The intent is clear - the lady wanted to help whichever government was in power to tackle Britain's problems. When I read it (before knowing the parties had taken it) I just thought "That's rather sweet." Of course the parties shouldn't snaffle it. It's a good opportunity for the LibDems to do a bit of harmless differentiation - the money is not so large as to be worth fighting for, and they should swiftly give theirs to the Treasury and let the Tories argue that their share should stay in their pockets.
Arf, because if Labour had been HMG today, they'd be handing it back or funding orphanages - rolls eyes.
Sorry Nick, but you've become a lot more "on message" these days, shame.
He never took the tough decision to save for a rainy day
Changing the subject, and not to criticise you or anyone in particular but I suspect many will wonder about the "rainy day" meme, and would instead take the view that if HMG is not spending money then it should jolly well not take it in the first place, and would press for tax cuts.
Whatever the facts - the Outrage Bus is standing room only - I must have pointed out to about 20 passengers that its the executors they should be outraged with.
The Mail has created a very clickable fuss - job done.
The intent is clear - the lady wanted to help whichever government was in power to tackle Britain's problems. When I read it (before knowing the parties had taken it) I just thought "That's rather sweet." Of course the parties shouldn't snaffle it. It's a good opportunity for the LibDems to do a bit of harmless differentiation - the money is not so large as to be worth fighting for, and they should swiftly give theirs to the Treasury and let the Tories argue that their share should stay in their pockets.
Nick:
Have you seen or read a copy of the will for you to be so finite?
The intent is clear - the lady wanted to help whichever government was in power to tackle Britain's problems. When I read it (before knowing the parties had taken it) I just thought "That's rather sweet." Of course the parties shouldn't snaffle it. It's a good opportunity for the LibDems to do a bit of harmless differentiation - the money is not so large as to be worth fighting for, and they should swiftly give theirs to the Treasury and let the Tories argue that their share should stay in their pockets.
Maybe the Tories are in desperate need of cash, however, it comes. After all, the membership has , as rumours go, fallen to 70000 ! They are not denying it.
He never took the tough decision to save for a rainy day
Changing the subject, and not to criticise you or anyone in particular but I suspect many will wonder about the "rainy day" meme, and would instead take the view that if HMG is not spending money then it should jolly well not take it in the first place, and would press for tax cuts.
Absolutely, but of course politicians don't want to reduce spending.
And saving for a rainy day isn't really saving, it's more like leaving room on your credit card in case you need to buy something in a hurry.
The intent is clear - the lady wanted to help whichever government was in power to tackle Britain's problems. When I read it (before knowing the parties had taken it) I just thought "That's rather sweet." Of course the parties shouldn't snaffle it. It's a good opportunity for the LibDems to do a bit of harmless differentiation - the money is not so large as to be worth fighting for, and they should swiftly give theirs to the Treasury and let the Tories argue that their share should stay in their pockets.
Maybe the Tories are in desperate need of cash, however, it comes. After all, the membership has , as rumours go, fallen to 70000 ! They are not denying it.
Wasn't it labour who had to increase their overdraft yesterday ? frankly I'm amazed they were allowed to given the state of the Co-op bank, you'd have thought the directors would be closing their credit exposure rather than increasing it.
The intent is clear - the lady wanted to help whichever government was in power to tackle Britain's problems. When I read it (before knowing the parties had taken it) I just thought "That's rather sweet." Of course the parties shouldn't snaffle it. It's a good opportunity for the LibDems to do a bit of harmless differentiation - the money is not so large as to be worth fighting for, and they should swiftly give theirs to the Treasury and let the Tories argue that their share should stay in their pockets.
Nick:
Have you seen or read a copy of the will for you to be so finite?
Have you seen the will ? Does it state that " I bequeath this money to the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties ".
Let's face it, the Tories and the Lib Dems will quitely give it back to the crown. It is not worth the bad publicity they will receive on this.
This is a story of trust, she trusted the Gov't to spend this money in whatever way they think is best. Legally they (So far as I can tell) are doing absolutely nothing wrong in pocketing the cash. It is very telling though that the parties think this is the BEST use of the funds.
Politically they are completely BANG TO RIGHTS and deserve everything they are getting. The best thing the Gov't could do is just send the cash to HMRC to pay down the national debt a bit (Or they could send it to some children's hospital if they want grandstanding points) - either would work though.
The intent is clear - the lady wanted to help whichever government was in power to tackle Britain's problems. When I read it (before knowing the parties had taken it) I just thought "That's rather sweet." Of course the parties shouldn't snaffle it. It's a good opportunity for the LibDems to do a bit of harmless differentiation - the money is not so large as to be worth fighting for, and they should swiftly give theirs to the Treasury and let the Tories argue that their share should stay in their pockets.
Maybe the Tories are in desperate need of cash, however, it comes. After all, the membership has , as rumours go, fallen to 70000 ! They are not denying it.
Wasn't it labour who had to increase their overdraft yesterday ? frankly I'm amazed they were allowed to given the state of the Co-op bank, you'd have thought the directors would be closing their credit exposure rather than increasing it.
The intent is clear - the lady wanted to help whichever government was in power to tackle Britain's problems. When I read it (before knowing the parties had taken it) I just thought "That's rather sweet." Of course the parties shouldn't snaffle it. It's a good opportunity for the LibDems to do a bit of harmless differentiation - the money is not so large as to be worth fighting for, and they should swiftly give theirs to the Treasury and let the Tories argue that their share should stay in their pockets.
Nick:
Have you seen or read a copy of the will for you to be so finite?
Have you seen the will ? Does it state that " I bequeath this money to the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties ".
Let's face it, the Tories and the Lib Dems will quitely give it back to the crown. It is not worth the bad publicity they will receive on this.
The intent is clear - the lady wanted to help whichever government was in power to tackle Britain's problems. When I read it (before knowing the parties had taken it) I just thought "That's rather sweet." Of course the parties shouldn't snaffle it. It's a good opportunity for the LibDems to do a bit of harmless differentiation - the money is not so large as to be worth fighting for, and they should swiftly give theirs to the Treasury and let the Tories argue that their share should stay in their pockets.
Maybe the Tories are in desperate need of cash, however, it comes. After all, the membership has , as rumours go, fallen to 70000 ! They are not denying it.
The numbers have changed again. How did they lose so many since last night?
Interesting spat on Today earlier regarding Labour's missing message.
Unless my ears deceived me, the MP supporting Ed's muteness, suggested that his silence was to 'give the coalition a chance'.
It's a good opportunity for the LibDems to do a bit of harmless differentiation
@PickardJE LibDems said yesterday gift was to “whoever was the party of government of the day”. "Party" not mentioned in will @NickCohen4@stephentall
@MShapland Both Parties spoke to Treasury to check if Joan Edwards bequith should go to the Treasury before accepting. important executors clarify
Is the will still not up on the internet somewhere? Guardian report suggests that the word "party" was in the will, which would make all the difference, I would think.
The intent is clear - the lady wanted to help whichever government was in power to tackle Britain's problems. When I read it (before knowing the parties had taken it) I just thought "That's rather sweet." Of course the parties shouldn't snaffle it. It's a good opportunity for the LibDems to do a bit of harmless differentiation - the money is not so large as to be worth fighting for, and they should swiftly give theirs to the Treasury and let the Tories argue that their share should stay in their pockets.
Maybe the Tories are in desperate need of cash, however, it comes. After all, the membership has , as rumours go, fallen to 70000 ! They are not denying it.
The numbers have changed again. How did they lose so many since last night?
Interesting spat on Today earlier regarding Labour's missing message.
Unless my ears deceived me, the MP supporting Ed's muteness, suggested that his silence was to 'give the coalition a chance'.
Hilarious.
I knew you will fall for it. PBTories are so predictable !
The intent is clear - the lady wanted to help whichever government was in power to tackle Britain's problems. When I read it (before knowing the parties had taken it) I just thought "That's rather sweet." Of course the parties shouldn't snaffle it. It's a good opportunity for the LibDems to do a bit of harmless differentiation - the money is not so large as to be worth fighting for, and they should swiftly give theirs to the Treasury and let the Tories argue that their share should stay in their pockets.
Maybe the Tories are in desperate need of cash, however, it comes. After all, the membership has , as rumours go, fallen to 70000 ! They are not denying it.
Wasn't it labour who had to increase their overdraft yesterday ? frankly I'm amazed they were allowed to given the state of the Co-op bank, you'd have thought the directors would be closing their credit exposure rather than increasing it.
They reduced their overdraft to the Co-op Alan.
By taking out a loan.
With the Co-op.
It was reported yesterday they'd increased it by £2.43m. FT citing the electoral commission.
Good to see the Co-op not wasting loans on SMEs or anyone who creates jobs.
The intent is clear - the lady wanted to help whichever government was in power to tackle Britain's problems. When I read it (before knowing the parties had taken it) I just thought "That's rather sweet." Of course the parties shouldn't snaffle it. It's a good opportunity for the LibDems to do a bit of harmless differentiation - the money is not so large as to be worth fighting for, and they should swiftly give theirs to the Treasury and let the Tories argue that their share should stay in their pockets.
Nick:
Have you seen or read a copy of the will for you to be so finite?
Have you seen the will ? Does it state that " I bequeath this money to the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties ".
Let's face it, the Tories and the Lib Dems will quitely give it back to the crown. It is not worth the bad publicity they will receive on this.
No, I have not or else my question would have been put differently. So I am so very surprised that so many 'people' can assert what is in the will without having seen a verifiable copy.
Do we know how the Tories and the Lib Dems divided the loot ? 50:50 or according to their votes or according to their seats ?
Did it go to the third umpire ?
It is a very curious division - presumably decided by the executors. I assume that this was why they contacted people for advice. The Guardian gives the division as £420,576 to the Conservatives and the balance of £520,000 to the Lib Dems. That is 80.88% to the Conservatives.
This does not correspond to the proportions of seats, or votes, or members of Cabinet.
The intent is clear - the lady wanted to help whichever government was in power to tackle Britain's problems. When I read it (before knowing the parties had taken it) I just thought "That's rather sweet." Of course the parties shouldn't snaffle it. It's a good opportunity for the LibDems to do a bit of harmless differentiation - the money is not so large as to be worth fighting for, and they should swiftly give theirs to the Treasury and let the Tories argue that their share should stay in their pockets.
Maybe the Tories are in desperate need of cash, however, it comes. After all, the membership has , as rumours go, fallen to 70000 ! They are not denying it.
Wasn't it labour who had to increase their overdraft yesterday ? frankly I'm amazed they were allowed to given the state of the Co-op bank, you'd have thought the directors would be closing their credit exposure rather than increasing it.
They reduced their overdraft to the Co-op Alan.
By taking out a loan.
With the Co-op.
It was reported yesterday they'd increased it by £2.43m. FT citing the electoral commission.
Smart move ! Overdrafts are more expensive, and in the current climate [ since 2008 ], loan interest is historically cheap !
The intent is clear - the lady wanted to help whichever government was in power to tackle Britain's problems. When I read it (before knowing the parties had taken it) I just thought "That's rather sweet." Of course the parties shouldn't snaffle it. It's a good opportunity for the LibDems to do a bit of harmless differentiation - the money is not so large as to be worth fighting for, and they should swiftly give theirs to the Treasury and let the Tories argue that their share should stay in their pockets.
Maybe the Tories are in desperate need of cash, however, it comes. After all, the membership has , as rumours go, fallen to 70000 ! They are not denying it.
Wasn't it labour who had to increase their overdraft yesterday ? frankly I'm amazed they were allowed to given the state of the Co-op bank, you'd have thought the directors would be closing their credit exposure rather than increasing it.
They reduced their overdraft to the Co-op Alan.
By taking out a loan.
With the Co-op.
It was reported yesterday they'd increased it by £2.43m. FT citing the electoral commission.
Smart move ! Overdrafts are more expensive, and in the current climate [ since 2008 ], loan interest is historically cheap !
Do we know how the Tories and the Lib Dems divided the loot ? 50:50 or according to their votes or according to their seats ?
Did it go to the third umpire ?
It is a very curious division - presumably decided by the executors. I assume that this was why they contacted people for advice. The Guardian gives the division as £420,576 to the Conservatives and the balance of £520,000 to the Lib Dems. That is 80.88% to the Conservatives.
This does not correspond to the proportions of seats, or votes, or members of Cabinet.
Lib Dems can play it smart. Return the £100k and let the Tories nick the old lady's money.
The Mail headline is carefully crafted - the "Grasping Politicians" have "pocketed" the legacy - no active role - just passive acceptance of the money.....suggestions of a more active role might have caused them problems....
Active or passive? That might depend on who it was that chose how to divide the money between the two coalition partners.
OT -- maybe I should make a will. How hard can it be?
Come to think of it, who drew up the will? I've known solicitors to complain about self-drafted wills written in convoluted legalese drivel.
The intent is clear - the lady wanted to help whichever government was in power to tackle Britain's problems. When I read it (before knowing the parties had taken it) I just thought "That's rather sweet." Of course the parties shouldn't snaffle it. It's a good opportunity for the LibDems to do a bit of harmless differentiation - the money is not so large as to be worth fighting for, and they should swiftly give theirs to the Treasury and let the Tories argue that their share should stay in their pockets.
Maybe the Tories are in desperate need of cash, however, it comes. After all, the membership has , as rumours go, fallen to 70000 ! They are not denying it.
The numbers have changed again. How did they lose so many since last night?
Interesting spat on Today earlier regarding Labour's missing message.
Unless my ears deceived me, the MP supporting Ed's muteness, suggested that his silence was to 'give the coalition a chance'.
Hilarious.
I knew you will fall for it. PBTories are so predictable !
The intent is clear - the lady wanted to help whichever government was in power to tackle Britain's problems. When I read it (before knowing the parties had taken it) I large as to be worth fighting for, and they should swiftly give theirs to the Treasury and let the Tories argue that their share should stay in their pockets.
Maybe the Tories are in desperate need of cash, however, it comes. After all, the membership has , as rumours go, fallen to 70000 ! They are not denying it.
Wasn't it labour who had to increase their overdraft yesterday ? frankly I'm amazed they were allowed to given the state of the Co-op bank, you'd have thought the directors would be closing their credit exposure rather than increasing it.
They reduced their overdraft to the Co-op Alan.
By taking out a loan.
With the Co-op.
It was reported yesterday they'd increased it by £2.43m. FT citing the electoral commission.
Smart move ! Overdrafts are more expensive, and in the current climate [ since 2008 ], loan interest is historically cheap !
Really ? if you're a co-op legal officer and this has been done without improved security on the loan, this might not be so smart. It sort of begs the question why the co-op aren't doing what other banks are doing by reducing exposures and increasing fees off the remaining portfolio.
This is more so at a time when the co-op have de facto withdrawn from the SME market which used to be one of their strenghths. Interesting times.
Do we know how the Tories and the Lib Dems divided the loot ? 50:50 or according to their votes or according to their seats ?
Did it go to the third umpire ?
It is a very curious division - presumably decided by the executors. I assume that this was why they contacted people for advice. The Guardian gives the division as £420,576 to the Conservatives and the balance of £520,000 to the Lib Dems. That is 80.88% to the Conservatives.
This does not correspond to the proportions of seats, or votes, or members of Cabinet.
Lib Dems can play it smart. Return the £100k and let the Tories nick the old lady's money.
Let's see. They've sat on their hands over the donations from the crooked Michael Brown. Morally, it would have been right to return the money to those whom he defrauded.
Miss Edwards bequeathed the money to “whichever Government is in office at the date of my death for the Government in their absolute discretion to use as they may think fit”.
It is a very curious division - presumably decided by the executors. I assume that this was why they contacted people for advice. The Guardian gives the division as £420,576 to the Conservatives and the balance of £520,000 to the Lib Dems. That is 80.88% to the Conservatives.
This does not correspond to the proportions of seats, or votes, or members of Cabinet.
£420,576? Almost half a Messina, difficult to resist.
Do we know how the Tories and the Lib Dems divided the loot ? 50:50 or according to their votes or according to their seats ?
Did it go to the third umpire ?
It is a very curious division - presumably decided by the executors. I assume that this was why they contacted people for advice. The Guardian gives the division as £420,576 to the Conservatives and the balance of £520,000 to the Lib Dems. That is 80.88% to the Conservatives.
This does not correspond to the proportions of seats, or votes, or members of Cabinet.
Lib Dems can play it smart. Return the £100k and let the Tories nick the old lady's money.
Let's see. They've sat on their hands over the donations from the crooked Michael Brown. Morally, it would have been right to return the money to those whom he defrauded.
The Michael Brown affair is a stain on the reputation of the Liberal Democrats.
The growth in France and Germany should result in export opportunities for the UK and help us achieve more balanced growth not so dependent on internal consumption. It will also encourage exporters to invest in further capacity which is a good thing.
Only an idiot would not welcome these figures as being good for the UK. It makes the current improvement much more secure than it would be if what is still our largest single customer remained in the doldrums. I expect the share of our exports going to the EU to continue to shrink but it is silly not to recognise that they are very significant.
If anything, this growth in France and Germany will act as an amplifying effect on British growth in quarters to come, it will not have had as much effect on this last quarter. The way things are going, Osborne's autumn statement should see some big revisions.
"The Tories and Lib Dems need to give this money back immediately"
Agreed.
And then itemise the spending on something to which no-one could possibly object. Pulpstars suggestion of a childrens hospital sounds good - two nurses, funded for 5 years or something.
It might encourage other kind people to bequeath to the state.
And as for the donation from the deceased, the blame lies squarely with the will's executors. The parties didn't seek this money out, it was given to them. Though yes, I think it would be good PR for them to put it straight in the Treasury's coffers and then announcing a couple of extra nursing posts to be paid for from it for the next few years.
Re the will - has anyone noted yet that "The Government" is always in office. There is no "government in office at the time" - that could only refer to a political group.
It is a very curious division - presumably decided by the executors. I assume that this was why they contacted people for advice. The Guardian gives the division as £420,576 to the Conservatives and the balance of £520,000 to the Lib Dems. That is 80.88% to the Conservatives.
This does not correspond to the proportions of seats, or votes, or members of Cabinet.
£420,576? Almost half a Messina, difficult to resist.
Didn't poor old fuddy duddy Edwin Morgan give about a million in his will to the independence referendum which mysteriously became a party donation ?
Channel 4 News @Channel4News Average earnings increased by 2.1% in the year to June, 0.3% up on the previous month #c4news
A little increase but it does undermine EdM's speech - that is if anyone actually notices it during #WillGate
Oliver Cooper @OliverCooper Public sector employment down 22,000. Private sector employment up 46,000. Revealing how those keep moving in opposite directions, eh?
... The most common point made in the tributes on Monday by opponents was in attesting to those dual qualities of professional toughness and personal warmth. McLetchie’s political style took no prisoners – just ask Henry McLeish, whose political frailties the Tory leader so brutally exposed. All those attacks were carefully plotted and planned. But this was also a man who was once praised to the rafters by Scottish Socialist MSP Rosie Kane and who this week received a glowing tribute yesterday from Scottish Green Party leader Patrick Harvie.
The accolades are likely to continue from MSPs. But perhaps if they want to pay genuine tribute to McLetchie, they should carefully plan a forensic parliamentary attack on a political opponent over the coming weeks – and then make sure they buy them a drink in the bar afterwards. Cross-party friendships like those he earned are the lifeblood of any parliament.
It is a very curious division - presumably decided by the executors. I assume that this was why they contacted people for advice. The Guardian gives the division as £420,576 to the Conservatives and the balance of £520,000 to the Lib Dems. That is 80.88% to the Conservatives.
This does not correspond to the proportions of seats, or votes, or members of Cabinet.
£420,576? Almost half a Messina, difficult to resist.
Didn't poor old fuddy duddy Edwin Morgan give about a million in his will to the independence referendum which mysteriously became a party donation ?
Silly old Monica, getting it arse over tit again. Morgan left the money to the SNP which they in turn stated would be used entirely in support of the referendum campaign.
It is a very curious division - presumably decided by the executors. I assume that this was why they contacted people for advice. The Guardian gives the division as £420,576 to the Conservatives and the balance of £520,000 to the Lib Dems. That is 80.88% to the Conservatives.
This does not correspond to the proportions of seats, or votes, or members of Cabinet.
£420,576? Almost half a Messina, difficult to resist.
Didn't poor old fuddy duddy Edwin Morgan give about a million in his will to the independence referendum which mysteriously became a party donation ?
Other way round. He bequested to the party but the party ringfenced it for the referendum campaign.
They need to give the money away graciously ASAP (whilst of course leaving the impression that it was all a terrible mistake by the executors or some other third party).
NHS old age nursing, just the job.
Only other thing I'd say is I bet it's not the first time it's happened. Bet the Tories and dirty digging press outriders are on the case as we speak, just to have something up their sleeve in case Labour get uppity.
Almost hope a case does come to light, just for the fun of seeing certain PBTories buying "tickets for the Outrage Bus" after dismissing this story...
BTW: more good economic news. Portugal's economy expanded 1.1% in 2Q, against an expected flat. (Portugal, Spain and - to a lesser extent - Italy are all benefitting from the Arab Spring which has driven tourists away from North Africa.)
Interestingly, the Mail Online story is much more circumspect- more along the lines of "what a quirky thing for this little old lady to do" than grasping poiticians
It is a very curious division - presumably decided by the executors. I assume that this was why they contacted people for advice. The Guardian gives the division as £420,576 to the Conservatives and the balance of £520,000 to the Lib Dems. That is 80.88% to the Conservatives.
This does not correspond to the proportions of seats, or votes, or members of Cabinet.
£420,576? Almost half a Messina, difficult to resist.
Didn't poor old fuddy duddy Edwin Morgan give about a million in his will to the independence referendum which mysteriously became a party donation ?
Other way round. He bequested to the party but the party ringfenced it for the referendum campaign.
Thud , Dickson ; Thanks for the clarification.
Personally I think the money should have been ringfenced to fund Salmond's £500,000 US Golf Open beano.
It's a good opportunity for the LibDems to do a bit of harmless differentiation
@PickardJE LibDems said yesterday gift was to “whoever was the party of government of the day”. "Party" not mentioned in will @NickCohen4@stephentall
@MShapland Both Parties spoke to Treasury to check if Joan Edwards bequith should go to the Treasury before accepting. important executors clarify
Is the will still not up on the internet somewhere? Guardian report suggests that the word "party" was in the will, which would make all the difference, I would think.
...for whichever Government is in office at the date of my death for the Government in their absolute discretion to use as they may think fit.
Given the absence of the word "party", I think it is clear that an enormous blunder has been made by someone, and the Lib Dems and Conservatives would be well advised not to compound the blunder by hanging onto the money a moment longer.
The intent is clear - the lady wanted to help whichever government was in power to tackle Britain's problems. When I read it (before knowing the parties had taken it) I just thought "That's rather sweet." Of course the parties shouldn't snaffle it. It's a good opportunity for the LibDems to do a bit of harmless differentiation - the money is not so large as to be worth fighting for, and they should swiftly give theirs to the Treasury and let the Tories argue that their share should stay in their pockets.
Nick:
Have you seen or read a copy of the will for you to be so finite?
Have you seen the will ? Does it state that " I bequeath this money to the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties ".
Let's face it, the Tories and the Lib Dems will quitely give it back to the crown. It is not worth the bad publicity they will receive on this.
LOL, only when they are forced kicking and screaming with red faces
On topic. Unless that bequest was absolutely crystal clear that money was specifically for the parties then of course they should give it to the country and once again you have to wonder about the mindset of the party leadership who thought this was ever going to end up in anything other than bad press.
The parties shouldn't 'give the money back' as the woman to whom it belonged has passed away, but they should both have it spent in the fashion she intended (ie on some form of government spending rather than on political parties).
The intent is clear - the lady wanted to help whichever government was in power to tackle Britain's problems. When I read it (before knowing the parties had taken it) I just thought "That's rather sweet." Of course the parties shouldn't snaffle it. It's a good opportunity for the LibDems to do a bit of harmless differentiation - the money is not so large as to be worth fighting for, and they should swiftly give theirs to the Treasury and let the Tories argue that their share should stay in their pockets.
Nick:
Have you seen or read a copy of the will for you to be so finite?
Have you seen the will ? Does it state that " I bequeath this money to the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties ".
Let's face it, the Tories and the Lib Dems will quitely give it back to the crown. It is not worth the bad publicity they will receive on this.
LOL, only when they are forced kicking and screaming with red faces
It's important not to take an unthinkingly literalistic approach to reading any legal document. This is the number one mistake made by laymen. The courts look for the person's intentions. If the words can be demonstrated to fail to do this, the courts will follow the intention rather than the words. Here's the leading case:
Lord Hoffman's summary of the general principles is the starting point. Annoyingly, they're too long to quote in full on here, but points (1), (4) and (5) are especially relevant:
"(1) Interpretation is the ascertainment of the meaning which the document would convey to a reasonable person having all the background knowledge which would reasonably have been available to the parties in the situation in which they were at the time of the contract...
(4) The meaning which a document (or any other utterance) would convey to a reasonable man is not the same thing as the meaning of its words. The meaning of words is a matter of dictionaries and grammars; the meaning of the document is what the parties using those words against the relevant background would reasonably have been understood to mean. The background may not merely enable the reasonable man to choose between the possible meanings of words which are ambiguous but even (as occasionally happens in ordinary life) to conclude that the parties must, for whatever reason, have used the wrong words or syntax. (see Mannai Investments Co. Ltd. v. Eagle Star Life Assurance Co. Ltd. [1997] 2 WLR 945
(5) The "rule" that words should be given their "natural and ordinary meaning" reflects the common sense proposition that we do not easily accept that people have made linguistic mistakes, particularly in formal documents. On the other hand, if one would nevertheless conclude from the background that something must have gone wrong with the language, the law does not require judges to attribute to the parties an intention which they plainly could not have had. Lord Diplock made this point more vigorously when he said in The Antaios Compania Neviera S.A. v. Salen Rederierna A.B. 19851 A.C. 191, 201:
". . . if detailed semantic and syntactical analysis of words in a commercial contract is going to lead to a conclusion that flouts business commonsense, it must be made to yield to business commonsense." "
IANAE on Scottish Probate let alone the English version but there seem some things that are clear.
Firstly, the job of interpreting the will is the job and responsibility of the executors. In a case of real difficulty they will seek advice from third parties. It appears that they have done this. If this was unsuccessful then it would be normal for the executors to seek the opinion of a specialist barrister both to get an independent view and to protect their own backs. Given the size of the bequest I would be amazed if they did not do this.
Secondly, it is possible for a provision in a will to be so devoid of certainty that it becomes unenforceable. This clause may well fall into that category but this would depend on the advice obtained from the barrister and the assistance provided by precedent, if any. Ultimately this is a decision for the executors. If the condition is meaningless the bequest falls into the residue.
Thirdly, there has been an increasingly aggressive tactic adopted by various charities in seeking money in recent times. They check the probates of wills and if a will contains a provision leaving a bequest to cancer research, for example, these charities will pursue that bequest with the executors and claim it belongs to them. This is a difficult area because there are of course lots of cancer research charities and it can be unclear which one was intended.
This brings me to my final point. I don't know if the political parties seek to do anything similar or in this case it was picked up when the AGO and Treasury was contacted. If they do and sought to bring pressure on the executors to apply the money to them then they may have a problem. If they have simply been passive recipients of the cheques then I really don't see this story having legs. It is, in the latter scenario, simply not their fault or responsibility.
The fact that they took it and divvied it up between themselves says it all. If she had been leaving it to a political party she would have specified which one or said it should be shared by all. Caught with their hand in the sweetie jar as ever , obviously hoping nobody would notice it.
The issue with the will is we don't know what the parties were told about it. If the solicitors who executed the will came to them with 'a political donation' then the parties would only be expected to look into the source and verify she was a British citizen (or one of the other categories) and once they'd done that they'd have had no reason to dig deeper. If the solicitors came to them with the will or sent them the money 'for the government' then the parties are more at fault. Until we know this we can't really assign blame. Except to the solicitors, since they doubtless drafted the wording of the will and left an inexcusable ambiguity in there.
Politically though, the parties should give it 'to the nation' since the average voter neither knows nor cares about the laws of probate or the rules governing party donations, and it looks like they stole from a dying old lady.
It's important not to take an unthinkingly literalistic approach to reading any legal document. This is the number one mistake made by laymen. The courts look for the person's intentions. If the words can be demonstrated to fail to do this, the courts will follow the intention rather than the words. Here's the leading case:....
Now that you can see the document, what is your professional opinion?
Do we know how the Tories and the Lib Dems divided the loot ? 50:50 or according to their votes or according to their seats ?
Did it go to the third umpire ?
It is a very curious division - presumably decided by the executors. I assume that this was why they contacted people for advice. The Guardian gives the division as £420,576 to the Conservatives and the balance of £520,000 to the Lib Dems. That is 80.88% to the Conservatives.
This does not correspond to the proportions of seats, or votes, or members of Cabinet.
Lib Dems can play it smart. Return the £100k and let the Tories nick the old lady's money.
Let's see. They've sat on their hands over the donations from the crooked Michael Brown. Morally, it would have been right to return the money to those whom he defrauded.
The Michael Brown affair is a stain on the reputation of the Liberal Democrats.
It's a good opportunity for the LibDems to do a bit of harmless differentiation
@PickardJE LibDems said yesterday gift was to “whoever was the party of government of the day”. "Party" not mentioned in will @NickCohen4@stephentall
@MShapland Both Parties spoke to Treasury to check if Joan Edwards bequith should go to the Treasury before accepting. important executors clarify
Is the will still not up on the internet somewhere? Guardian report suggests that the word "party" was in the will, which would make all the difference, I would think.
...for whichever Government is in office at the date of my death for the Government in their absolute discretion to use as they may think fit.
Given the absence of the word "party", I think it is clear that an enormous blunder has been made by someone, and the Lib Dems and Conservatives would be well advised not to compound the blunder by hanging onto the money a moment longer.
Oh dear. Time for Grant Spiv and Dave's tennis partner Feldman need to answer some questions
Oh dear. On what planet are the beneficiaries of the will its executors?
On topic. Unless that bequest was absolutely crystal clear that money was specifically for the parties then of course they should give it to the country and once again you have to wonder about the mindset of the party leadership who thought this was ever going to end up in anything other than bad press.
I very much doubt either party leadership had heard anything about it until last night.
The issue with the will is we don't know what the parties were told about it. If the solicitors who executed the will...
I am also interested in the process details of who knew what, when, etc, but this is not what is important now.
What is important now is that someone in the respective leaderships of the Lib Dems and the Conservatives recognises that this was a blunder and acts swiftly to correct it. Otherwise they will be solely to blame for failing to do so.
It is a very curious division - presumably decided by the executors. I assume that this was why they contacted people for advice. The Guardian gives the division as £420,576 to the Conservatives and the balance of £520,000 to the Lib Dems. That is 80.88% to the Conservatives.
This does not correspond to the proportions of seats, or votes, or members of Cabinet.
£420,576? Almost half a Messina, difficult to resist.
Didn't poor old fuddy duddy Edwin Morgan give about a million in his will to the independence referendum which mysteriously became a party donation ?
Dear Dear Monica , you are a habitual fabricator of the truth
"The parties say they were guided by the will's executors but Labour's Jim Murphy said it "looks dodgy as hell"."
"There has been no complaint from the will's executors. "
"Lib Dem Pensions Minister Steve Webb told the BBC he understood that his party had checked with the executors of Miss Edwards's will that the money had been intended to be a party donation."
A comment below:
316: "As usual the nursery playground manner of debating in politics.
Lib/Cons did not influence the executor decision as to the meaning of the will, the executors made that decision.
I suppose it would churlish to point our Lab received the largest donation from what is, in effect, a minority special interest group which is actively involved in influencing policy"
If this is in line with what she wanted and the executors are happy then this is not merely a non-story, it's a smear. If this is not what she wanted then it's an immoral act to take the money, but it sounds like everything's in order and the attacks on the two parties involved are smearing. Some clarification from the executors of the will would probably help to make the case plain.
The issue with the will is we don't know what the parties were told about it. If the solicitors who executed the will...
I am also interested in the process details of who knew what, when, etc, but this is not what is important now.
What is important now is that someone in the respective leaderships of the Lib Dems and the Conservatives recognises that this was a blunder and acts swiftly to correct it. Otherwise they will be solely to blame for failing to do so.
Absolutely. If you don't appreciate that in politics things have to both be proper and look proper then you don't belong at the top.
On topic. Unless that bequest was absolutely crystal clear that money was specifically for the parties then of course they should give it to the country and once again you have to wonder about the mindset of the party leadership who thought this was ever going to end up in anything other than bad press.
I very much doubt either party leadership had heard anything about it until last night.
I'm not sure the LibDems are so awash with cash that £250k would go unnoticed by Nick Clegg and cohorts.
It's important not to take an unthinkingly literalistic approach to reading any legal document. This is the number one mistake made by laymen. The courts look for the person's intentions. If the words can be demonstrated to fail to do this, the courts will follow the intention rather than the words. Here's the leading case:....
Now that you can see the document, what is your professional opinion?
I believe any reasonable layman (who cares about the lawyers!) would unhesitatingly conclude that this most public spirited lady wished her legacy to be spent for the benefit of the nation and not as a political donation. Her executors have served her extraordinarily poorly and both Tories and LibDems must now ensure the monies are used for their intended purpose.
The issue with the will is we don't know what the parties were told about it. If the solicitors who executed the will came to them with 'a political donation' then the parties would only be expected to look into the source and verify she was a British citizen (or one of the other categories) and once they'd done that they'd have had no reason to dig deeper. If the solicitors came to them with the will or sent them the money 'for the government' then the parties are more at fault. Until we know this we can't really assign blame. Except to the solicitors, since they doubtless drafted the wording of the will and left an inexcusable ambiguity in there.
Politically though, the parties should give it 'to the nation' since the average voter neither knows nor cares about the laws of probate or the rules governing party donations, and it looks like they stole from a dying old lady.
Someone must've wanted to look at the will before they carved the money up between the Tories and the Lib Dems surely? That obviously involved some maths and the specific wording must have been asked for
If they were told that the will left them a donation to be split between them at their discretion then why would they need the exact wording? I'm just saying we shouldn't assume bad faith when there are perfectly plausible scenarios where it doesn't exist.
"Claims for jobseekers' allowance down 29,200 between June and July (expectation: down 15,000, 21,200 fall last month)" FT
That's two good months. I believe traditionally the claimant count was considered a leading indicator because those expecting to find a job quickly cannot or do not claim, but that interpretation has been challenged this recession.
There's the 800,000 people (I implied last time that they'd be the same people throughout; rather, market pressure merely keeps 800,000 people rolling) now inactive waiting to return to the Labour Force - that's down 10,000 q-o-q but 100,000 y-o-y.
We shall see.
"Excluding this reclassification [of some public bodies as private], the number of people employed in the public sector fell by 112,000 between March 2012 and March 2013 and the number of people employed by the private sector increased by 544,000"
Mr. Slackbladder, it'll kill the story immediately, but I do wonder at the media/Labour getting conveniently outraged when the executors appear to be quite content. *sighs*
The issue with the will is we don't know what the parties were told about it. If the solicitors who executed the will came to them with 'a political donation' then the parties would only be expected to look into the source and verify she was a British citizen (or one of the other categories) and once they'd done that they'd have had no reason to dig deeper. If the solicitors came to them with the will or sent them the money 'for the government' then the parties are more at fault. Until we know this we can't really assign blame. Except to the solicitors, since they doubtless drafted the wording of the will and left an inexcusable ambiguity in there.
Politically though, the parties should give it 'to the nation' since the average voter neither knows nor cares about the laws of probate or the rules governing party donations, and it looks like they stole from a dying old lady.
Someone must've wanted to look at the will before they carved the money up between the Tories and the Lib Dems surely? That obviously involved some maths and the specific wording must have been asked for
Having read the will, it is terribly ambiguous and I can see why the solicitors sent it to the parties.
If it has left it to "the government" it would be one thing, but it states "whichever government is in office", which seems is a very strange way of putting it, but certainly is open to the interpretation that she means the politicians.
By the way, does anyone know how the LibDems and Conservatives split the money between themselves - 50/50, by seat numbers, by vote numbers?
Having read the will, it is terribly ambiguous and I can see why the solicitors sent it to the parties.
If it has left it to "the government" it would be one thing, but it states "whichever government is in office", which seems is a very strange way of putting it, but certainly is open to the interpretation that she means the politicians.
By the way, does anyone know how the LibDems and Conservatives split the money between themselves - 50/50, by seat numbers, by vote numbers?
What I read was "number of MPs and Ministers" (it said both).
Coalition party 1: We've got to give the money back or to a charity Coalition party 2: We haven't got that sort of cash sitting around at the moment Coalition party 1: Well we're going to give our share back Coalition party 2: Can you sub us our share? Coalition party 1: P**s off that's your problem
Can't think of another reason why it's not been announced yet. Will be a test that the Cons have got their act together if they can turn this into a positive story. Really shouldn't be too difficult.
p.s. and O/T have Labour come out and condemned the number of jobs taken by immigrants in the past three months; or do the ONS stats count as evidence rather than anecdote and are, therefore, not relevant...
Having read the will, it is terribly ambiguous and I can see why the solicitors sent it to the parties.
If it has left it to "the government" it would be one thing, but it states "whichever government is in office", which seems is a very strange way of putting it, but certainly is open to the interpretation that she means the politicians.
By the way, does anyone know how the LibDems and Conservatives split the money between themselves - 50/50, by seat numbers, by vote numbers?
Solicitors cocking up the wording of a will is hardly a novel concept....
Comments
Sorry Nick, but you've become a lot more "on message" these days, shame.
The Mail has created a very clickable fuss - job done.
Have you seen or read a copy of the will for you to be so finite?
And saving for a rainy day isn't really saving, it's more like leaving room on your credit card in case you need to buy something in a hurry.
Let's face it, the Tories and the Lib Dems will quitely give it back to the crown. It is not worth the bad publicity they will receive on this.
Politically they are completely BANG TO RIGHTS and deserve everything they are getting. The best thing the Gov't could do is just send the cash to HMRC to pay down the national debt a bit (Or they could send it to some children's hospital if they want grandstanding points) - either would work though.
By taking out a loan.
With the Co-op.
Did it go to the third umpire ?
Interesting spat on Today earlier regarding Labour's missing message.
Unless my ears deceived me, the MP supporting Ed's muteness, suggested that his silence was to 'give the coalition a chance'.
Hilarious.
Good to see the Co-op not wasting loans on SMEs or anyone who creates jobs.
This does not correspond to the proportions of seats, or votes, or members of Cabinet.
OT -- maybe I should make a will. How hard can it be?
Come to think of it, who drew up the will? I've known solicitors to complain about self-drafted wills written in convoluted legalese drivel.
The problem was in the type of jobs they created.
This is more so at a time when the co-op have de facto withdrawn from the SME market which used to be one of their strenghths. Interesting times.
Average earnings up 0.3% to 2.1%
Unemployment down 4,000
Should boost the £.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10241681/NHS-should-receive-spinsters-520000-donation-says-former-watchdog.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Brown_(fraudster)
Agreed.
And then itemise the spending on something to which no-one could possibly object. Pulpstars suggestion of a childrens hospital sounds good - two nurses, funded for 5 years or something.
It might encourage other kind people to bequeath to the state.
Private sector employment up 46k.
Balls up.
Average earnings increased by 2.1% in the year to June, 0.3% up on the previous month #c4news
A little increase but it does undermine EdM's speech - that is if anyone actually notices it during #WillGate
Oliver Cooper @OliverCooper
Public sector employment down 22,000. Private sector employment up 46,000. Revealing how those keep moving in opposite directions, eh?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23692996
NHS old age nursing, just the job.
Only other thing I'd say is I bet it's not the first time it's happened. Bet the Tories and dirty digging press outriders are on the case as we speak, just to have something up their sleeve in case Labour get uppity.
Almost hope a case does come to light, just for the fun of seeing certain PBTories buying "tickets for the Outrage Bus" after dismissing this story...
Thud , Dickson ; Thanks for the clarification.
Personally I think the money should have been ringfenced to fund Salmond's £500,000 US Golf Open beano.
Number of people in work increased by 69,000 in the three months to June, up to 29.78 million. The highest level since records began in 1971
Michael Fabricant @Mike_Fabricant
Latest: Claimants: 1.44 million in July 2013 (down 29,200 from June 2013 and down 145,400 from a year earlier).
What is the Buddha coming out of the bunker to talk about today then ?
Mulder1981 @Mulder1981
#Gibraltar per capita GDP $63,327, #Spain $30,124. Gibraltar 2012 GDP growth +7.8%, Spain -1.4%. Gibraltar unemployment 3%, Spain 26.83%.
PS - anyone else enter the ticket lottery for Gleneagles ? I didn't get anything
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20538417
Thanks again.
[my italics]
The parties shouldn't 'give the money back' as the woman to whom it belonged has passed away, but they should both have it spent in the fashion she intended (ie on some form of government spending rather than on political parties).
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1997/28.html
Lord Hoffman's summary of the general principles is the starting point. Annoyingly, they're too long to quote in full on here, but points (1), (4) and (5) are especially relevant:
"(1) Interpretation is the ascertainment of the meaning which the document would convey to a reasonable person having all the background knowledge which would reasonably have been available to the parties in the situation in which they were at the time of the contract...
(4) The meaning which a document (or any other utterance) would convey to a reasonable man is not the same thing as the meaning of its words. The meaning of words is a matter of dictionaries and grammars; the meaning of the document is what the parties using those words against the relevant background would reasonably have been understood to mean. The background may not merely enable the reasonable man to choose between the possible meanings of words which are ambiguous but even (as occasionally happens in ordinary life) to conclude that the parties must, for whatever reason, have used the wrong words or syntax. (see Mannai Investments Co. Ltd. v. Eagle Star Life Assurance Co. Ltd. [1997] 2 WLR 945
(5) The "rule" that words should be given their "natural and ordinary meaning" reflects the common sense proposition that we do not easily accept that people have made linguistic mistakes, particularly in formal documents. On the other hand, if one would nevertheless conclude from the background that something must have gone wrong with the language, the law does not require judges to attribute to the parties an intention which they plainly could not have had. Lord Diplock made this point more vigorously when he said in The Antaios Compania Neviera S.A. v. Salen Rederierna A.B. 19851 A.C. 191, 201:
". . . if detailed semantic and syntactical analysis of words in a commercial contract is going to lead to a conclusion that flouts business commonsense, it must be made to yield to business commonsense." "
Politically though, the parties should give it 'to the nation' since the average voter neither knows nor cares about the laws of probate or the rules governing party donations, and it looks like they stole from a dying old lady.
Time for Grant Spiv and Dave's tennis partner Feldman need to answer some questions
Oh dear.
On what planet are the beneficiaries of the will its executors?
What is important now is that someone in the respective leaderships of the Lib Dems and the Conservatives recognises that this was a blunder and acts swiftly to correct it. Otherwise they will be solely to blame for failing to do so.
"The parties say they were guided by the will's executors but Labour's Jim Murphy said it "looks dodgy as hell"."
"There has been no complaint from the will's executors. "
"Lib Dem Pensions Minister Steve Webb told the BBC he understood that his party had checked with the executors of Miss Edwards's will that the money had been intended to be a party donation."
A comment below:
316: "As usual the nursery playground manner of debating in politics.
Lib/Cons did not influence the executor decision as to the meaning of the will, the executors made that decision.
I suppose it would churlish to point our Lab received the largest donation from what is, in effect, a minority special interest group which is actively involved in influencing policy"
If this is in line with what she wanted and the executors are happy then this is not merely a non-story, it's a smear. If this is not what she wanted then it's an immoral act to take the money, but it sounds like everything's in order and the attacks on the two parties involved are smearing. Some clarification from the executors of the will would probably help to make the case plain.
BREAKING: Lib Dems giving their share of the donation to the Treasury
wise...very wise...
Sometimes I wonder why Cameron and the Tories like shooting themselves in both feet.
That's two good months. I believe traditionally the claimant count was considered a leading indicator because those expecting to find a job quickly cannot or do not claim, but that interpretation has been challenged this recession.
There's the 800,000 people (I implied last time that they'd be the same people throughout; rather, market pressure merely keeps 800,000 people rolling) now inactive waiting to return to the Labour Force - that's down 10,000 q-o-q but 100,000 y-o-y.
We shall see.
"Excluding this reclassification [of some public bodies as private], the number of people
employed in the public sector fell by 112,000 between March 2012 and March 2013 and the number of people employed by the private sector increased by 544,000"
RT @PickardJE: Breaking: Lib Dems are going to give their share of the donation to the government. Formal announcement imminent.
If it has left it to "the government" it would be one thing, but it states "whichever government is in office", which seems is a very strange way of putting it, but certainly is open to the interpretation that she means the politicians.
By the way, does anyone know how the LibDems and Conservatives split the money between themselves - 50/50, by seat numbers, by vote numbers?
Coalition party 1: We've got to give the money back or to a charity
Coalition party 2: We haven't got that sort of cash sitting around at the moment
Coalition party 1: Well we're going to give our share back
Coalition party 2: Can you sub us our share?
Coalition party 1: P**s off that's your problem
Can't think of another reason why it's not been announced yet. Will be a test that the Cons have got their act together if they can turn this into a positive story. Really shouldn't be too difficult.
p.s. and O/T have Labour come out and condemned the number of jobs taken by immigrants in the past three months; or do the ONS stats count as evidence rather than anecdote and are, therefore, not relevant...
BREAKING: Senior Tory sources say they are also paying back the donation to the Treasury!
So...story over..pretty much..