Peers panel result

After what looks like a recount, the 30 places on the party’s interim peers panel – the pool from which the party leader is expected to make most of his appointments to the House of Lords – have been filled. Once again, the 34 stages of surpluses and exclusions are detailed on Colin Rosenstiel’s site. Below is a list of those elected.

Interim Peers Panel
Zulfiqar Ali
Joyce Arram
Christina Baron
Philip Bennion
Nahid Boethe
Reg Clark
Stan Collins
Ian Cuthbertson
Dee Doocey
Meral Ece
Chris Foote Wood
John Fox
Sue Garden
Philip Goldenberg
Olly Grender
David Griffiths
Steve Hitchins
John Howson
Christina Jebb
Paul Marshall
Rabi Martins
Stuart Mole
Kate Parminter
Kathy Pollard
Marie-Louise Rossi
Michael Steed
Gerald Vernon-Jackson
David Walter
Elizabeth Wilson
Robert Woodthorpe Browne

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


  • So we elected 34 people 2 years ago. Only 2 of them made it to be peers we have now added 34 to the 32 left over from last time making a list of 66. Is it me or is it rather pointless having such a huge list.

  • Has anybody done any analysis to see the degree to which the Leader takes any notice of the interim Peers list when making decisions on who is nominated for peerages?

  • hywelmorgan 5th Nov '06 - 9:54pm

    I think these 34 replace the previous 34. There is also some evidence of people the leader wants to nominate getting themselves elected onto the list (eg Rupert Redesdale).

    Recently appointments have tended to focus on putting people who’d just stopped being MPs into the Lords. Pretty undemocratic in my book – if the people decide to vote an MP out then the parties shouldn’t put them back in through the back door.

  • Tony Greaves 5th Nov '06 - 11:36pm

    Hywel wrote: There is also some evidence of people the leader wants to nominate getting themselves elected onto the list (eg Rupert Redesdale).

    I think this is unfair to Rupert. In 1999 the Liberal Democrat hereditaries were able to elect three of their number as the LD contingent in the 92 continuing hereds. (Plus two who were appointed among the 15 “potential officers of the House”.) Rupert (the hereditary Lord Redesdale – a Mitford family peerage) offered to step down in favour of Conrad Russell, Eric Avebury and Dominic Addington, and instead try to get back as a life peer via the party’s first “interim peers list”. He did that and was elected to the list with the most first preferences (modesty forbids me from saying who had the second highest).

    It is fair to say that it is believed that the peers who voted in that election helped to secure that position for Rupert – who returned to the House as a life peer (I think with the title of Lord Mitford but not sure since the House allows returning hereds to continue to use their first title).

    It might be rather better if the Leader used the panel rather more even if to appoint people “he wants anyway” instead of stuffing the lists with former MPs.

    Of course, whether there will be any more “interim peers” lists (ie what the party calls political party lists of life peers) will depend on whether the currently mooted reforms get anywhere.

    Tony Greaves

  • The new 30 get added to the previous 30 (or actually 28 remaining, as 2 were elevated) to make a full list of potentially 60 (now 58). If elected you are there for four years, and it’s renewed with another 30 every two years.

    There is provision (rightly or wrongly) within the rules governing this whole rather bizarre system for ex-MPs to be considered part of the list as well, and therefore eligible.

    Remember that we have not yet had any nominations from our current Leader – the only Leader to operate under this system was CK. (Although I think the most recent list was published just after Ming took over it had been in the pipeline for a long time).

    It will be interesting to see how the list is now used. Certainly (unless something very unpredictable indeed happens) the vast majority of those elected to the interim peers list will not be subsequently appointed to the Lords. In fact it has been claimed that if you are a reasonably active member of the national party (a conference rep, say) then you are statistically more likely to be appointed to the Lords if you are not on the list than if you are. I think this is not quite true but it gives something of the picture. People on the interim peers list remain in two categories: those who are vanishingly unlikely to be made Peers whether they are on the list or not, and those who seem quite likely to be nominated by a Leader to the upper house, again whether they are on the list or not.

  • hywelmorgan 6th Nov '06 - 12:16pm

    Thanks Tony – I wasn’t making any particular comment on Rupert Redesdales status as a leadership choice but as an illustration that it was possible to virtually ensure the election to the panel of particular candidates if they had sufficient backing.

    Given the electorate for the panel and the level of support needed to get elected it would probably be possible for the combined Parliamentary parties to “guarantee” getting two people elected before you even got onto getting commitments! 🙂

    I think most people voting in that election were of the opinion that Rupert was 100% certain to be among the first appointments – and your’re right in that Rupert took a much more sensible decision re engaging with this process than certain leaders did!

    BTW Suzanne there is at least one more person who could be classed as an ethnic minority. Ethnic minority groups are not exclusively non-white.

  • There are also ethnic minority members from the first batch of people elected to the list in 2004 who could be chosen from.

    Is the real purpose of the peers list to continue to get peole to labour on the often thankless path of party committees (looking at the list state and regional particularly as well as Federal)?

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

  • Peter Martin
    PS @ Joe, " is absolutely not in the hands of the government." Except when it's the Venezuelan govt ?...
  • Peter Martin
    should be: "the chances of vaccinated persons picking up an infection are no less than for the unvaccinated person"...
  • Peter Martin
    @ Jeff, As I think we both agree, the vaccination doesn't prevent anyone being infected. So the chances of vaccinated persons picking up an infection are no ...
  • Peter Martin
    @ Martin Frost, If you are "all for a greater understanding and respect for science" you should know better than to make unsupported assertions like "..........
  • Michael Bukola
    We must show courage in our convictions. What is our purpose if not to protect the vulnerable and safeguard everyone's human rights. If the Party's much heralde...