Interim Peers Panel reform – missing the main question?

Nestling near the top of the second page of the Federal Executive’s consultation paper about how the party’s new members of the House of Lords are appointed (pdf) is a little three letter word which is central to the issue.

It talks about the party’s current Interim Peers Panel system, whereby conference representatives elect a group of names – of which I was one last time round – and to which are added a group of people by dint of previous offices they have held, such as former MPs.

That little word is “can”, as in this is a list “from which the Leader can” select who to appoint to the Lords, rather than “shall”.

In that small word is the heart of the issue. The original system was intended to be one which the party leader must follow (with allowance for the party leader to pick one name of their own to add to the list). The ‘can’ versus ‘shall’ debate was central to the many controversies the creation of the Interim Peers Panel system generated. Preserving large discretion for the party leader either means, depending on your viewpoint, preserving sensible flexibility, especially to bring in new expertise and new blood to the party, or it means preserving the leader’s powers of patronage by letting them personally decide who is going to get to sit in Parliament until death.

Therefore it is a shame that the consultation paper says so little about the late 1990s controversy around the creation of the system. That is not only a comment from the historian in me, bearing in mind how many party activists are new to the party since then. It is also a comment from the political realist in me – because there is very little value in having a system which is not then implemented.

Whether current and future party leaders can be forced, enticed or persuaded to follow a particular future system is central to that future system’s impact. However, the consultation paper says almost nothing on this central issue. For example, in judging the relative merits of different ways of electing the panel, the consultation paper does not directly address the question of what will give the list the highest public and party credibility in a way that raises the odds of it also being a meaningful list. It is those sorts of questions which need to be asked and answered.

There is much useful and important detail discussed in the consultation paper, but unless the consultation tackles head on the question of ‘what will future party leaders actually do?’ it will be a consultation that misses the main question.

* Mark Pack is a member of the Federal Board and editor of Liberal Democrat Newswire. He is a candidate for Party President.

Read more by or more about .
This entry was posted in Party policy and internal matters.


  • David Allworthy 2nd Sep '13 - 12:45pm


    The working group has one session with the a representative of the Leader on this subject so far and no doubt will have others before we are finished. I thought we had covered this point in the paper as it has been my main objective since the paper I put to the FE a year ago. If it is missing tghen I’m afraid that is my fault for missing it in the proofing due to to much other conflicting work. Thanks for raising it again.


  • Thanks for that very positive response David – and I appreciate that some of the discussion around the question and possible answers may best be done in private!

  • David Evans 6th Sep '13 - 3:03pm

    Good to see that you have picked up on the key point I raised on this several times in the past on LDV. If we have the courage to adopt this we will be one step closer to being a truly democratic party

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • User AvatarDavid Raw 23rd Oct - 10:04pm
    @ Richard Underhill I gather Mr Bellotti was none too popular with the supporters of Brighton & Hove Albion Football Club.
  • User AvatarDavid Evans 23rd Oct - 9:46pm
    Alex (Macfie), David (Raw), John (Boss) - Martin Baxter at Electoral Calculus, produced an excellent infographic showing what happened in the run up to 2015....
  • User AvatarRoger Lake 23rd Oct - 9:19pm
    First, thanks to all above for an uncommon feast of good sense. @David Raw "If the party is to have a future it must fashion...
  • User AvatarMartin Land 23rd Oct - 9:07pm
    My proposal for the GE is that every time we mention Boris or the Tories policies, we should have an asterisk and a corresponding message...
  • User AvatarRichard Underhill 23rd Oct - 8:43pm
    David Raw 23rd Oct '19 - 2:27pm I was one of the campaigners who lived within one hours drive of Eastbourne for the bye-election won...
  • User AvatarMark Blackburn 23rd Oct - 8:14pm
    Bollocks to Boris. Same DNA, same simplicity, same clarity. Bollocks to Boris - all his lies, all his bluster, all his hypocrisy.