politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tories and Lib Dems need to give this money back immedi
Comments
-
I've found the attitude of some towards this will situation slightly condescending.
"Oh, the old dear couldn't possibly have meant to do that," and variations.
Worse, people are still doing it.
Perhaps she knew darned well what she was doing. People don't have to follow other people's logic when making bequests - if they did, they'd give money to children's charities rather than dogs' homes (at least according to my own personal logic).
It's a shame some intelligent posters jumped on the bandwagon and presumed to know what her intent was, and even called it 'obvious'.0 -
ok josiasjessop - If a will gave money to the Trustees of (lets say ) Oxfam . Would you think the person wanted it to go to them personally or Oxfam? The lack of mention of the word party makes it probable she meant the money to go to the state and not the coalition parties imo0
-
It's called socialism. They know best - for you, your kids, your money.JosiasJessop said:I've found the attitude of some towards this will situation slightly condescending.
"Oh, the old dear couldn't possibly have meant to do that," and variations.
Worse, people are still doing it.
Perhaps she knew darned well what she was doing. People don't have to follow other people's logic when making bequests - if they did, they'd give money to children's charities rather than dogs' homes (at least according to my own personal logic).
It's a shame some intelligent posters jumped on the bandwagon and presumed to know what her intent was, and even called it 'obvious'.
0 -
Bogus analogy.state_go_away said:ok josiasjessop - If a will gave money to the Trustees of (lets say ) Oxfam . Would you think the person wanted it to go to them personally or Oxfam? The lack of mention of the word party makes it probable she meant the money to go to the state and not the coalition parties imo
In a statement on Wednesday Davis Wood, the solicitors handling Miss Edwards's estate, said that when the will was drafted in 2001, they had checked with her "the unusual nature of her proposed bequest".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23691209
"It was confirmed by Miss Edwards at the time of her instructions that her estate was to be left to whichever political party formed the government at the date of her death," they said.0 -
I really should know - but what's being wedgied? I only have the female unwanted attention version of it in my lexicon.taffys said:what next??
Ed gets wedgied by less swotty class mates.
Ed gets head flushed down the toilet by bigger boys.
Ed returns from cross country mysteriously covered in mud.
Ed finds kecks have been thrown into the shower after PE.0 -
So can you show me where the proof is that shows it was left to the government and pocketed by the SNP. I do not expect to hear back from you.MarkSenior said:
I don't recall you mentioning any qualms about the SNP receiving £ 136,000 as a bequest from the estate of Rosheen Napier last year .malcolmg said:
We are in total agreement but on this occasion it is the Tories and LD's that had their hand in the money jar. When it is Labour I will give them the same stick. We are led by pygmies and charlatans nowadays.state_go_away said:no malcolmg I am not happy ,although do not know the full circumstances but can see that it should be for the public purse. I was merely pointing out your partisan attitude when really all politicians of all colours are generally out for themselves
0 -
Morris , I think it is actually clever and made that way to be certain it did not go to any specific political party but was meant to be used for the benefit of the country.Morris_Dancer said: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.
0 -
Richard I am in the heather buck naked chasing the grouse , trying to save them from the evil Tories with their shotguns.richardDodd said:MG..Go and put some trews on..those ferocious midges are obviously driving you mad again..
0 -
Where is the proof that Miss Edwards left her money to the government and not the parties of government . You did not wait for any proof to criticise and smear parties you hate .,malcolmg said:
So can you show me where the proof is that shows it was left to the government and pocketed by the SNP. I do not expect to hear back from you.MarkSenior said:
I don't recall you mentioning any qualms about the SNP receiving £ 136,000 as a bequest from the estate of Rosheen Napier last year .malcolmg said:
We are in total agreement but on this occasion it is the Tories and LD's that had their hand in the money jar. When it is Labour I will give them the same stick. We are led by pygmies and charlatans nowadays.state_go_away said:no malcolmg I am not happy ,although do not know the full circumstances but can see that it should be for the public purse. I was merely pointing out your partisan attitude when really all politicians of all colours are generally out for themselves
0 -
Lesson number 1 is boats can and do sink and we are not really made to be in water.JosiasJessop said:Whilst people continue to make idiots of themselves on here, I'd just like to say RIP to the Indian sailors and possibly others who lost their lives on the INS Sindhurakshak last night.
When they find out what happened, I hope they're open about it so lessons can be learnt by other navies.0 -
Care to rethink this Nick?NickPalmer said: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.
0 -
Its what her will said, Its as simple as that, you may not like it and it may surprise you, but as the solicitors said they confirmed with her in 2001 that she really meant it. Its all signed and sealed. If she had died prior to 2010 Labour would have got the money and they would have been entitled to itPong said:
"People may think its amazing that someone would want to leave their entire fortune to a political party"currystar said:As I said this morning there would be no way that executors would pay money from a will to someone who was not entitled to it. No matter the Mail, OGH, and many politicians from all sides fell for it. People may think its amazing that someone would want to leave their entire fortune to a political party, but if it is that persons wish then so be it. They should not give the money to the state, this lady wanted them to have it and her wishes should be met, not those of the sniveling jealous losers who somehow thought that two political parties had managed to interfere with the executors of a will and got them to pay them money inappropriately. It simply could not happen.
But she didn't leave it to a specific political party. That's what is completely bizarre.
We'll probably never know what her motivation was when she wrote her will, but the probability that she decided to bet part of her estate on a game of electoral cycle roulette has to be pretty low - whatever the solicitors say.0 -
Ms Edwards bequeath could be a win win for the tories - show generosity by giving it to the national debt and it may make the difference between deficit reduction or increase (was pretty close last time!!)0
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23691209So why did the solicitor not write the will clearly using words such as "party of government", or "governing party", rather than "government"? Then she could have signed a will with those clear words and none of this fuss would have happened.JosiasJessop said:
Bogus analogy.state_go_away said:ok josiasjessop - If a will gave money to the Trustees of (lets say ) Oxfam . Would you think the person wanted it to go to them personally or Oxfam? The lack of mention of the word party makes it probable she meant the money to go to the state and not the coalition parties imo
In a statement on Wednesday Davis Wood, the solicitors handling Miss Edwards's estate, said that when the will was drafted in 2001, they had checked with her "the unusual nature of her proposed bequest".
"It was confirmed by Miss Edwards at the time of her instructions that her estate was to be left to whichever political party formed the government at the date of her death," they said.
After all, that's why we have written wills, so we are not left to rely on people's say-so of what dead people intended.0 -
Every sane person in the country knows well what she meant and it was not to divvy it up between the Tories and Lib Dems.JosiasJessop said:
Care to rethink this Nick?NickPalmer said: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.
0 -
Quite. Perhaps she felt that her assets should be spent by those most popular/democratically elected at the time whatever colour they were.currystar said:
Its what her will said, Its as simple as that, you may not like it and it may surprise you, but as the solicitors said they confirmed with her in 2001 that she really meant it. Its all signed and sealed. If she had died prior to 2010 Labour would have got the money and they would have been entitled to itPong said:
"People may think its amazing that someone would want to leave their entire fortune to a political party"currystar said:As I said this morning there would be no way that executors would pay money from a will to someone who was not entitled to it. No matter the Mail, OGH, and many politicians from all sides fell for it. People may think its amazing that someone would want to leave their entire fortune to a political party, but if it is that persons wish then so be it. They should not give the money to the state, this lady wanted them to have it and her wishes should be met, not those of the sniveling jealous losers who somehow thought that two political parties had managed to interfere with the executors of a will and got them to pay them money inappropriately. It simply could not happen.
But she didn't leave it to a specific political party. That's what is completely bizarre.
We'll probably never know what her motivation was when she wrote her will, but the probability that she decided to bet part of her estate on a game of electoral cycle roulette has to be pretty low - whatever the solicitors say.
That seems perfectly sensible to me. In fact as a bit of logic its pretty good.0 -
So why did the solicitor not write the will clearly using words such as "party of government", or "governing party", rather than "government"? Then she could have signed a will with those clear words and none of this fuss would have happened.OblitusSumMe said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23691209JosiasJessop said:
Bogus analogy.state_go_away said:ok josiasjessop - If a will gave money to the Trustees of (lets say ) Oxfam . Would you think the person wanted it to go to them personally or Oxfam? The lack of mention of the word party makes it probable she meant the money to go to the state and not the coalition parties imo
In a statement on Wednesday Davis Wood, the solicitors handling Miss Edwards's estate, said that when the will was drafted in 2001, they had checked with her "the unusual nature of her proposed bequest".
"It was confirmed by Miss Edwards at the time of her instructions that her estate was to be left to whichever political party formed the government at the date of her death," they said.
After all, that's why we have written wills, so we are not left to rely on people's say-so of what dead people intended.
As far as I can tell the solicitor mucked up and left it unclear, as was discussed below. However, I would think they had a bit of a better idea of the lady's wishes than you.
Unless you knew her or are a necrophiliac clairvoyant?0 -
Sane people and those with bigoted hatred towards the Conservatives and Lib Dems are not the same .malcolmg said:
Every sane person in the country knows well what she meant and it was not to divvy it up between the Tories and Lib Dems.JosiasJessop said:
Care to rethink this Nick?NickPalmer said: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.
0 -
Surely Labour were more on the side of the rich?Plato said:Rowena Mason @rowenamason
Just got caught in cross fire of ed miliband getting egged. The egg thrower dean porter says labour same as Tories and on side of rich
After all they only taxed them at 40%...............0 -
Off topic, but this story on the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23672538
has a striking resemblance to this page on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Sea_fixed_crossing0 -
Coming to this late but isn't The Last Question the one which ends with the computer saying "let there be light"? Brilliant short story.
My view for years now is that there may well be a supernatural being but so what? The analogy is bacterium in a test tube. Their life, opportunity to multiply and ultimately their very existence is dependent upon the scientist who is controlling their experiment. Should they worship him? Would it make any difference if they did? I say no and no.
Even if there is a god I am a long way from being religous. That doesn't fit comfortably into RCS's tabulation. Or indeed Sean's arguments. It is not one of his better pieces.0 -
My favourite was the Caves of Steel trilogy. There was a lot about what it meant to be truly human in those stories. They were of course built on the robot theme.antifrank said: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.
0
