Internal Elections

Our party is run by members, for members. Whether it's our leader, members of Federal Committees or the teams that run your local party, everyone is elected by fellow members.

The last Federal Election was run in 2022. The next Federal Elections will take place in the latter part of 2025.

Election Regulation #41 states:

For the elections for the Leader, President and Vice President of the Liberal Democrats: The Federal Board shall set a spending limit for election expenses, not including travel or subsistence, for each candidate, when they set the timetable for the election.

The Federal Board have set the limit for the 2025 President and Vice President elections at £20,000.

Hustings Diary

The following shows the State/Regional hustings that are planned. Not all regions have confirmed dates or times yet. This will be updated when they are.

The Returning Officer has received the following advice from the Federal Party, and agreed with its recommendations.

Following the Supreme Court decision in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent), the Federal Party has asked the EHRC for guidance about how to approach positive action in internal elections.

In advance of receiving this guidance, given the timing of our internal elections, the Federal Party has taken legal advice about the interpretation of rules 2.5 and 2.6 in the constitution, insofar as they apply to groups with protected characteristics. It is important to say that the constitution asserts the primacy of the Equality Act 2010 in interpreting any rules, and gives authority to the Returning Officer to make reasonable interpretations of the rules in situations where there appears to be a conflict between the constitution and the Equality Act 2010.

Our legal advice is that the Party needs to follow three basic principles:

1. Positive action is permitted up to the point at which a group that shares a protected characteristic is appropriately represented in the Party’s governance. The relevant benchmark for a political party representing the country as a whole is the proportion of people in the country who share that characteristic: i.e. if 10% of the population share the characteristic, then the Party can take positive action until 10% of its governance also shares that characteristic.
2. The Party must treat each protected characteristic as a separate category for the purposes of assessing the relevant benchmark, and mechanisms to take positive action. For the avoidance of doubt, the advice is that the party must treat groups with the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment as separate groups.
3. It is reasonable to ‘round up’ to whole numbers in taking positive action. So for a group who share a protected characteristic with a low prevalence in the population as a whole, it is reasonable to specify that one place on a larger committee is reserved for that group.

In practice this means that two clauses of the constitution need to be reinterpreted by the Returning Officer to make them compliant with the Equality Act 2010, in the context of the Supreme Court judgement. In doing so, the Returning Officer needs to be reasonable and follow as closely as possible the apparent intention of the original drafting.

Taking clause 2.5 first, with relevant parts underlined :

2.5 Whenever this Constitution provides for the election by party members to a Federal Committee, not less than 40% or, if 40% is not a whole number, the whole number nearest to but not exceeding 40% of those elected shall self-identify as men or non-binary people, and self-identify as women or non-binary people respectively

The apparent intention behind this clause is for the party to take positive action for both the protected characteristics of Sex and Gender Reassignment. However it merges benchmarks for these groups, which the Party is legally required to treat separately.

In terms of Sex, the Party’s legal advice is that it is reasonable to treat the rule as saying:

2.5 Whenever this Constitution provides for the election by party members to a Federal Committee, not less than 40% or, if 40% is not a whole number, the whole number nearest to but not exceeding 40% of those elected shall be men and women respectively.

The party must interpret ‘men’ here as meaning ‘cis men’, and ‘women’ as meaning ‘cis women’.

In terms of Gender Reassignment, it is reasonable for the purposes of these elections to make an adjustment to rule 2.6 that meets the intention of the constitutional drafting.

Taking clause 2.6, with relevant parts underlined:

2.6 Whenever this Constitution provides for the election by party members of ten or more persons to any Federal Committee or other Federal body: a. not less than 10% or, if 10% is not a whole number, the whole number nearest to but not exceeding 10% shall be from underrepresented ethnic backgrounds; b. (not less than 10% or, if 10% is not a whole number, the whole number nearest to but not exceeding 10% shall be disabled people; and c. not less than 10% or, if 10% is not a whole number, the whole number nearest to but not exceeding 10% shall be people from under-represented sexual orientations and gender identities, including trans and non-binary identities.

The intention behind this clause is for the party to take positive action on larger committees for both the protected characteristics of Sexual Orientation and Gender Reassignment. However, it merges benchmarks for these groups, which the party is legally required to treat separately, and sets a benchmark higher than the combined Census recorded prevalence in the population for both groups (of 3.2% and  0.5% respectively).

The party’s legal advice concludes that it is reasonable for the purposes of these elections to treat the rule as saying:

2.6 Whenever this Constitution provides for the election by party members of ten or more persons to any Federal Committee or other Federal body: 

a. not less than 10% or, if 10% is not a whole number, the whole number nearest to but not exceeding 10% shall be from underrepresented ethnic backgrounds; 

b. not less than 10% or, if 10% is not a whole number, the whole number nearest to but not exceeding 10% shall be disabled people; 

c. not less than 5% or, if 5% is not a whole number, the positive whole number nearest to 5% shall be people from under-represented sexual orientations; and

d. not less than 5% or, if 5% is not a whole number, the positive whole number nearest to 5% shall be people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

This interpretation of the rules as a whole provides a reasonable interpretation of the constitution’s intent, in the light of the Supreme Court ruling; and is in the Party’s legal advisor’s view the smallest set of drafting changes that is consistent with the ruling. This interpretation will stand for this election, and it is up to the party as a whole whether they wish to change the constitution at any future date.

No constitutional change is required here; the constitution is drafted in such a way to permit the Returning Officer to interpret the rules reasonably in the light of court judgments, and to take the Equality Act 2010 in this area as the underlying foundation.

In testing the arguments in this area, the party has sought views from many different groups, and ensured that our legal advice reflects the range of arguments and considerations in this area.

[ENDS]