A dermatologist from Bedford hospital who wishes to emulate the success of independent Wyre Forest MP Richard Taylor is calling on the Liberal Democrats not to front a candidate at the next General Election.
Bedford NHS Trust is £12m in debt, and has recently announced more than 120 job cuts.
Dr Barry Monk has written to the Conservatives and to the Lib Dems to request a “clear run” against Patrick Hall, the sitting Labour MP. His majority is 3383.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Drugs – the risk of taking the wrong approach – Part 1 (Daniel Stylianou)
Observations of an Expat: Gaza Ceasefire (Tom Arms)
The Green Book podcast (Peter Wrigley)
Hope is not just desirable, it could be the key to defeating populism! (Chris Bowers)
Elon Musk’s X ownership amplifies the far-right agenda in Britain and beyond (Jack Wilkin)
By 1954 not even Dickie Attenborough was safe on a bombsite
Google-Backed Chatbots Suddenly Start Ranting Incomprehensibly About Dildos
Tories in disarray as Badenoch wings it on pensions
Can you help Barnardo's?
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Calum Miller makes the case for a much closer relationship with the European Union
The Bailey Head, Oswestry, is CAMRA's Pub of the Year
Aging, Development, and Living at High Altitudes (Oxygen Levels)
The Charge of the Light Brigade - A perfect analogy for the United Kingdom today
Peter Davies 
Craig Levene 
Nick Baird 
David Evans 
Anthony Acton 
79 Comments
I always think we should stand aside an encourage people to vote for candidates such as these.
And aside from allowing the people of Bedford to make clear that they support local NHS services – which can presumably be assumed – what does it achieve? Given that he would be standing on one issue but responsible for legislating on many, shouldn’t we check Dr Monk’s position on ID cards, say, before even considering giving him a clear run?
I think party policy is we are trying to maintain ‘credibility’ by standing in every seat, which I can undestand.
Personally though, I think if an indepedent candidate a) holds to a broadly Lib Dem agenda, b) could well win, and possibly c) we won’t, then it seems perfectly reasonable for us to stand down. Not sure whether that is the case here, though.
And what would the position be, Martin if this was repeated in every constituency facing NHS job cuts?
Doctors are like democrats: not all of them are liberal. Our supporters in Bedford deserve the chance to vote for a Liberal Democrat. If they choose not to on a tactical decision fine, but we should allow them the choice and credit them with the brains to make an informed decision about theor own representation. My (an ex Bedford resident’s) guess is that he’s toast at the next election anyhow. The dermatologist’s just trying to save his political skin. Someone had to say it.
“And what would the position be, Martin if this was repeated in every constituency facing NHS job cuts?”
Better 😉
Tories will never stand aside given they were 8% behind in 2005. It’s not in the Lib Dems’ interest to stand aside either. They improved mostin 2005, picking up over 2,500 votes – most of the swing from Labour. The Tory share only went up 1%.
As others have written – how do we know he’s a Liberal Democrat? What are his views on other key policy areas?
We should not certainly not stand aside. Firstly I know Bedford LibDems are campaigining on the hospital issue see thier website and secondly as someone who is on the West Midlands Regional Executive not contesting Richard Taylor has done the party in Wyre Forest no end of damage and allowed the Liberal Party an opportunity to increase their vote/representation, oh and thirdly Kidderminster ain’t any better off health-wise even though they have elected a single-issue health campaigner.
Colin
Martin’s logic would mean we don’t stand in any constituency,
We should have stood in Kidderminster in 2001. We should have stood in Kidderminster in 2005. If we wimp out again in then someone should do a Graham Watson – who I believe stood as a “Scottish Young Liberal” in an election the Scottish party didn’t want to fight.
Despite claiming to be a national party we have never stood in all the seats in England, Scotland & Wales.
That said knowing some of the people in Bedford I reckon our chances of not standing are on the slim side of zero….
Why doesnt the dermatologist stand aside and guve US a free clear run – he could always support us, god forbid….
Just seen this at the Bedford LibDem response – at http://bedfordlibdems.org/news/342.html and http://bedfordlibdems.org/news/341.html and also Christine McHugh spoke at Conference – http://www.christinemchugh.org.uk/news/28.html
Colin
Utter tosh to consider standing down. For all the reasons listed above but also because (although slightly further back in Westminster terms) we have a genuine chance of winning the mayoral race in Bedford in May 07. We came second in the first Bedford Mayoral race behind Frank Branson of the Better Bedford Party. Frank has been a disaster for Bedford and a single issue MP would be as well. Even to consider standing down for a minute would completely ruin our chances to win the mayoral race.
Self-evidently we don’t want to be standing aside for anyone who says that they like health services. Everyone in this country likes the NHS – If as a party we genuinely come down to just defending the status quo of a society with vastly differing levels of health provision and nothing else, then we really might as well pack up.
One day we’re going to need to re-examine our policies on the NHS generally as in a post-Blair world, it’s not going to be sensible to have a policy of “Go back to the good old days of the NHS under Thatcher”, but until then we could at least try to keep our fingers on the pulse of the organisation rather than being obsessed with figures like “20,000 jobs to go” and the like.
No-one seems to have pointed out that it is for the Local Party in Bedford to decide whether they even want to THINK ABOUT standing aside in favour of an Independent.
I am not one for getting bogged down in Constititions – can’t even spell it 🙁 – but I always thought we were a democratic Party where decisions were made at local level by the Party members. Please don’t tell me we have gone back to the bad old days where everything was decided centrally by a SDP caucus in Cowley Street?
Spitting Image got it spot on when they showed the two David’s in bed together where our poor chap from Roxburgh could not get a word in edgeways.
On the other hand, (hypocrite that I am)is there any mileage to be had in giving Jakob Rees-Mogg a nudge in in whichever seat he is standing in by not fielding a LibDem in that seat? He will need all the help he can get even if he is given a safe Tory seat as most Tories will find it hard to support him.
Were he to get elected he would be a brilliant “Aunt Sally” (and he does’nt even need the drag).
What an embarassment to DC’s New Pink Tory Party he would make. Problem is Westminster would never get any work done as all would be in a permanent state of hysterics every time he appeared/spoke.
Peter Hartwell
P.S. I am forwarding a modest donation to Bedford’s Campaign Fund with a few words of support. Something like “Please do whatever you think is in the best interests of ALL the people of Bedford and not just those blighted by the shortcomings of Blair’s NHS”. Did he (TB) not say something back in 1997 about getting the NHS fixed within two weeks of having just been elected as Mrs Thatcher’s boy wonder?
An interesting spectrum of replies, thank you.
Firstly, an independent won the mayoral election in Bedford, so there is a track record of success. As stated,I have also asked the Tories to stand aside, and this has certainly not been rejected.
One poster here calls the mayor “a disaster” but that opinion may be coloured by the fact that he beat the Lib dems, and that he also won an expensive libel claim against the local Lib dem newsletter, so that may not be an unbiased opinion.
Another poster asked for my views on other topics; not an unreasonable request. I am on public record as being against our illegal involvement in Iraq. With regard to ID cards, I already have a passport, a photodriving licence, a photo users card for the British Library, a photo NHS employees smartcard, and a photo ID card for the British Boxing Board of Control; I am not sure what further purpose an expensive national ID card would serve, other than to waste money.
Finally, someone asked why I didn’t stand an a Lib Dem; well I am afraid that the Michael Brown saga does not encourage me
although I would certainly (if I lived in the right part of the UK support an assiduous LD candidate such Norman Baker or Norman Lamb.
See this week’s Private Eye for an update on this story
Have a look at my blog for a bit of reaction to LibDem website domain stealing.
http://www.drinformed.blogspot.com
All comments received with glee! Sorry to disapoint you, but I’m neither a Tory nor ‘Noo Labour’.
Dr Informed
vitally important that TB and his cronies get told exactly what is thought of them.
Stand aside I say!
I usually demonstrate what I think of TB and his cronies by voting LibDem.
with respect to Will Howells – fat lot of good it’s done so far. Is it only Dr Informed, Dr Rant and myself that is concerned about the domain stealing?
Just to note that at the last election the Lib Dems took the high moral ground when the local Tory hijacked their website in a similar way.
A bit rich that they should do it themselves.
The point of standing down in favour of Dr Monk is simple.
Regardless of political persuasion, it is imperative that individuals like Dr Monk i.e. Doctors with years of experience in the NHS are allowed into Parliament in order to influence and advise on NHS issues. At present, chaos in the NHS is spiralling due to a lack of competence and health care knowledge amongst current MPs (whatever colour badge they wear). If the NHS is to survive it is vital we get people like Dr Monk into pole position.
On a second note, Dr Monk has a very wide-ranging support across the country from Doctors. As a large articulate group of individuals who will be supporting Dr Monk in every way we can, I suggest you view Dr Monk as a more than formidable opponent.
I am also a doctor and have voted LD at the last 2 general elections. The circumstances in Bedford are not being repeated nationwide, nor are there prominent and credible physicians sacked over their opposition to the destruction of the NHS standing in every constituency.
Bedford is a special case in which the LDs should stand aside. The LDs will not win with Dr Monk standing, and sadly he may not win with the LDs standing. In addition they should allow Dr Monk to use the website domain names similar to his campaign’s name, domain names quickly registered by LDs after he started his campaign, so he may effectively prosecute that campaign. This would be a credible and responsible step, qualities lacking in the other parties and LD s would benefit from the votes of many other doctors like myself in constituencies around the country as a result. The LD party also stands to benefit from his effective exposure of the disastrous state of the NHS, and that exposure will be all the more effective during the camapaign when it is clear he is a serious contender. Neither the Tories nor Labour can emerge undamaged from that exposure, so who will benefit?
I’d add that the domains aren’t just similar to Dr Monk’s campaign name – they are identical! They were registered by Lib Dem supporters the day Dr Monk went public (to the NATIONAL press). This is as clear an example of bad faith as can you can get – and our political system is riven with bad faith.
You can rest assurred that equally strong measures will be taken to assure that the Conservative candidate either stands aside or else.
Dr Monk represents the emergence of a more direct style of’ medical opinion’. He is backed to the hilt around the country by an increasingly pissed off and militant cadre of experienced doctors. We will no longer tolerate inexpert politicans and idiot civil servants playing God with the NHS, our patients and our jobs.
Dr Informed
The bastards are going to sack Barry Monk for his stand
Get some balls & stand aside or I’ll never vote LD again
Dr Informed worries me. For he tilts at a fundamental constitutional principle which we undermine at our peril. While elected politicians should listen to experts, they must not be bound by them. That is because elected politicians have legitimacy, experts do not – as Professor John Griffith never ceases to remind us. Do we wish to succumb to the tyranny of a self-appointed, self-perpetuating elite of specialists, with their biases and group think, and their tendency to protect the negligent and dishonourable within their ranks? (Anyone remember Roy Meadow, folks?)
Given his strictures, I am somewhat troubled that Dr Informed should use the term “bad faith” in an inexpert way. To a lawyer, at least, “bad faith”, far from being a term of art, has a very precise meaning. There is a good discussion in the Canadian case, Roncarelli v DuPlessis, if anyone is interested. The purchase of a domain name is something which a private individual is entitled to do. His motive is of no relevance.
Now, before we all get carried away with Dr Monk’s possible candidature, let us remember 2 things: (1) should we be depriving the people of Bedford of the opportunity to vote Lib Dem?; and (2) Dr Monk, if elected, would have to vote on a whole variety of issues, not just health: the “Bedford Hospital” rather than the “West Lothian” question.
Dr Informed worries me. For he tilts at a fundamental constitutional principle which we undermine at our peril. While elected politicians should listen to experts, they must not be bound by them. That is because elected politicians have legitimacy, experts do not
a) Politicians at present DO NOT listen to experts at present.
b) We are suggesting experts should be elected as well. Hence Dr Monk…..Our current constitution setup is functionally bankrupt because of first past the post – it produces crap government after crap government. In a consensus democracy where coalitions are de rigeur – experts opinions are more likely to be counted IMHO.(yes I know about the LibDem PR thing).
The people will have plenty of opportunity to vote LibDem in council and European Elections to palliate the potentially grievous loss of that choice in the parliamentary election – they’ll survive.
Also an example in Canadian law doesn’t excuse behaving like a arsehole in Britain. The domain names issue will prove very counter productive to the Lib Dems in Bedford as it is superb ‘ammunition’.
Regards
The way the Bedford Lib Dems have behaved over the Barry Monk campaign is despicable.
http://www.drrant.net/2006/12/bedford-politicians-theyre-all-same.html
I would be interested to hear some LD comment on this issue, but I don’t expect to at all.
Vile and underhand.
I think you’d be right not to. I’ve been tempted to reply to some of your comments but so far the collected influx of doctors have, with the exception of Dr Monk himself and Libdemdoc, shown no sign that they’d be willing to listen to a reasonable argument or engage in reasonable discussion. Come stamping in to here like petulant schoolboys and you’ll be treated to the response all petulant kids get – the silent treatment.
Having looked at a few of these web pages I note that while Bedford Lib Dems may have bought up the various ‘Save Bedford Hospital’ website names on 18th September they had launched their own petition campaign to save the hospital on their own website the 14th September.
By this point they had been raising the hospital’s financial problems for several months.
So it looks to me that all the Lib Dems have done is buy up website names for a petition that they had alreay launched before Dr Monk announced his candidacy.
Angus Huck – you really do need to read up on the latest court rulings related to Roy Meadows before making such a crass statement. The LDs are giving petulant doctors the silent treatment – no wonder this party is full of losers, what’s wrong with informed debate ?
Farmer Geddon, I suggest you do the same. Professor Meadow sought judicial review of the decision of the General Medical Council to strike him off the Register (a very draconian penalty). The issue was whether or not the GMC had acted within its powers (ie, had it followed the rules of natural justice, was its decision Wednesbury unreasonable, etc?). The Court did NOT form a judgment on Meadow’s competence as an expert witness. Pontificating journalists and anonymous medics alike display a terrifying ignorance of the nature and function of judicial review.
“it is imperative that individuals like Dr Monk i.e. Doctors with years of experience in the NHS are allowed into Parliament in order to influence and advise on NHS issues.”
As a genuine question how many of these do you envisage being a sufficient level. 26 MPs have the title doctor – of those there are three I know to be medical doctors (Evan Harris and Liam Fox and Howard Stoate) and at least two I’m certain aren’t (Iain Gibson and Vince Cable – John Reid doesn’t appear with his Dr title as he’s a Rt Hon). Plus a couple more who I’ve a vague memory of being medical Drs (Brian Iddon, Doug Naysmith but I may well be wrong). Plus of course Richard Taylor
You can also add to that Sandra Gidley who is a qualified Pharmacist and David Heath who is a qualified optician – don’t know about the other parties as regards non-medical health professionals.
So is what we’re talking about here a lack of Drs with experience of working in the NHS – or a lack of Drs with a particular viewpoint?
RE the Meadows judgement:
“There are two distinct parts of the appeal. The first raises an important question of principle, namely whether an expert witness should be entitled to immunity from disciplinary, regulatory or fitness to practise proceedings (together “FTP proceedings”) in relation to statements made or evidence given by him in or for the purpose of legal proceedings. The second entails a consideration of the GMC’s challenge to the judge’s decision that Professor Meadow was not guilty of serious professional misconduct.”
IE it considered both grounds (and if I’ve quickly read it correctly) came to the view that he had made a misjudgement but not one which was serious professional misconduct.
I’m not sure you can classify it as a judicial review case – certainly it’s not reported in the R(name) v organisation styel you’d expect for a JR case. I don’t think they considered the natural justice or Wednesbury points either.
Rob Fenwick
As a Liberal Democrat you are presumably used to being on the receiving end of the silent treatment. As for reasonable discussion, kindly see above.
As doctors, our ‘beef’ is a) politicians with no healthcare background who have the conceited arrogance to believe that ‘management’ in more important that ‘experience’ and that therefore a majority of a few thousand in a safe seat somehow gives them omnipotence and b) the morally and intellectually bankrupt party political system that we ‘enjoy’ in Britain, that delivers us such poor government and such shockily low standards of probity in ‘public life’.
The Bedford website issue shows that collectively, the Liberal Democrats have no more right to any moral high ground than the other two showers of shite we call parties. I count many Liberal Democrats as personal friends, but as with all political parties, the herd instinct renders the most appropriate ‘collective noun’ unprintable in polite society.
As for the numbers of doctors in parliament – Richard Taylor (Kidderminster) is a member of the Health Select comitee – and as such has wields much more influence on behalf of his constituents that the New Labour Whipping-Boy he deposed ever would.
You can stuff parliament with 300 doctors ( and a ‘pharmacist’) if you like, but if the highest ranking one is a shadow defence secretary and the rest are ignored on health matters – what’s the point?
Dr Informed
“Serious professional misconduct” and “negligence” are not the same thing. The latter requires the practitioner to fall below the standard of the reasonable specialist in his area, the former requires knowledge or recklessness. Where a decision may be challenged only on a point of law, it is necessary to show that a finding of fact is Wednesbury unreasonable in order to overturn it. Meadow was incompetent, but the GMC had failed to prove that he knew he was incompetent. Either way, his career as an expert witness is well and truly history.
Judicial review need not be brought using the Rule 53 procedure. It may also be brought by writ or originating summons (reams of case law on this point), and against certain bodies (like the GMC or a planning inspector) there is a special statutory procedure (sometimes acting as a time ouster).
I think that the Liberal Democrats have lost any claim to the moral high ground (and they certainly had it in the run up to the Iraq war) with the Michael Brown saga; £2.4million of other people’s money fraudulently obtained and donated by a donor who wasn’t resident in the UK. I suppose you might consider donations from Farepak now.
I know that in Bedford I have the support of many people who might normally vote Lib-Dem, but also traditional Tory and Labour voters. I would welcome the idea of the local Lib Dems standing aside and supporting me, not least because this would seriously undermine Labour, and get them very worried nationally. I believe that the Bedford Conservatives (who came second last time)will not stand aside , but will deliberately run a very low key campaign.
What buried the Tomlinson Report in the 1990s? Was it maverick doctors threatening to stand against Tory MPs in constituencies with threatened hospitals? I’m afraid not. It was concerted pressure from across the community that ultimately persuaded the Tories that they could lose marginal seats to conventional political parties.
Dr informed is a Platonist. He believes that power should repose in self-appointed elites of experts. His contempt for democracy is undisguised. Are dictators any less corrupt than elected politicians?
Oops – just realised this website is only for supporters of the Liberal Democrat party!
Laters!
Dr informed is a Platonist. He believes that power should repose in self-appointed elites of experts. His contempt for democracy is undisguised. Are dictators any less corrupt than elected politicians?
Angus Huck – that’s a total bunch of arse, and a rather weak extrapolation of what I have said thus far. If I had such contempt for democracy, why would I be here fighting Barry Monk’s case? – fool!
I do not have a contempt for democracy, but I do have a contempt for contemporary party politics. Two radically different concepts.
Neither I do not espouse ‘self appointed’ elites. What I believe is that ‘being a politician’ and ‘being expert/competent/not a waste of oxygen’ should not be (seemly) mutually exclusive propositions.
The medical profession could elect someone itself (from a constituency of 140,000) to be chief medical officer for example – rather than a politically appointed lickspittle ‘like what we got now’. That’s quite a constiuency isn’t it? I am also all for doctors standing for parliament – hence my presence here.
“As for the numbers of doctors in parliament – Richard Taylor (Kidderminster) is a member of the Health Select comitee – and as such has wields much more influence on behalf of his constituents that the New Labour Whipping-Boy he deposed ever would.
You can stuff parliament with 300 doctors ( and a ‘pharmacist’) if you like, but if the highest ranking one is a shadow defence secretary and the rest are ignored on health matters – what’s the point?”
Sorry – your point was that it was imperative to get Drs like Dr Monk elected to Parliament to advise on NHS/health matters. Now your saying its not a question of how many but having them in positions of influence. That seems to support the point that if Dr Monk got elected he would be an independent who would be pretty much alone and have no collective influence to drive through his ideas. (incidentally why the quotes round pharmacist – don’t they qualify as having expertise of the NHS?)
As regards being in positions of influence, we did have a former teacher as Education Secretary for a while. I’m sure I remember how much her initiatives were loved by the teaching profession. (we also have a barrister as PM – doesn’t mean our laws are written an an intelligble way!)
The assumption here seems to be that (a) there is a homogenous viewpoint about NHS policy among Doctors and (b) that viewpoint is the right one. Not sure about my history but the setting up of the NHS wasn’t unanimously supported by the Medical profession at the time – that’s why Nye “stuffed their mouths with gold”
I’ve no particular beef about Dr Monk standing for Parliament (and frankly it would be tough on me if I did he’s quite entitled to 🙂 and his intentions seem perfectly reasonable. I just think we’re entitled to do exactly the same and put up a candidate and we’ll see what the people think.
BTW it’s also fair to say that Dr Monk is expressing himself with some moderation in this discussion which is more than some of my fellow Lib Dems are. It might be wise for them to pause and think just whether they are giving the party a good image by their comments.
Hopefully Barry won’t be alone if elected.
It is a universal truth that doctors make better politicans than politicians make doctors.
As for the ‘independents are alone and don’t have influence argument’ – that is a complete fallacy! Dr Richard Taylor is an excellent constituency MP as well as being on the Health Select commitee. My own MP is a Liberal Democrat – and whilst he is a very good constituency MP, I can think of no example where his status as a memeber of a parliamentary party has aided him in aiding his constituents.
The other angle is that independents are ‘high profile’ by way of their rarity status – and as such wield more influence with the press than a backbencher. This can be useful.
Bad Faith
Angus said:
I am somewhat troubled that Dr Informed should use the term “bad faith” in an inexpert way ….The purchase of a domain name is something which a private individual is entitled to do. His motive is of no relevance.
Take a look at:
http://www.icann.org/dndr/udrp/policy.htm
Oh, and I love the arrogant ‘to a lawyer’ bit. Fancy that, a fan of legal expertise who calls fans of medical expertise Platonists.
Personally, I distust experts because how can you tell if an expert if right or not? At least with the current system of allowing voters to select for a list of morons, you know what you are going to get.
(ps: as for Roy Meadow, a recent article in the BMJ points out that Meadows Law is correct, and that the research used to discredit him was biases and tainted).
ps.
I looked up the legal definition of bad faith.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/bad+faith
Dr Informed seems to using the term correctly, as the registrations were carried out contrary to ICANN rules (ie: Dr Monk had already registered the name as that of a political party).
Plus, the whole idea that the LibDems just happened to register the domains on the same day. I find that hard to believe.
And you wonder why voters are turned off.
http://www.icann.org/dndr/udrp/policy.htm
Of the four defitions of bad faith given by ICANN only the third “(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor;” seems even vaguely relevant.
Given the Lib Dems are running a campaign to “Save Bedford Hospital” it’s hardly going to be their primary reason. Had they registered say “Monk4Bedford” you’d probably have a case.
If your interpretation holds then http://www.liberaldemocrats.co.uk or http://www.johnleech.org.uk wouldn’t last long
I am of course assuming that the domains weren’t registered in the name of a cat (or at least if they were it was a super-intelligent cat from outer space – as seen in the film 🙂
If parties are at arm’s length, they can buy whatever domain name they so choose, provided someone is willing to sell it. There is no question of bad faith. If X promises Dr Monk that he will register the domain in Dr Monk’s name, but registers it in his own name instead, then X is in breach of his fiduciary duty as Dr Monk’s agent, his conscience is affected, and he acts in bad faith. What is crucial is the relationship between Dr Monk and the people purchasing domain names. If there is none, then there is no bad faith. As Lord Wilberforce said in Midland Bank v Green, it is not fraud (or bad faith) to exercise one’s legal rights. Careful with “bad faith”, Dr Rant. It is almost never proved, and in fact a barrister can be disbarred for alleging it in court without proof.
Who is this ‘X’, he sounds like a scoundrel – I’d like to give a piece of my mind.
Judging by his dodgy behaviour, he must be one of your lot!
1) The legal right to register a domain name is subject to the responsible bodies conditions – in this case ICANN which from the rules above has some circumstances in which a transfer can be required (ie it’s not absolute.
2) I don’t think a political party should justify its actions by the morality (not legality) of Midland Bank v Green! (which was not good for the vast majority of people not lucky enough to have read it 🙂
3) “What is crucial is the relationship between Dr Monk and the people purchasing domain names. If there is none, then there is no bad faith.”
I think that’s rubbish – there didn’t seem to be any relationship in http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/671304.htm (the intergalactic super-cat case – which hopefully will inject some much needed levity into this discussion)
Hywelmorgan, I think you should consult LAC Minerals v International Corona Ltd (1989) 61 (4th) 14 at 27, a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, per La Forest J; where the parties are at arm’s length, no fiduciary duty arises.
Midland Bank v Green is bad for those people with negligent solicitors who advise them that it is not necessary to register an estate contract as a Class C(iv) Land Charge. It is good for the community as a whole because it preserves the integrity of the land registration system thereby reducing the cost of conveyancing.
Some of the correspondents here talk as if Dr Monk has some kind of God-given right to a seat in Parliament. Who is Dr Monk? He is a private individual who cannot even claim the support of an organised political party. If people wish to vote for him, they are entitled so to do. But they should also have a choice. And that choice means the presence of a Liberal Democrat candidate.
There may be exceptional cases where a Lib Dem candidate steps aside. Tatton was certainly one, and Wyre Forest possibly another. Whether or not Bedford falls into this category is surely a matter for the Bedford Local Party. They are best placed to read the situation on the ground. They know what their members are telling them, they have some feel for the mood of the electorate. Given that Bedford has a strong Lib Dem Council Group, and a history of moderately good Parliamentary performances, I personally feel that standing aside would be a retrograde step. But it should be for Liberal Democrats in Bedford to make that judgment.
Some of the correspondents here talk as if Dr Monk has some kind of God-given right to a seat in Parliament. Who is Dr Monk? He is a private individual who cannot even claim the support of an organised political party. If people wish to vote for him, they are entitled so to do. But they should also have a choice. And that choice means the presence of a Liberal Democrat candidate.
Hand bags at 20 paces!! Who are the Liberal Democrats? They are a party that cannot even claim the support of a significant proportion of the populus??
Firstly, Dr Monk is a decent man with an organised campaign (and a registered party) who in two years time will secure a greater percentage of the vote in Bedford than the Liberal Democrats will nationally. No one has yet been able to explain to me what is so great about ‘having the support of an organised political party’, or answer my contention that my LibDem MP’s good performance has nothing to do with his party ‘support’…….it would appear that a Canadian Legal case is more relevant.
Secondly, If you as a party simply aspire to legality rather than morality – shame on you.
Thirdly, WTF has a Canadian court case got to do with what is right in Britain. For the majortiy of the people in Britain, there is often a definite difference between what is ‘legal’ and what is ‘right’. This is why party politics in this country is only for ‘tribalists who don’t like football.
Oh dear!
It would appear that Barry Monk isn’t the only target of Lib Dem website tomfoolery in Bedford.
http://drinformed.blogspot.com/2006/12/not-content-with-nicking-barry-monks.html
Someone should have a word in Condrad Longmore’s ear – he’s making your party look very bad indeed.
All the best
Dr Informed
“I think that the Liberal Democrats have lost any claim to the moral high ground (and they certainly had it in the run up to the Iraq war) with the Michael Brown saga; £2.4million of other people’s money fraudulently obtained and donated by a donor who wasn’t resident in the UK. I suppose you might consider donations from Farepak now”
Er, but didn’t it take the authorities quite a long time to discover that this money was fraudulently obtained? And no decision has yet been reached on whether it was a permissible donation (well actually, I think the electoral commission said it was, but following the court case are looking at it again), so how did we expect the Lib Dems to find out about Mr Brown’s past within the timescales for returning donations? It took the police and courts long enough.
Well now that you do know all about Michael Brown and where his £2.4 million came from is it time for it to be handed back? If the Lib dems want to be thought of as occupying some sort of moral high ground it is what they have to do.
On the other hand if they want to be seen as being just like the other two, so be it.
Oh, and by the way, I am far from being a Tory supporter, but for a Lib Dem activist to put up a website http://www.bedfordconservatives.com with its highly offensive content seems quite beyond the pale.
I agree, it probably would be best to give it back, but giving back £2.5 million – which there was no reason that the Lib Dems should have rejected at the time – wouldn’t exactly be easy, especially since that money has been spent in good faith. The Lib Dems may not be £30 mill in debt like the other two, but it’s not good.
I agree about http://www.bedfordconservatives.com, but only in so far as things that are personally offensive/insulting; although it doesn’t justify Lib Dem actions, individuals in other parties do similar things, see for example, libdems4cameron (or whatever the stunt was called) or more offensively http://www.order-order.com, Yellow Peril, Fib Dems, Lib Dem Watch, Labour Watch, UKIP Watch, etc. Plenty of idiots in all the parties (and independents too)
I personally wish you luck in standing for Parliament; not sure I agree that anyone else should stand down (that’s a decision for the Bedford local party).
Brown’s Money is quite right. The law of restitution provides a defence of bona fide change of position. If the money has been received in good faith, and the recipient has changed his position in the belief that the money was justly received, then an action in money had and received will fail in respect of that amount. See Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale, per Lord Goff. The defence applies to common law personal restitutionary claims, and probably only to money (well, Lord Templeman thought so).
Mr Huck, if you are really trying to defend the Lib Dems clinging on to Michael Brown’ money, then clearly any previous perception of the Lib dems as a party who take a more moral view of the world than the other two large parties is being flushed down the toilet.
Many LD voters supported the party because they perceived it to be at least cleaner than the other scum. Losing that will cost far more votes than £2.4million can buy
Is it immoral to have been taken in by someone who fooled the authorities for several years, who gave a donation that went some way to evening the playing field between the Lib Dems and the other main parties without wanting anything in return (he even said he didn’t really support the Lib Dems, he just wanted to give another party a chance)?
I don’t think many people would say it was.
Perhaps the party should return it now Michael Brown has been convicted. But I’m thinking (a) the party didn’t do anything wrong in accepting the money, it just turns out that Michael Brown is a little unsavoury; and (b) the party probably doesn’t have a spare £2.5 mill lying around, and if it does it’s at least understandable why some members would rather use that money to campaign to make the areas they live better places or encourage more women and BME individuals to get selected in winnable seats or make the machinery of the party more professional. I think there are a fair number of members who wish the party would just pay it back (and I count myself amongst them) – whether I’m being realistic I don’t know . . .
Let’s face it:
Iraq War Opposition – Good
Quite alot of Lib Dem Policy – Not at all bad in the grand scheme of things
Charles Kennedy’s Dethronement – Bad
Decending to gutter politics – Bad
Taking millions of dodgy geezers – Bad
The Lib Dems have lagged behind the Tories thus far in the health policy arena in one crucial way – the Tories have openly discussed deferring to health professionals on day to day running of the NHS.
We are not extremists or trying to annexe the NHS and create ‘doctorland‘. We are just pissed off beyond belief at the serial incompetence of elected governments and their civil service puppet masters. Patricia Hewitt and her patronising drone on the today programme before 9am is the final bloody straw!
The Liberal Democrats have an opportunity, and they seem intent on ignoring it. After all, there are 140,000 doctors in the UK and a further million NHS workers – the vast majority voted Labout in 1997 (in hope), virtually none of them will next time. Will they vote for you? I’ll freely admit that that I have in the past voted ‘yellow’ on occasion, but I’m an ‘idependent’ supporter where possible now.
When Barry Monk is MP for Bedford, he will have the ear of the health service – something Richard Taylor has not appreciated or capitalised on. Work with him, or face being impaled on the mighty sword of Monk!
Dr Informed
“Taking millions of dodgy geezers – Bad”
Er, but the point was there was no suggestion he was dodgy at the time it was taken. We can all be wise after the event.
“Charles Kennedy’s Dethronement – Bad”
Yes, messy and horrible, but at least in part caused by CK’s refusal to go of his own accord to take the time to recover from his illness.
As for gutter politics, I have experience of individuals in all parties who partake in this, and independents aren’t immune to it either.
As for the ‘sword of Monk’, it’s very unusual for independents to come through. I wish him luck although I suspect what will happen is that he won’t be able to gather enough support to win, but of course it depends on how much money he can raise for literature (careful of taking money from dodgy geezers) and how many people are willing to go out and knock on doors/deliver leaflets for him in comparison to the other parties. You never know though, if NHS professionals and doctors will come together like a political party for their “champion”, perhaps it will work . . .
As for gutter politics, I have experience of individuals in all parties who partake in this, and independents aren’t immune to it either.
Granted, and I appologise if I have given the impresion that I was only accusing the LibDems. It’s all unacceptable, but there’s something deeply troubling when a ‘liberal’ party decends to sexuality bashing to score cheap points at election time. The ‘liberal’ title sets high standards, and perhaps gives you further to fall.
Oh, and Barry isn’t the first doctor apart from Richard Taylor to stand for parliament as an independent. He has offers of help from people who have run this sort of campaign before – and I doubt money will be an issue (considering you can’t spend much more than £10k in an election period), as the Doctors Net community will chip in loads of cash.
Well, raising £10K is much more than my local Lib Dem party can rely on; so that would be an achievement in itself.
I completely agree that sexuality bashing is unacceptable (although have no knowledge of this happening in this case) – indeed, any comments about an individual candidate are unacceptable. We’d all be better off without people who do that.
I stood as an independent candidate in Cheltenham, on a similar platform as Barry (I’m a doctor), at the last election. In only a short 3 week campaign we managed to get 6.1% of the vote as a small bunch of amateurs starting from zero experience – we also raised and spend over £3k without even asking for it.
Barry has got two years to plan, more support, more media profile – and crucially a nice New Labour Sitting Duck MP to target. I had a tight LibDem/Tory marginal with both of their candidates saying the same thing as me (my main aim in standing was to keep everyne else talking about my issue and to stop it becoming a party bandwaggon. He’ll do much better than I did.
It would appear that your candidate’s gone rather quiet on this issue in Bedford wouldn’t?
Cynical? Lib Dems?
Tedious Barry Monk & fake supporters. Yawn.
Tedious arse-licking LibDem freaks!
Just as shite as New Labour and the Tories.
Yawn
Lack of integrity, moral fibre and policies.
Yawn.
Given you’re now claiming we lack policies, it makes nonsense either your last post or of your comments at post 59.
I’ll remind you:
“Quite alot of Lib Dem Policy – Not at all bad in the grand scheme of things”.
Trying to score cheap shots with plithy posts. YAWN.
If Drs want to get real influence in the House of Commons, they should publish a few key manifesto demands, lobby candidates from all parties to sign up to them, name & shame those who do not, and exercise their considerable potential influence that way.
As far as Bedford goes, it’s up to the local Lib Dems in the first instance, but I have to say that the attitude & language of the various Drs posting here is not calculated to woo Lib Dems into standing aside.
Richard Taylor made serious & constructive contacts not rude postings to achieve his success.
Richard Taylor didn’t nick his opponent’s website domain names to acheive his success either.
As for policy, Lib Dem response to this weeks distraous events in medical training has been deafeningly silent. Even the Telegraph has picked this up, and there isn’t a fox or hound in sight either.
Plithy?
Are you taking the pliss?
p[l]oint proven
Dr Monk’s continued attacks on Lib Dems in this post should be enough to convince us to stand in Bedford – he’s clearly no friend of ours.
The other so-called doctors with their strange spellings and rudeness suggest either medical training really has gone down hill, or these are quacks with a capital K
Bring it on! The dirtier the better please……
Err meiriongwril Dr monk hasn’t posted since the 12th of December, obviously he has better things to do that mud flinging with narrow minded LDs.
DundeeMedStudent – looks like as with most medics you need to learn how to spell as well…
ohhhhhh meiow. Is that the best you’ve got?