it back but for whatever reason they need it again.

This is a tiny, tiny bit of officialdom needed for a nothing size estate where the tax has already all been paid and yet the probate office, the state, is making nonsense paperwork and hassle for my dad as executor and the beneficiaries who still can't close the book on the death of their father.

In what world is this a good job? How have the civil servants in the probate office helped anyone with their nonsense bureaucracy in this instance? Who benefits from them not just getting it done, there isn't going to be some mad revelation which means the estate will suddenly be worth 10x more and loads of tax will be payable. It's this kind of shit that's causing the nation to slow down, these useless bureaucrats sticking their noses in to justify their jobs and pensions and making life miserable for ordinary people.

Get rid of them all I say, 50% cuts in the bureaucracy and stop interfering in people's lives.

As I mentioned a couple of weeks back I'm going through this as executor for my own father. I expect to encounter much state stupidity along the way, including I am told a wait of 16 weeks from submission to probate being granted.

Today I've had a letter from the DWP. It says "yes, we owe the estate some money, please tell us where to send it along with a probate letter".

Except nowhere in the letter does it state a how much they owe. A number which I need in order to obtain said probate.

So, I will have to ring them up, and ask them to send another letter. At which point they will no doubt demand several reams of paperwork to prove I am permitted to see said value. Why not just send everything needed the first time? Even Yorkshire Water, yes, Yorkshire Water managed that.

I can of course calculate it roughly myself - approximately 1 week of state pension, a trivial amount in the grand scheme of things - but HMRC will want the exact figure in writing so that they can claim their 40%.

Ho hum. At least I'm not paying for a solicitor to chase this up (yet).

Is it any wonder I'm thinking of giving enough away to stop the government getting a penny?

FPT but from my experience it is perfectly acceptable to use estimated figures for the probate if you are held up on stuff, especially chickenfeed stuff, like this. Thje figures have to be stated as explicit. This is a godsend with stuff that is dragging on, especially small stuff. But do check the instructions on your probate paperwork (different for Scotland IIRC).

Plus stuff crops up even months or years after probate. Some is completely unexpected. E.g. my late mother had bought shares in the RBS flotation that caused all the trouble, and was paid compo years after her demise; she had life assurance policies on my dad's life which didn't pay out till he died a decade later; and it turned out that one life assurance company had underpaid by 14K, and so on - I only found out when it occurred to me when doing the final wrap up that the rate of return was suspiciously low ... so I didn't finally settle her estate (I think!) for 10 years after probate.

The main thing, as I understand it, is that HMRC get a sufficiently detailed probate valuation up front to assess whether IHT is liable or not and, if so, to get their chunk before anyone else does.

If there is no IHT payable, it's up to the executor to tell them if enough dosh comes in later to change the figures upward enough to hit the magic IHT level.

If IHT turns out to have been overpaid - usually if a house sells for less than the probate valuation - then you can claim the overpaid IHT back.

Our son in law's father's probate took nearly one year [2024]

These Boris leaks in The Guardian today look absolutely toxic. The implication is that Johnson was personally corrupt and enriched himself while in public office. If that story sticks, it's not just the ministerial code that has been breached, but the law. Let's see if the story has wings, but the optics are appalling.

It’s toxic but for another reasons

The accusations are marginal.

They are (from the article)

1. He asked a Saudi official to give a pitch to MbS
2. He was paid a fee by a hedge fund after meeting Venezuela’s PM
3. While in government he met Peter Thiel
4. He hosted an event in Downing Street that seems like it was in breach of lockdown rules and was to “honour” the person that refurbished the flat
5. He earned £5m from making speeches

And in the intro they talk about Greensill (which was genuinely appalling) and complain that he is “publicly subsidised” for claiming the allowance the state pays for office support.

The only ones that might possibly be open to criticism *for the accusation that the Guardian is making* (3&4 could easily be criticised for other things) are 1&2.

Basically they are trying to throw chaff in the air to diminish the damage to Labour caused by Rayner

This sort of journalism is irresponsible and toxic to public trust (such as it is) in politicians.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/sep/08/revealed-how-boris-johnson-traded-pm-contacts-for-global-business-deals

This has nothing to do with a tit-for-tat retaliation over Rayner.

It is completely remarkable that those who cheered Rayner's defenestration are defending this as either lies or "Boris will be Boris". Will the broadcast media take any of this up? No.

I still believe the most egregious act by any post war Minister, Profumo included, was a Foreign Secretary throwing off his minders to attend a party run by a KGB grandee. A story which at the time it occurred barely raised an eyebrow.

Good to see you read my posts and in the public's perception it will be Boris being Boris even if this irritates you

It wasn't just you BigG. There were about half a dozen defenders of the great man.

i suspect you're right and the defence is one of "Boris will be Boris".

It would be interesting what the Daily Telegraph would have made if as Foreign Secretary Lammy had been found tired, emotional and prostrate on a Lombardy railway station bench.

I still believe the most egregious act by any post war Minister, Profumo included, was a Foreign Secretary throwing off his minders to attend a party run by a KGB grandee. A story which at the time it occurred barely raised an eyebrow.

Future generations will wonder at that.

c.f. Trump

@mehdirhasan

Today it was confirmed that the president told the world's most infamous pedophile and child sex trafficker: "We have certain things in common."

For any other president, it would be the biggest scandal of their lives, possibly career-ending.

For Trump, it's just Monday.

https://x.com/mehdirhasan/status/1965168703357792523

Why are some people hounded out of office and some given a free pass (and why are they always 'rich' white men) ?

These Boris leaks in The Guardian today look absolutely toxic. The implication is that Johnson was personally corrupt and enriched himself while in public office. If that story sticks, it's not just the ministerial code that has been breached, but the law. Let's see if the story has wings, but the optics are appalling.

It’s toxic but for another reasons

The accusations are marginal.

They are (from the article)

1. He asked a Saudi official to give a pitch to MbS
2. He was paid a fee by a hedge fund after meeting Venezuela’s PM
3. While in government he met Peter Thiel
4. He hosted an event in Downing Street that seems like it was in breach of lockdown rules and was to “honour” the person that refurbished the flat
5. He earned £5m from making speeches

And in the intro they talk about Greensill (which was genuinely appalling) and complain that he is “publicly subsidised” for claiming the allowance the state pays for office support.

The only ones that might possibly be open to criticism *for the accusation that the Guardian is making* (3&4 could easily be criticised for other things) are 1&2.

Basically they are trying to throw chaff in the air to diminish the damage to Labour caused by Rayner

This sort of journalism is irresponsible and toxic to public trust (such as it is) in politicians.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/sep/08/revealed-how-boris-johnson-traded-pm-contacts-for-global-business-deals

This has nothing to do with a tit-for-tat retaliation over Rayner.

It is completely remarkable that those who cheered Rayner's defenestration are defending this as either lies or "Boris will be Boris". Will the broadcast media take any of this up? No.

I still believe the most egregious act by any post war Minister, Profumo included, was a Foreign Secretary throwing off his minders to attend a party run by a KGB grandee. A story which at the time it occurred barely raised an eyebrow.

If only Farage or Boris had a curry...