All presidential and vice presidential candidates were offered an additional piece given the importance of and interest in the announcement on diversity quotas.
We are in the middle of elections for internal roles in the Federal party, and I am one of the candidates for President. Voting opens tomorrow. So, this morning, I sat down to write a piece about why members should vote for me.
But then, at lunchtime, a statement appeared on the party website – stating that – in the middle of the election – a decision has been taken to change the rules on diversity quotas. And not just any old change, but the very change that only last month Autumn Conference voted overwhelmingly not just to reject, but to reject without even debating. That change is to apply the quotas to people according to their sex at birth, so that trans men will be considered women and trans women considered men. If you are non-binary, who knows what happens!
I am so angry I almost can’t type.
It isn’t just the fact that this decision goes against the express wishes of Conference. Or that it is being done in the middle of an election, inviting all sorts of challenges. Or that it is hard to see how it can work in practice, given the party don’t have gender reassignment data for the vast majority of members – and even the ones they do have it for are likely to revoke permission for the party to hold it, in case they are outed by standing for election. Or that it has been slipped out by being posted on a website, rather than all candidates being informed – such cowardice! Or the fact that if it is an attempt to prevent the party being sued it is probably doomed to failure, on GDPR grounds if nothing else. No, it’s the fact that they are voluntarily throwing trans and non-binary people under the bus. Voluntarily!
It is far from clear what the law is exactly at this point, but even if we are not compliant with it, the party should have to be dragged kicking and screaming to do this! If we give up without a fight, not only will we be letting trans and non-binary people down and violating one of the core values of the party, namely, our opposition to discrimination of any kind – we will also do ourselves immense damage. We will lose the trust of many of our LGBTQ+ members and voters and their allies. Some may choose to quit the party altogether. The stupidity of the way that this has been done, without any explanation to those involved, without any priming, without any expression of regret..! I am not sure whether I feel furious – or heartbroken.
What is to become of our party if we carry on in this craven way? We are supposed to be good at handling this sort of stuff: at understanding the optics, the impact of messages, at considering our message grid. “What do we say about ourselves, what will our opposition say about us?” That’s how we do our best campaigning. How do we not apply it to our internal decisions?
But instead, the party is going to do the wrong thing, and compound the wrongness by doing it in the wrong way.
I am so sick of this kind of unbearable, atrocious, illiberal, unnecessary, self-inflicted damage. It’s got to stop. And trying to stop this kind of thing is why I am standing for President.
Please note that, given the nature of the subject of the discussion, comments on this piece will require pre-moderation by a member of the volunteer Editorial Team. Please be patient as we consider these.
* Prue Bray (she/her) has been a member of the Lib Dems since 1994. She has been a councillor in Wokingham since 2000. She was the Chair of the Candidates Committee in England during the 2017 and 2019 General Elections and the 2019 European elections, Vice Chair of the Party in England and was chair of ALDC until November 2024. She writes in a personal capacity.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Hywel
paul barker
Peter Chambers
Mark Valladares
Mark Smulian
56 Comments
I assume this is to comply with the Supreme Court ruling. The party is not above the law, if we are unhappy with the ruling we need to get parliament to change the law and override the Supreme Court decision.
The ECHR guidance is a red herring, this is the ECHR’s interpretation of the law. The law still applies without the ECHR guidance.
100% this. I’m appalled at the party currently. This is absolutely the wrong move and flies in the face of our party’s democratic nature.
The right, but sadly necessary, decision would have been suspending the gender quotas entirely until a time where a working group can properly review the options we have AND give conference the chance to vote on it. The Scottish greens abandoned their quotas and turned out fine, there’s no reason why we can’t either.
The party’s capitulation on trans issues certainly isn’t liberal, and imposing something conference just voted decisively to reject isn’t exactly democratic either.
Thank you Prue for this clear unambiguous statement of what our Party policy on Trans industry is & how the Party should be standing with our Trans members, not acting against them (and against the explicity decision of Conference).
Well said, I wish more of the people at the top of the party were as outspoken in defence of the rights of a vulnerable minority
Thank you Prue. You just won my vote – which, given the party position here, may be my last act as a member (or activist). I will remain happy to donate though – albeit now to trans people who want to sue the party for this betrayal.
The fools at the top of the party who think that doing this will placate the small minority of shouty litigious anti-trans members, are wrong.
The fools at the top of the party who think this is a necessary action to for compliance with the Supreme Court decision, are wrong.
But they are not just wrong. They are spineless cowards devoid of any sense of right or wrong, just trying to avoid another battle.
Then get out of politics. Politics is about fighting battles.
Thank you Prue. You have my vote.
The party was asked to fix the quota in Article 2.5 six months ago (May) in order to comply with the law. It’s a disgrace it has taken so long to address the issue when the election timetable itself was already known back in March.
I’m utterly disgusted at the changed rules.
This party used to stand up for what it believed in. It used to fight for things that were right but unpopular. It used to have both guts and a backbone. This is a spineless, craven, despicable change, put out in the sort of underhand way that demonstrates how ashamed we should be of it.
(And I am not in any way blaming the Returning Officer, who in this case has had to do what he was told.)
Like you, I’m seething with disgust over this change. It’s vile. Whoever’s responsible for it should be sacked immediately and thrown out of the party, for either malice (if they knew what they were doing) or gross incompetence (if they didn’t). As others have said, we don’t need to have a quota. Ending it entirely would have been preferable, if the lawyers think the risk is really that great.
Party leadership needs to get this into their skulls; it doesn’t matter whether they’re actively attacking trans people or not (thankfully they’re not). Merely having publicly available statements in which trans people are written out of existence shows, loudly and explicitly, that we’re not a liberal party and don’t meet the basic standards expected by modern, socially liberal people. They’ll go to the Greens instead.
Thank you for this, Prue. Were I still a member, you’d have my vote. Sadly, this party doesn’t deserve someone of your decency.
This kind of thing (changing the transphobia definition to welcome so-called “gender critical” transphobes, giving stalls at special rates to Illiberal Voice For Some Cis Women, Daisy taking a grinning selfie with Maya Forstater) is why I quit the party. Conference keeps voting in favour of trans people’s rights, and one or two people in the leadership seem to decide unilaterally that Conference’s votes don’t matter, and nor do liberal principles, and that all that matters is appeasing some rich transphobes who threaten to sue.
Either they don’t understand that those people will continue their threats and will never, ever be appeased, or they agree with their horrific views. Either way, there was no point me remaining a member. I don’t mind losing a fair fight in a Conference debate, but if the leadership are just going to pretend that the losing side won anyway, and are not willing to use one iota of political capital to support a minority group who are currently being discriminated against to the point they can no longer take part in public life — choosing instead to join in with that discrimination — then there is no point in membership.
I was angered beyond belief when I read about this online today. Given that this was dealt with at Conference, I fail to understand why the decision the Party has made (at a day’s notice) is so undemocratic.
I get that the Party is in a bit of a panic legally but surely the best thing to do would have been to suspend gender quotas.
I just want to thank Prue for being unashamedly bold, clear with no space for inconsistency.
This completely goes against the democratic conventions which has been made by our Party at conference which was voted for and I think if we are to take a liberal stand on this then we should be agents acting against agents or apparatuses that will further marginalise a community. I will continue to say we are liberals, and liberalism, for me, is to stand up against about the abuse of state power against a certain group.
And to do this in a middle of an election in which the election is due tomorrow for electronic ballot is just bad unfortunate timing and will place a lot of burden on a incoming President and VP.
Love you Prue. Thank you for standing up for the community when the party seemingly doesn’t have the guts to
I am unable to understand how it is that those of us who have a certificate to say that for all purposes we are a particular gender can have this rendered invalid by an obscure ruling created by judges that heard from no trans persons.
This judgement and all that falls from it is clearly very wrong a conduit for bigotry and must be opposed by anyone with a Liberal bone in their body, if the law is as such either we must drop all gender based quoters or pass definition enabling trans women to be represented as any other woman instead of this insidious underhand madness
We don’t just need a new president, we need a new leader!
I don’t know what Ed Davey thinks his job is but a truly liberal leader of a liberal party would not have allowed this issue to be handled like this!
It’s refreshing to see such a staunch & passionate display of liberal principles from a leadership [presidential] candidate – and reassuring to see the strength of feeling amongst the members in the comments.
Just frustrating that it is triggered by yet another occasion that the party has been spinelessly diving for cover behind our trans & non-binary colleagues instead of standing up for them.
I find it simply incredible – by which I literally mean unbelievable – that somebody has taken this decision in express contradiction of the repeated views of Conference that this debated this issue often enough for the matter to be settled. I wish to know:
(A) Specifically who authorised this decision. A name. Not some committee or group. Who said: “Do this.”
(B) Who authorised the way in which it was communicated?
(C) Why was the decision taken now?
(D) Does the decision stem from pressure from the well-known pressure group constantly raising this issue?
I have now decided to vote for Prue, who demonstrates exactly what we need in a Party President by raising this publicly.
If LDs no longer support trans people should those of us who do move to the Greens? So much for increasing membership…
A shocking state of affairs that risks outing trans members.
Thank you Prue, for standing up and displaying leadership. You have been decisive, rather than reactive.
I agree wholeheartedly with you, Prue. For a party that prides itself on championing equality and standing with marginalised people, it is all too happy to bend over backwards to appease TERFs and, as you say, voluntarily throw trans, non-binary and gender non-conforming people under the bus. Utterly shameful and pathetic. You have my vote.
I really wish that we had debated constitutional amendment F4 at Conference. This would have alerted the Party to the problem that our current quotas are not in line with the Equality Act and would therefore need to change in some respect. Instead, we now have an abrupt change in the middle of an election.
The author is absolutely right here. She has picked exactly the right moment to be angry at illiberal acts.
It would have been good to see more anger when the party bureaucracy blocked maternity leave for candidates, leaving PPCs without rights they would have had without question in the real world.
Changing the rules mid election is bad enough. But changing the rules to discriminate against a small group of members is appalling. Especially when Conference affirmed the current rules just a month ago. And to try to sneak the rule change out without directly informing candidates…this is downright illiberal
Thank you Prue for speaking out. And showing true leadership.
I’ve just read Mark Pack’s newsletter this morning, and I have issues…
Firstly it states “The short version is that the party’s legal advice forces some alterations to how the elections are run”, but I sincerely doubt any lawyer is currently able to give a 100% definitive judgement on this issue right now, so rather than *forcing* this change I assume a risk judgement and choice has been made.
Secondly it says “Those changes though do not change our overall policy of support for trans rights” which can’t be true if we chose to change internal party processes in a way that diminishes the human rights of our trans members, and once we give an inch they will be back for the mile.
If the legal risk of not changing the quota rules was genuinely too great, then there was a third option of simply deciding that if we can’t operate a quota scheme fully in accordance with our values and the wishes of the majority of our members, then we temporarily suspend *ALL* quotas while the dust settles and a way forward can be debated and agreed by the party. That would be preferable to meekly throwing our trans members under the bus for an easy life.
Nobody said being liberal is easy, but if we don’t take a stand on issues like this, who will?
Adam is right that someone needs to be sacked. This isn’t the first time that I’ve thought ‘that’s not right’ about something from HQ. Isn’t even the first time this year… I think as a party we can be forgiving of the occasional cock up, but something that goes against our values cannot be forgiven.
Well done Prue.
I am concerned by Prue’s comment “even if we are not compliant with it [the law]” Would people feel the same about complying with tax laws for example? I understand people may want to campaign to change the law but in the meantime the Party needs to abide by it.
“If the legal risk of not changing the quota rules was genuinely too great, then there was a third option of simply deciding that if we can’t operate a quota scheme fully in accordance with our values and the wishes of the majority of our members, then we temporarily suspend *ALL* quotas while the dust settles and a way forward can be debated and agreed by the party. That would be preferable to meekly throwing our trans members under the bus for an easy life.”
This was the position taken by Plus.
The returning officer, the president, and the CEO (all cis men, for what it’s worth) decided that their assessment, based on the legal advice which we still haven’t seen, was more valid than that of the people affected.
I’ve slept on this and frankly I’m even angrier than I was yesterday.
The preamble to the condition means NOTHING of we won’t actually stand up and fight for people’s rights.
Thank you, Prue, for standing up for this. I’ve read the statement (had to follow the link in the article to find it!) and the idea that we even considered consulting the EHRC boggles the mind. The guidance was shaky enough before they removed it from their site last week and can surely have no merit now.
I’m glad to see there’s so many people supporting Prue’s post in the comments and I hope this is taken on board by the powers that be. If we don’t fight against attacks on minorities like this, we’re not liberal and I don’t want to be part of a movement that isn’t.
We need a full statement from the party leadership answering all the questions Stephen raised in his comment, and we need more people like Prue to challenge these decisions.
It’s been especially patronising for those same cis men to tell me as a trans person what the community does and doesn’t want. Othering me into a third category isn’t a compromise, it’s capitulation.
These internal elections must not be allowed to go ahead. Changing the election regulations after nominations have closed and just before voting opens makes this a travesty of our internal democracy. The Federal Board must hold an emergency meeting today and postpone these elections. If the Party has received legal advice that our existing paragraphs 2.5 and 2.6 of the Federal Party Constitution are incompatible with the Supreme Court decision then that advice must be made available to members and the Party must hold a Special Conference to decide how to amend them before the elections are re-run. The leeway allowed to the Returning Officer was never intended to allow changes to the Constitution that may properly only be made by Conference.
Isn’t this much ado about nothing? Trans members already have their own generous (10%) protected quota in federal elections (see clause 2.6.c below) The change to cl 2.5 doesn’t affect that and simply makes our constitution compliant with the law. What is the problem?
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:
….
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.
When I first read Prue’s comment, I was also incensed. However, having read the statement, I can understand the reasons why a statement was required. There are two different criteria to consider – whether a complainant would win a case against the Party and whether a complainant could bring a case against the Party that the party would probably win but might lose on a technicality – and in either case would divert considerable effort and resources from other priorities.
It appears that the current wording could theoretically lead to outcomes in which the quota rules could result in trans or non-binary candidates are over-represented in the declared results. I have myself been a candidate in party elections where I was elected according to the number of votes but then ‘de-elected’ under quota rules, so I am sensitive to this situation. However, that is an inevitable consequence of measures to enhance diversity, so I accepted the outcome – something that other Party members clearly do not.
The advice does not affect the the intention of the current wording of the Constitution or the overall level of diversity in committees. It will may have some marginal impact, but this will depend on the number of candidates with each protected characteristic (and what other characteristics they have).
If legal action was taken against the Party, the Returning Officer would probably be one of the named parties. Their task is onerous enough as it is, and we should allow them to accept legal advice given and received in good faith.
Thank you Prue. This is why you have my vote. HQ have lost their minds.
I read this article with mounting anger, disappointment and frustration at our party. I’m not even sure if it is my party any longer. As others have said, why not suspend quotas until the legal questions can be clearly answered.
One of my grandchildren, struggling through the period of realising that the gender they were registered as at birth did not represent the gender they felt comfortable in, and deciding what to do about it was also approaching the age of casting their first vote. Being someone who thinks such things through they looked at policies and in particular at the attitude to trans people shown through those policies. The Liberal Democrats won their vote. That can’t be a unique experience. Where does that person, still young and vulnerable, find their political home if this is what the Lib Dems do?
It’s not often that a policy change makes me weep. This one does.
The rights of women and trans people both have to be recognised. However, the Supreme Court has determined that where they conflict the rights of women prevail.
If the Lib Dem Party disagrees with the law as it stands then it should campaign to change the law not defy the law. Liberalism depends on there being laws and that the laws are upheld.
Since the Supreme Court ruling the Lib Dems have been slowly re-establishing credibility with the trans community.
This utterly perverse decision seems almost calculated to destroy that credibility at exactly the point where the Green Party is re-establishing its credibility under Zack Polanski (and gradually pulling ahead of the Lib Dems in the polls).
Not only is the policy wrong; it’s is also amazingly inept politics.
This is outrageous. The SC ruling did not make policy requirements and indeed would have gone beyond it’s remit if it did. That was up to EHRC with it’s long standing anti trans bias. After the European Commission statement it withdrew it’s ‘update’ because it is clearly illegal in that it did not comply with Goodwin (2002) or article 9 of the European Convention and potentially the Human Rights Act (1988). That leaves us with the inclusive 2011 EHRC guidance and the Gender Recognition Act (2004) sex 9.1 produced in response to the Goodwin Ruling (2002) that states that a person with a gender recognition certificate for all purposes accepts the rights and responsibilities of their acquired sex / gender for the rest of their days. As such the position of the Lib Dems is nowire that likely illegal and opens the Party up to potential potential legal challenge. This should be instantly reversed fir purposes of legal compliance and a full investigation launched into how it came to happen.
I was a member for some years, until I left during the coalition period. I’d come to the party from a lifetime as a Labour member/voter, and appreciated the kindness and intelligence of Charles Kennedy. I didn’t like what happened with him.
Fast forward to the last 6 years – I transitioned, having been closeted since the age of 6; I looked at the Liberal Democrats with fresh eyes, and had a chance to speak to my local candidates and decided that this was where my vote would go.
A party that had refreshed itself, and found its’ principles again. You’ve had my vote since 2019 and I had been considering joining again but now?
How do I interpret this craven capitulation to the hatred and bigotry that is swarming over the country? I’m less angry and more sad, disappointed and fearful. If a few groundless threats and skewed risk assessments from unknown people within a political party can spell the end of inclusion in any meaningful sense, then what is the point of my vote, my money and my time.
A painful week.
Thank you for taking such a strong stand here Prue. You just won my vote.
What Simon Pike says.
Also, what Angie Robertson says
Also what Slamdac says
Basic human decency aside, this is just terrible politics. The Lib Dems fill a niche for progressive-minded people who would be turned off by the Greens’ pro-independence stances on Scotland and Wales, or the campist left’s bellyaching about solidarity with Ukraine. This is the leadership signaling that they don’t matter. It’s them deciding that the party would rather be comfortable merging into the Labservative blob of timid and sauceless politics, which as we’ve seen in Caerffili is being overwhelmingly rejected by the British public. It’s them deciding that this party too would rather join Labour and the Conservatives in the dustbin of history, rather than seize this moment of upheaval in British civil society to offer real alternatives to both the dying establishment and the insurgent populists.
What would Roy Jenkins and Paddy Ashdown think about this? An utter betrayal of the progressive values which the party has been claiming to uphold, for absolutely no gain.
Honestly I think this perfectly models what transphobia does in practice. Something was working well enough as it was. It’s suggested that we change it to be needlessly invasive so we can be hostile to trans people to literally no benefit for anyone. When people are consulted on if it’s what they want, it’s rejected. It’s pushed through anyway. It’s exhausting but it’s what keeps happening.
I wouldn’t mind so much if it did actually do anything to make life better for cis women… I mean it’d suck but if suppressing us would actually make other people’s lives better… well, ok, I can only speak for me but ok… but it doesn’t. No woman is more represented because of this, or any safer, nobody benefits from this.
Will mention Victoria Collins running for VP is also fighting for trans rights. I think the party should be giving these extremists short shrift. The law on public spaces is exactly the same. It allows for single sex spaces but does not mandate them. We have been rightly criticised for poor interpretation and application of our own laws and need to wise up before everyone’s rights are threatened. First they went for the Equality Act, then the Human Rights Act.
“It will may have some marginal impact”
… like forcibly outing trans people against their will of they want to sit on a lib dem committee? Come on Simon. Just because the number of people affected is a minority doesn’t make the effect marginal.
I’m resigning my membership if this decision isn’t quickly reversed. It is humiliating for the membership to be treated this way.
The time trans community needs support this happens, the party becomes tradphobic. How did this happen? Who is responsible? The party leaders, deputy leader & senior politicians in the party should have known this & been aware of it. Otherwise they should investigate this & never allow transphobic rules & changes happen. I think the leader of the Party should apologise & convince member that transphobia is no place in this party. This is essential & expected from the Leader to dobso.
The Liberal Democrat Autumn Conference declined to debate a motion to exclude trans people in their affirmed gender from diversity quotas as the motion misrepresented the scope of the EHRC guidance and Supreme Court ruling which has done everything except provide clarity.
For the party to suddenly abandon its principal of inclusivity with respect to trans people and change its rules in the midst of an election cycle sets it on a par with the party of national government which, due to its reversal of inclusivity of trans people has seen members haemorrhaging to the Green Party.
The move flies in the face of the principals of the party, and is disrespectful to the trans members it has claimed to support.
Thank you so much Prue for this unambiguous statement in support of our brothers and sisters. I too was shocked when I read the statement from + as I’d missed the sudden change. Good on you for taking such a clear stand.
I’m 100% in agreement with you Pru. The ‘decision’ is, in the light of the recent conference vote on the subject of equality (and equity), is appalling.
Separately I note from the comments that some members are not aware of the distinction between the ECHR and the EHRC. The EHRC is a UK Government quango charged with ensuring the UK is in line with the European Convention on Human Rights (the ECHR).
It is the draft guidance issued by the EHRC, now withdrawn, on interpretation of the 2010 Equalities Act is where the dedate is. Since the Government haven’t accepted any new guidance from the EHRC nothing has changed, the 2010 Equalities Act remain, for the moment, as is. The Supreme Court’s recent adjudication did not change any law. It is down to the EHRC to review and update any guidance on the interpretation of the 2010 Equalities Acr and for the Government to review and either accept or reject the EHRC guidance.
So nothing has as yet changed but quite a few organisations have rushed to change their policies based on the now withdrawn EHRC draft guidance and in so doing have potentially opened themselves to legal action.
I’m sorry to say if something doesn’t change very quickly on this cowardly and fundamently undemocratic decision, even councillors like me who have been LibDems all their life are going to be leaving the party very quickly.
In reply to Lord Strasburger’s suggestion that this is “much ado about nothing”, I’d say that forcing someone to reveal whether they are cis or trans if they wish to run for a place on a committee is intrusive and potentially dangerous – far from being nothing.
Well done Prue for your clear and principled stand here. As I understand it motion F15 was on the agenda of our Spring conference and F4 in the Autumn. The Conference each time rightly declined to debate them. In the meantime the Federal Appeals Panel decided not to accede to an application on the basis that it had not been established that any change in the Constitution was necessary. https://www.libdems.org.uk/fileadmin/groups/2_Federal_Party/Documents/Complaints_Procedures/Case_74_Hollowood_Periminary_ruling.pdf
That decision should stand. The failure of those responsible for this emergency action to communicate their reasoning to members of the party, and in particular the candidates in the internal election, is quite lamentable. It seems quite right that the Supreme Court ruling did not compel any party to change its Constitution. However since the diversity quotas seem to be causing more problems than they are solving perhaps they should be suspended until the Federal Council has considered whether they are reasonable, whether they are necessary and proportionate, and whether a majority of members are likely to support their continuence, with particular reference to those whom they are intended to benefit, and those who are discriminated against by them in an undemocratic and illiberal manner.