...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.
IANAL, but that looks pretty conclusive: it should not have gone to the parties, and they should return it. It's a mystery why the executors thought otherwise, but maybe there is some legal quirk we've missed.
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.
Presumably it was worded in that way to make it clear that it was an apolitical donation which makes the interpretation that the money should go to the parties somewhat perverse.
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?
But it is still to the government which is in office, rather than the "government party". The absence of the word party surely makes the meaning plain.
I am struggling to understand how the Executors came to their decision, and they have some serious questions to answer. I hope that they are able to answer them satisfactorily.
"whichever government is in office" is awful. The government is *always* in office, by definition. The suggestion that party is what was meant fits the context far better, but that was not what was written.
"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.
Eminently sensible idea – never waste the opportunity to turn a bad story to your advantage.
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 2m Tories join Lib Dems in passing their share of £520,000 bequest on to Treasury to help pay down the deficit http://bbc.in/1cMTHYG
Growth in employment fuelled by rise in permanent jobs: up 110,000 over last three months @statisticsONS
That's the wrong sort of growth surely.
Labour used to bitch that they were the wrong sort of jobs and were all PT or somesuch, that's now defunct so its the WRONG SORT OF WORKERS according to Chris Bryant.
When it comes to deciphering the whys rather than the hows, we're all mentally ill. Physics and mathematics at the frontiers describe a world we can't envisage. Probably because we evolved in a world of three dimensions with no feeling for infinities (although maths can't handle these anyway).
We certainly know a lot less than we did in 1900. More known unknowns.
So atheists aren't just mentally ill, they're also fantasists. They believe they can prove a negative because they know, they just know. Science tends to make you humble unless you start off with, dare I say it, a Messiah complex.
And I use 'atheist' is the strict sense, not as a sort of agnosticky thingy.
Presumably the executors were also the people who advised this woman on her will (were they not the witnesses?), so surely they had an idea of her state of mind when she made the will.
That said, I was of the view that for a will to be valid, one had to be 'of sound mind' when one made it. Leaving money to the Liberal Democrats is pretty much an indication of an unsound mind.
That said (part two), no sane person could have expected the Liberal Democrats to ever get near power...
We certainly know a lot less than we did in 1900. More known unknowns.
So atheists aren't just mentally ill, they're also fantasists. They believe they can prove a negative because they know, they just know. Science tends to make you humble unless you start off with, dare I say it, a Messiah complex.
And I use 'atheist' is the strict sense, not as a sort of agnosticky thingy.
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 2m Tories join Lib Dems in passing their share of £520,000 bequest on to Treasury to help pay down the deficit http://bbc.in/1cMTHYG
AAAAAGH you can't 'pay down' the deficit !!!
No, but it is 0.00005% of the national debt paid down.
Damage is now done to the Cons and Libs from taking this money from Mrs Edwards. They are only giving it back due to being caught out. As has been pointed out, people do leave money to the 'government' and it is strange as to why the Cons/Libs accepted the money as party donations in this case.
Damage is now done to the Cons and Libs from taking this money from Mrs Edwards. They are only giving it back due to being caught out. As has been pointed out, people do leave money to the 'government' and it is strange as to why the Cons/Libs accepted the money as party donations in this case.
Oh yes yes yes Evil Baby Eating Toxic Tories and their turn-coat Cleggist Tory-lite mates
Can't you just once make a point without a load of predictable partisan cliches?
* this post is my outburst stamp collection of Hucks posts over weeks.
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?
But it is still to the government which is in office, rather than the "government party". The absence of the word party surely makes the meaning plain.
I am struggling to understand how the Executors came to their decision, and they have some serious questions to answer. I hope that they are able to answer them satisfactorily.
My theory is that this isn't the real will. The real will instructs the executors to use the money in whatever way they can devise to create maximum embarassment for the Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties.
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 2m Tories join Lib Dems in passing their share of £520,000 bequest on to Treasury to help pay down the deficit http://bbc.in/1cMTHYG
AAAAAGH you can't 'pay down' the deficit !!!
I hate it when people on PB gets it wrong. The BBC shouldn't be making these mistakes. I hope Andrew Neil gives the BBC twitter what for.
Foiled by the pesky Lib Dems from giving them an inheritance tax cut the Boy Chancellor made good on his priorities eventually.
All that shows is that, as expected, the 50p rate altered behaviour and depressed tax revenues.
Doesn't it actually show that people altered behaviours in order to take advantage of an impending and rather large tax cut? We'll never now know how much the 50 pence rate may have raised over a decent period of time. It was only in place for a couple of years or so.
Damage is now done to the Cons and Libs from taking this money from Mrs Edwards. They are only giving it back due to being caught out. As has been pointed out, people do leave money to the 'government' and it is strange as to why the Cons/Libs accepted the money as party donations in this case.
Perhaps it's because they were offered the money as party donations. As the executors were the one's signing the cheques perhaps you should direct your ire at them.
Damage is now done to the Cons and Libs from taking this money from Mrs Edwards. They are only giving it back due to being caught out. As has been pointed out, people do leave money to the 'government' and it is strange as to why the Cons/Libs accepted the money as party donations in this case.
Perhaps it's because they were offered the money as party donations. As the executors were the one's signing the cheques perhaps you should direct your ire at them.
Quite. *has a lie down after making this point dozens of times for those on the Outrage Bus*
Foiled by the pesky Lib Dems from giving them an inheritance tax cut the Boy Chancellor made good on his priorities eventually.
To be fair, Osborne didn't need to make the inheritance tax cut... Alistair Darling implemented much of it in October 2007... same time he cut the growth forecast for 2008 by 0.5% to 2.5-3.0%... not a bad forecast given the actual 3.5% fall
Doesn't it actually show that people altered behaviours in order to take advantage of an impending and rather large tax cut? We'll never now know how much the 50 pence rate may have raised over a decent period of time. It was only in place for a couple of years or so.
Whether or not that is true is irrelevant. The chancellor will get his headlines, lower tax rate, higher tax yield. The detail will be interesting once HMRC break it down.
Foiled by the pesky Lib Dems from giving them an inheritance tax cut the Boy Chancellor made good on his priorities eventually.
All that shows is that, as expected, the 50p rate altered behaviour and depressed tax revenues.
It tells you Osborne flagged up a gift to the rich and they took it with both hands.
Not really as it was clear the higher rates would not significantly raise revenue and were only introduced as a political stunt. The 45p won't be a particularly great revenue raiser either over the medium term.
Damage is now done to the Cons and Libs from taking this money from Mrs Edwards. They are only giving it back due to being caught out. As has been pointed out, people do leave money to the 'government' and it is strange as to why the Cons/Libs accepted the money as party donations in this case.
If the Executors write to you saying that you're entitled to a legacy, it would be a very strange beneficiary who would question their judgement, in the absence of a very clear and obvious mistake.
Damage is now done to the Cons and Libs from taking this money from Mrs Edwards. They are only giving it back due to being caught out. As has been pointed out, people do leave money to the 'government' and it is strange as to why the Cons/Libs accepted the money as party donations in this case.
Oh yes yes yes Evil Baby Eating Toxic Tories and their turn-coat Cleggist Tory-lite mates
Can't you just once make a point without a load of predictable partisan cliches?
* this post is my outburst stamp collection of Hucks posts over weeks.
Plato. I hardly ever post to this site, as you will see from the post count. I cannot be bothered mostly because it is dominated by PB Tories such as yourself and also the daily combat that they have with Tim is rarely entertaining. The truth is out there, but not often on PB.
Doesn't it actually show that people altered behaviours in order to take advantage of an impending and rather large tax cut? We'll never now know how much the 50 pence rate may have raised over a decent period of time. It was only in place for a couple of years or so.
No, because that is not the only option open to them. For the wealthy, and for big employers, there are lots of different ways you can adjust the balance between income and other forms of immediate or deferred remuneration. When the state starts nicking the dosh at a marginal rate of 57.8% (which is what the 50p rate equated to), so you're getting less than half of what extra you're paid, it is hardly surprising that behaviour adjusts accordingly. I expect tax revenues would increase even more if we reduced the true marginal rate down to, say, 40% (including NI of course, which is just another name for income tax).
Doesn't it actually show that people altered behaviours in order to take advantage of an impending and rather large tax cut? We'll never now know how much the 50 pence rate may have raised over a decent period of time. It was only in place for a couple of years or so.
Whether or not that is true is irrelevant. The chancellor will get his headlines, lower tax rate, higher tax yield. The detail will be interesting once HMRC break it down.
It is undoubtedly the case that many companies deferred payments or made loans which were then paid off with dividends/bonuses etc after the tax year ended.
But I agree with you - the headlines will not reflect this.
Of course there was also fairly chunky increase in the basic rate tax allowance this April which would have made it worthwhile for lower earners to delay bonuses until the new tax year.
For the 50p/45p tax thing, won't the pay change effect all come out into the wash soon enough - best not to look at a quarter where some tax rate or other is significantly changing in isolation. Bit like the VAT change affecting inflation - heads into the wash after a year though the tax change will be able to be averaged out sooner.
Theist ... I believe there is a God or higher power. Atheist ... I believe there is nota God or higher power. Agnostic ... search me, guv. Or as the famous prayer before the battle goes ... "God, if there is a God, save my soul, if I have a soul."
I second those irate at the 'paying down the deficit' nonsense.
Mr. CD13: "They [atheists] believe they can prove a negative..."
Perhaps some do, but this atheist certainly does not. I don't have to prove God doesn't exist in the same way I don't have to prove the Galactic Mongoose of Doom doesn't exist. If there's zero evidence for something that's a good enough reason to not believe in it.
Foiled by the pesky Lib Dems from giving them an inheritance tax cut the Boy Chancellor made good on his priorities eventually.
All that shows is that, as expected, the 50p rate altered behaviour and depressed tax revenues.
Doesn't it actually show that people altered behaviours in order to take advantage of an impending and rather large tax cut? We'll never now know how much the 50 pence rate may have raised over a decent period of time. It was only in place for a couple of years or so.
Don't forget the PB Tory mantra.
50% marginal rates bad, 70% marginal rates good.
People with kids on 50k deserve the punishment and won't change behaviour, Osbornes mates in the city deserve their reward and grab it with both hands changing behaviour to do so.
Well tim has got his mojo back after a couple of days coming to terms with the fact that he supports a party that:
(i) believes that immigrants being productive in the economy is a bad thing (ii) pursues anecdote based policies
Guess that dripping bile on Osborne is kind of therapeutic...
I second those irate at the 'paying down the deficit' nonsense.
Mr. CD13: "They [atheists] believe they can prove a negative..."
Perhaps some do, but this atheist certainly does not. I don't have to prove God doesn't exist in the same way I don't have to prove the Galactic Mongoose of Doom doesn't exist. If there's zero evidence for something that's a good enough reason to not believe in it.
Quite. I simply don't expect to die and become some other entity. I expect the lights to go out and that's it. Then I get eaten by creepy crawlies or cats.
I thought you were a big supporter of up hitting people with kids at massive marginal rates between 50-60k?
As I've patiently pointed out many times, tim, the high marginal tax rates over that band are a disadvantage, but that has to be weighed against the benefit, which is £2.6bn saving with not a single low-paid family being hit. In the real world, it's about trade-offs. In the case of the top rate of tax, it's a simple question of maximising revenue without damaging growth.
Doesn't it actually show that people altered behaviours in order to take advantage of an impending and rather large tax cut? We'll never now know how much the 50 pence rate may have raised over a decent period of time. It was only in place for a couple of years or so.
No, because that is not the only option open to them. For the wealthy, and for big employers, there are lots of different ways you can adjust the balance between income and other forms of immediate or deferred remuneration. When the state starts nicking the dosh at a marginal rate of 57.8% (which is what the 50p rate equated to), so you're getting less than half of what extra you're paid, it is hardly surprising that behaviour adjusts accordingly. I expect tax revenues would increase even more if we reduced the true marginal rate down to, say, 40% (including NI of course, which is just another name for income tax).
And when your accountant or FD tells you that if you do nothing more than wait a couple of months you'll save a shedload in tax, it is hardly surprising that a lot of people defer payments or take loans which are then paid back when dividends/bonuses are paid at the start of the new tax year.
I second those irate at the 'paying down the deficit' nonsense.
Mr. CD13: "They [atheists] believe they can prove a negative..."
Perhaps some do, but this atheist certainly does not. I don't have to prove God doesn't exist in the same way I don't have to prove the Galactic Mongoose of Doom doesn't exist. If there's zero evidence for something that's a good enough reason to not believe in it.
This atheist agrees with all of that. I'd be delighted (really, really f*cking delighted) to believe in an afterlife if someone could provide evidence it exists.
The logical inconsistencies which riddle all religions are laughable, as are those who say "ah, but I don't subscribe to any religion, I just believe there's something".
That said, these kind of discussions are largely futile and circular, as faith by definition does not require any evidence...
And when your accountant or FD tells you that if you do nothing more than wait a couple of months you'll save a shedload in tax, it is hardly surprising that a lot of people defer payments or take loans which are then paid back when dividends/bonuses are paid at the start of the new tax year.
Of course. And if that option wasn't available, he'd recommend something else, such as a pension contribution, or whatever was possible. Or simply leaving the dosh in the company so that, when you retire, you liquidate the company and take it as a final distribution.
Theist ... I believe there is a God or higher power. Atheist ... I believe there is nota God or higher power. Agnostic ... search me, guv. Or as the famous prayer before the battle goes ... "God, if there is a God, save my soul, if I have a soul."
why does my lack of belief in any particular god trouble you so much?
Indeed, Mr. Anorak. If I were a theist I'd probably go for Zeus and Athena (I'd like to be a Pastafarian but spaghetti makes me vomit).
The Norse pantheon is pretty cool too. I'm reading the Iron Druid series at the moment which has a lot of Celtic and Norse mythology in it. Both highly entertaining and very educational!
Theist ... I believe there is a God or higher power. Atheist ... I believe there is nota God or higher power. Agnostic ... search me, guv. Or as the famous prayer before the battle goes ... "God, if there is a God, save my soul, if I have a soul."
why does my lack of belief in any particular god trouble you so much?
Why do you think I am bothered? (etc. etc. etc.)
My simple point is that not believing in God is not the same as believing there is no God.
You and I are both atheists for the first 999,999 gods (neither of us believe in Enki or Ra or Zeus or Odin). I just disbelieve one more than you.
I have regular discussion with atheists (one or two of my drinking companions are). It's never been a source of rancour and nor should it be. You 're happy to believe whatever you want.
Hindus believe in an elephant God (you can correct me if I'm wrong) and as I can't prove they're wrong, I won't criticise them.
If neither space nor time are invariant, (possibly spacetime is), particles can be waves if you ask them nicely, and the universe is unbounded (sort of infinitey?), who am I to question anyone?
@MichaelLCrick: Who decided the 42-10 split in Joan Edwards' legacy? Was it executors, or did Cons + Lib Dems agree these shares, or maybe argue over them?
As ever you assume no change in behaviour at marginal rates of 60% plus.
Nonsense. Of course there's a change in behaviour - indeed I recently advised someone to take a pension contribution rather than a bonus which would have hit that range. I have a very good grasp indeed of how tax affects behaviour, having run small companies for thirty years.
Theist ... I believe there is a God or higher power. Atheist ... I believe there is nota God or higher power. Agnostic ... search me, guv. Or as the famous prayer before the battle goes ... "God, if there is a God, save my soul, if I have a soul."
why does my lack of belief in any particular god trouble you so much?
Why do you think I am bothered? (etc. etc. etc.)
My simple point is that not believing in God is not the same as believing there is no God.
You and I are both atheists for the first 999,999 gods (neither of us believe in Enki or Ra or Zeus or Odin). I just disbelieve one more than you.
And when your accountant or FD tells you that if you do nothing more than wait a couple of months you'll save a shedload in tax, it is hardly surprising that a lot of people defer payments or take loans which are then paid back when dividends/bonuses are paid at the start of the new tax year.
Of course. And if that option wasn't available, he'd recommend something else, such as a pension contribution, or whatever was possible. Or simply leaving the dosh in the company so that, when you retire, you liquidate the company and take it as a final distribution.
That depends if you are an owner of/shareholder in the company or not. A lot of bonus payments are made to non-owner/shareholders - to sales staff, for example. And while putting more in your pension is always an option - and will continue to be so - a lot of people want their cash "now", for whatever reason. Giving them a two month tax line in the sand, though, makes a slight deferral (or a loan) pretty palatable. Obviously, we'll know more about the jump this time next year. But we'll never now know about the efficacy of the 50 pence rate.
Mr. Anorak, I think I read a sample of an Iron Druid book. Not my cup of tea, but I read that people who like it might also like The Dresden Files (Jim Butcher, Dresden author, also wrote the very enjoyable Codex Alera, but that's a more fantastical, er, fantasy).
Miss Plato, I vaguely recall reading in a Matyszak book about Greek/Roman myths that Trivia was so named because witchcraft was thought to occur where three roads met.
I have regular discussion with atheists (one or two of my drinking companions are). It's never been a source of rancour and nor should it be. You 're happy to believe whatever you want.
Hindus believe in an elephant God (you can correct me if I'm wrong) and as I can't prove they're wrong, I won't criticise them.
If neither space nor time are invariant, (possibly spacetime is), particles can be waves if you ask them nicely, and the universe is unbounded (sort of infinitey?), who am I to question anyone?
I merely ask since you have accused me of being a mentally ill fantasist...
I think you're missing the point a little though, I don't believe there is no god, I just don't believe in one. lack of belief != belief in lack. if evidence is presented for the existence of a supernatural entity who takes personal interest in a value based judgement of my life and deeds, then sure i'll believe in it. Just don't ask me to worship the hateful bastard ;-)
I have regular discussion with atheists (one or two of my drinking companions are). It's never been a source of rancour and nor should it be. You 're happy to believe whatever you want.
Hindus believe in an elephant God (you can correct me if I'm wrong) and as I can't prove they're wrong, I won't criticise them.
If neither space nor time are invariant, (possibly spacetime is), particles can be waves if you ask them nicely, and the universe is unbounded (sort of infinitey?), who am I to question anyone?
I'm rather fond of the various Greek, Roman, Egyptian and Hindu gods - they all have personalities and foibles and virtues. The notion of a single Great Being seems very pedestrian.
I have several Hindu and Egyptian god statues in my dining room. The best one is Bastet made out of some phosphorescent stone. A glow in the dark cat statue - purrfect.
Why tout the saving as the total Child Benefit cost then if you're assuming behavioural change at the 60% marginal rates Osborne introduced?
Because it applies only over that range, and no one earning over £70K is hit by that marginal rate. For those that are, the effect is factored into the estimated savings.
There is some interesting research going on at the moment into the link-up between computers, the human mind and AI (*). There is a long way to go, but we may learn more about the mind from trying to reproduce it, than from the grey mess in our heads.
A question Mrs J and I have spent hours discussing (we are that sad): how long after we develop true AI, will a computer develop faith?
(*) Artificial Intelligence, not Artificial Insemination as one farmer friend of mine thought.
Miss Plato, I also have a small Bastet statuette. 'tis rather nice (it's similar in shape to a larger one that Ankhsunamen[sp] leans on in The Mummy when the Pharoah arrives and she and Imhotep kill him).
Miss Plato, I vaguely recall reading in a Matyszak book about Greek/Roman myths that Trivia was so named because witchcraft was thought to occur where three roads met.
Mr. Jessop, have you read the short Asimov story about god and AI? I forget the title, but it essentially boils down to the most advanced computer ever made becoming god. It outlives the universe and, after pondering the question "Is there a god?" (re)creates a new universe.
OK, The money has gone back or to the treasury..now can we concentrate on the big speech of the year..of course it is from EdM..When does he shake the world yet again with his amazing vision for the UK...or has he made it..I've been busy cutting the grass
Mr. Jessop, have you read the short Asimov story about god and AI? I forget the title, but it essentially boils down to the most advanced computer ever made becoming god. It outlives the universe and, after pondering the question "Is there a god?" (re)creates a new universe.
The Last Question. Asimov's favourite of his, though personally I liked the fluffier 'whodunnits' of his.
If one of the multiverse theories is correct and time is infinite, then somewhere in the past, a civilisation(s) must have developed and eventually become God-like. They could then have produced a universe like ours to amuse themselves, where the planck length and planck time are pixels.
They'd then be similar to the boozy, brawling Greek Gods of legend.
Tim Shipman (Mail) @ShippersUnbound 3m BREAKING: Senior Tory sources say they are also paying back the donation to the Treasury!
So...story over..pretty much..
apart from it being further proof that neither of these parties have any scruples about pocketing money under any dubious excuse, shows how far the standards of our leaders have fallen.
As ever you assume no change in behaviour at marginal rates of 60% plus.
Nonsense. Of course there's a change in behaviour - indeed I recently advised someone to take a pension contribution rather than a bonus which would have hit that range. I have a very good grasp indeed of how tax affects behaviour, having run small companies for thirty years.
The real kicker is if you get a parent/grandparent with IHT concerns to pay in to the pension for the mum/dad affected by the £50k-£60k child benefit then there's IHT savings, marginal tax relief due back to the mum/dad where no cash has had to come out of their own disposable income in making the contribution and they get the child benefit back too.
"whichever government is in office" is awful. The government is *always* in office, by definition. The suggestion that party is what was meant fits the context far better, but that was not what was written.
How can even a lawyer mistake government to mean "divvy up this cash between Tories and LD's". The recipients obviously assisted with how they should receive the cash etc. Dodgy all round but what can you expect when lawyers and politicians are involved.
As ever you assume no change in behaviour at marginal rates of 60% plus.
Nonsense. Of course there's a change in behaviour - indeed I recently advised someone to take a pension contribution rather than a bonus which would have hit that range. I have a very good grasp indeed of how tax affects behaviour, having run small companies for thirty years.
The interesting question is whether it is the tax rates themselves, or the act of *changing* (or the anticipated change) tax rates which have the greater influence on behaviour.
malcolmg ,before you denounce the tories ans lib dems as spivs (presumably thinking labour are different) just remember all those labour MPs who gave back expenses only when shamed into doing so not long ago and indeed those labour mps convicted of fraud
Tim Shipman (Mail) @ShippersUnbound 3m BREAKING: Senior Tory sources say they are also paying back the donation to the Treasury!
So...story over..pretty much..
apart from it being further proof that neither of these parties have any scruples about pocketing money under any dubious excuse, shows how far the standards of our leaders have fallen.
Or it could be as simple as both parties received the money in good faith and have since returned is (ok, passed it to the treasury) when the executor's cock-up was found out.
What would be interesting to know would be when was the snafu brought to the LIB/Con's attention? Was it before or after the scoop? Were they already making plans to pay it back before the story broke? etc.
You may have a point about being shamed into it and you may not. At the moment there is insufficient evidence to say. Call me agnostic on this question.
Mr. G: 'whichever government is in office' is a stupid phrase. Government implies the state, is in office implies a party. The executors of the will did not complain, and they know better than most what the wishes of the individual were.
It is undoubtedly the case that many companies deferred payments or made loans which were then paid off with dividends/bonuses etc after the tax year ended.
But I agree with you - the headlines will not reflect this.
I don't deny that. Bonuses where I work were deferred for a lot of the "stars" in our division who get pay outs on a performance basis and pretty much everyone deferred to 2013/14.
That's not going to be reflected in the headlines which will all be "45p rate yields higher receipts". Only places like CityAM will bother breaking it down and since the people that read CityAM are the ones who deferred their bonuses it makes no difference.
Mr. Jessop, have you read the short Asimov story about god and AI? I forget the title, but it essentially boils down to the most advanced computer ever made becoming god. It outlives the universe and, after pondering the question "Is there a god?" (re)creates a new universe.
Yep, I read it some time ago, but can't remember the title. Incidentally, one of Mrs J's best friends is doing her post-doctoral work in the field of AI.
A few years back scientists were mucking about with a simple neural net. They discovered that some neurons fired off randomly as it powered down, giving an impression of the data they represented - a sort of ghost image. It was postulated that this may be a source for dreams: another part of the brain receives the random impulses and tries to form a coherent story out of them.
It has also been postulated that some drugs may have the same effect.
(Sadly I have no sources for this; Googling it leads to the obvious problems of nutjobbery links).
Isaac Asimov's masterpiece is Nightfall. The I, Robot concept is also good (nothing like the film, for which Will Smith should be flayed and dipped in salt).
In general, he is far better at short stories than full length novels. He wrote an amusing short story about the 2008 election - Franchise. My favourite of his amusing short stories was Good Taste.
Morris Dancer , I think to quite a lot of people the government and the governing party are the same thing Many people would have the impression that if you give money to the governing party they would then use it to spend on NHS , Somali al queda, trident etc. To many politically unsophisticated people they are the same thing .
I think its clear the intention was to use the money for the public purse but do agree that a competent will writer should know better
Ignacio Ibanez, director general for foreign affairs, said the row would not end until a new artificial reef was removed from waters off Gibraltar. ... But Mr Ibanez denied the border controls were retaliation for the reef.
Well, I'm convinced. Also:
...an artificial reef which, the Spanish say, is in a special conservation area and will disrupt fishing there.
Surely this is a good thing for a conservation area?
The interesting question is whether it is the tax rates themselves, or the act of *changing* (or the anticipated change) tax rates which have the greater influence on behaviour.
It's both, and for that reason it would have been better if Osborne had introduced the change immediately - however, that would have been impractical because of the admin difficulties.
Anyway, all these arguments apply to the original increase of the rate to 50p, which was also pre-announced, thus incentivising people to bring bonuses forward to avoid the increase. I don't recall tim laying into Darling over that, but I'm sure he must have done.
Mr. Jessop, point of order: the brain doesn't really power down when we sleep. It's just that we perceive it as such because the conscious is at rest. Some parts of the brain are only/most active at night (the idea more sleep = better is nonsense).
That said, the after-image of dreams is an interesting idea.
It's the only thing by Asimov I've read. (Gnerally I prefer fantasy to sci-fi).
As we're already off-topic, this might be the time for me to promote the sci-fi and fantasy podcasts, Escape Pod and PodCastle. I listen to them avidly when I'm out and about.
Nightfall is #100 on EscapePod. My personal favourites are #144 'Friction' and #82 'Travels with my cats'. All show very different sides to science fiction.
Tim Shipman (Mail) @ShippersUnbound 3m BREAKING: Senior Tory sources say they are also paying back the donation to the Treasury!
So...story over..pretty much..
apart from it being further proof that neither of these parties have any scruples about pocketing money under any dubious excuse, shows how far the standards of our leaders have fallen.
SNP MPs are on average the most expensive to the UK taxpayer. Why ?
Good swift damage limitation by both parties. Zac summed it up well: "Zac Goldsmith, said: "This needs to be sorted out now. No one can truly believe this lady wanted her money squandered on electioneering."
With respect to Morris Dancer and others, hair-splitting over the exact wording (in Government vs in office etc.) is a seriously bad idea - it assumes that both the lady and her solicitors and executors are familiar with the minutiae of political wording, which they almost certainly are not. One has to look at the obvious intent.
malcolmg ,before you denounce the tories ans lib dems as spivs (presumably thinking labour are different) just remember all those labour MPs who gave back expenses only when shamed into doing so not long ago and indeed those labour mps convicted of fraud
What gives you the idea I hold any great opinion of Labour , typical Tory petty mindset on here. On this occasion labour are not involved and have no relevance in the discussion. On this occasion the villians are Tory and LD's. Trying to justify their perfidy by saying that Labour have also pocketed dubious cash in the past on other occasions says a lot about your principles. You appear to be happy that as they are all spivs the Tories and LD's are justified in their actions.
Comments
Conservatives will give our share of the Edwards donation to the Treasury.
So there we are, a big froth over nothing.
IANAL, but that looks pretty conclusive: it should not have gone to the parties, and they should return it. It's a mystery why the executors thought otherwise, but maybe there is some legal quirk we've missed.
Is he so dim, that he doesn't understand how Wills and Executors function?
Return it to the Executors - they are responsible for carrying out her wishes. If the recipient refuses it - it goes back to the estate
And the Tories have followed suit. Dismal.
I am struggling to understand how the Executors came to their decision, and they have some serious questions to answer. I hope that they are able to answer them satisfactorily.
"whichever government is in office" is awful. The government is *always* in office, by definition. The suggestion that party is what was meant fits the context far better, but that was not what was written.
Tories join Lib Dems in passing their share of £520,000 bequest on to Treasury to help pay down the deficit http://bbc.in/1cMTHYG
AAAAAGH you can't 'pay down' the deficit !!!
When it comes to deciphering the whys rather than the hows, we're all mentally ill. Physics and mathematics at the frontiers describe a world we can't envisage. Probably because we evolved in a world of three dimensions with no feeling for infinities (although maths can't handle these anyway).
We certainly know a lot less than we did in 1900. More known unknowns.
So atheists aren't just mentally ill, they're also fantasists. They believe they can prove a negative because they know, they just know. Science tends to make you humble unless you start off with, dare I say it, a Messiah complex.
And I use 'atheist' is the strict sense, not as a sort of agnosticky thingy.
That said, I was of the view that for a will to be valid, one had to be 'of sound mind' when one made it. Leaving money to the Liberal Democrats is pretty much an indication of an unsound mind.
That said (part two), no sane person could have expected the Liberal Democrats to ever get near power...
off topic:
Greg Rutherford came 14th in the long jump (or was it the triple jump) in Moscow. Does anyone care at all about the World Athletics Championships?
'Every little helps' as a wise grocer once said.
I'm still in favour of a park or something.
Can't you just once make a point without a load of predictable partisan cliches?
* this post is my outburst stamp collection of Hucks posts over weeks.
Wonderful stuff!!!
But I agree with you - the headlines will not reflect this.
My definitions are ...
Theist ... I believe there is a God or higher power.
Atheist ... I believe there is nota God or higher power.
Agnostic ... search me, guv. Or as the famous prayer before the battle goes ... "God, if there is a God, save my soul, if I have a soul."
Mr. CD13: "They [atheists] believe they can prove a negative..."
Perhaps some do, but this atheist certainly does not. I don't have to prove God doesn't exist in the same way I don't have to prove the Galactic Mongoose of Doom doesn't exist. If there's zero evidence for something that's a good enough reason to not believe in it.
(i) believes that immigrants being productive in the economy is a bad thing
(ii) pursues anecdote based policies
Guess that dripping bile on Osborne is kind of therapeutic...
The logical inconsistencies which riddle all religions are laughable, as are those who say "ah, but I don't subscribe to any religion, I just believe there's something".
That said, these kind of discussions are largely futile and circular, as faith by definition does not require any evidence...
We probably won't know until 2015.
Silence of the Edless Lambs.
My simple point is that not believing in God is not the same as believing there is no God.
You and I are both atheists for the first 999,999 gods (neither of us believe in Enki or Ra or Zeus or Odin). I just disbelieve one more than you.
I have regular discussion with atheists (one or two of my drinking companions are). It's never been a source of rancour and nor should it be. You 're happy to believe whatever you want.
Hindus believe in an elephant God (you can correct me if I'm wrong) and as I can't prove they're wrong, I won't criticise them.
If neither space nor time are invariant, (possibly spacetime is), particles can be waves if you ask them nicely, and the universe is unbounded (sort of infinitey?), who am I to question anyone?
My mother used to tell the credulous she worshipped Odin.
Oh and we don't know what Labour would do about the top rate of tax.
Oh and unemployment is down.
Miss Plato, I vaguely recall reading in a Matyszak book about Greek/Roman myths that Trivia was so named because witchcraft was thought to occur where three roads met.
I think you're missing the point a little though, I don't believe there is no god, I just don't believe in one. lack of belief != belief in lack. if evidence is presented for the existence of a supernatural entity who takes personal interest in a value based judgement of my life and deeds, then sure i'll believe in it. Just don't ask me to worship the hateful bastard ;-)
I have several Hindu and Egyptian god statues in my dining room. The best one is Bastet made out of some phosphorescent stone. A glow in the dark cat statue - purrfect.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23672150
There is some interesting research going on at the moment into the link-up between computers, the human mind and AI (*). There is a long way to go, but we may learn more about the mind from trying to reproduce it, than from the grey mess in our heads.
A question Mrs J and I have spent hours discussing (we are that sad): how long after we develop true AI, will a computer develop faith?
(*) Artificial Intelligence, not Artificial Insemination as one farmer friend of mine thought.
Ms Plato,
If one of the multiverse theories is correct and time is infinite, then somewhere in the past, a civilisation(s) must have developed and eventually become God-like. They could then have produced a universe like ours to amuse themselves, where the planck length and planck time are pixels.
They'd then be similar to the boozy, brawling Greek Gods of legend.
It's the only thing by Asimov I've read. (Gnerally I prefer fantasy to sci-fi).
The real kicker is if you get a parent/grandparent with IHT concerns to pay in to the pension for the mum/dad affected by the £50k-£60k child benefit then there's IHT savings, marginal tax relief due back to the mum/dad where no cash has had to come out of their own disposable income in making the contribution and they get the child benefit back too.
Top tips for free on PB!
What would be interesting to know would be when was the snafu brought to the LIB/Con's attention? Was it before or after the scoop? Were they already making plans to pay it back before the story broke? etc.
You may have a point about being shamed into it and you may not. At the moment there is insufficient evidence to say. Call me agnostic on this question.
That's not going to be reflected in the headlines which will all be "45p rate yields higher receipts". Only places like CityAM will bother breaking it down and since the people that read CityAM are the ones who deferred their bonuses it makes no difference.
A few years back scientists were mucking about with a simple neural net. They discovered that some neurons fired off randomly as it powered down, giving an impression of the data they represented - a sort of ghost image. It was postulated that this may be a source for dreams: another part of the brain receives the random impulses and tries to form a coherent story out of them.
It has also been postulated that some drugs may have the same effect.
(Sadly I have no sources for this; Googling it leads to the obvious problems of nutjobbery links).
In general, he is far better at short stories than full length novels. He wrote an amusing short story about the 2008 election - Franchise. My favourite of his amusing short stories was Good Taste.
I think its clear the intention was to use the money for the public purse but do agree that a competent will writer should know better
Ignacio Ibanez, director general for foreign affairs, said the row would not end until a new artificial reef was removed from waters off Gibraltar.
...
But Mr Ibanez denied the border controls were retaliation for the reef.
Well, I'm convinced. Also:
...an artificial reef which, the Spanish say, is in a special conservation area and will disrupt fishing there.
Surely this is a good thing for a conservation area?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23694400
Anyway, all these arguments apply to the original increase of the rate to 50p, which was also pre-announced, thus incentivising people to bring bonuses forward to avoid the increase. I don't recall tim laying into Darling over that, but I'm sure he must have done.
That said, the after-image of dreams is an interesting idea.
http://escapepod.org/
http://podcastle.org/
Nightfall is #100 on EscapePod. My personal favourites are #144 'Friction' and #82 'Travels with my cats'. All show very different sides to science fiction.
If you like horror, there's also pseudopod.
http://pseudopod.org/
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2012/sep/07/full-list-mps-expenses-ipsa-data-interactive
With respect to Morris Dancer and others, hair-splitting over the exact wording (in Government vs in office etc.) is a seriously bad idea - it assumes that both the lady and her solicitors and executors are familiar with the minutiae of political wording, which they almost certainly are not. One has to look at the obvious intent.