As Liberal Democrats, we are rightly proud of our commitment to pluralism, participation, and fairness—not just in policy, but in the way we run our own party. Yet our system for electing and supporting the Party President falls short of these values. The role is unpaid, heavily time-consuming, and increasingly inaccessible to the very members we say we want to empower. It’s time to consider reform—and a co-presidency model is a logical next step.
Unpaid and Unsustainable
The President chairs the Federal Board, sits on multiple key party committees such as the Federal Policy Committee and Federal Conference Committee.
The President also represents members at senior levels, fundraising engagements and often becomes the de facto face of internal reform and member engagement. It is, in many ways, a full-time job—but with no salary.
This reality severely restricts who can stand. Since 1992 only a handful of credible candidates have not been parliamentarians, of those who haven’t been, they’ve all gone onto national significance. Daisy Cooper as MP for St Albans, Lucy Nethsinga as the Leader of Cambridgeshire County Council and Mark Pack who is now a member of the House of Lords.
Most recent presidents have been MPs or peers with either financial security or institutional support. Only one non-parliamentarian has held the role (Mark Pack). That’s not because of a lack of talent—it’s a structural issue to do with the inaccessibility of the role.
A co-presidency would allow two elected individuals to share this intense workload and bring their own strengths to the table, making the role accessible to a much wider pool of members.
Two Presidents, Broader Representation
Introducing a co-presidency model offers more than just practical relief—it can also enhance representation. Two presidents could reflect the geographical, gender, and professional diversity of our membership far better than any single person ever could.
Other parties already do this successfully. Parties across Europe—including several within the ALDE family—have adopted similar models with positive results. As a party with a pro-european identity, it makes sense that we look to the continent in order to emulate a more coherent politics.
Shared Workload, Shared Strengths
A co-presidency would also build in resilience. If one co-president falls ill or needs to take leave, the other can maintain continuity. In an era of constant campaigning, media scrutiny, and internal reform, that stability matters.
It also allows for functional specialisation—one co-president could focus on internal party structures, the other on public engagement and grassroots mobilisation. This would not only make the presidency more manageable but more effective.
Living Our Values
For a party that champions democratic reform and power-sharing in government, our own internal structures should reflect those same values. At present, we send a clear—if unintentional—message: unless you can afford to do this unpaid and full-time, don’t bother applying.
We can do better.
It’s time to explore what constitutional changes would be required to introduce a co-presidency, whether it could be trialled in a future term, and how to ensure the role is more accessible in general.
The Liberal Democrats already do leadership differently. Let’s take the next step—and model collaborative leadership at the top. As a party who wants to look like the society we live in, this would open the role up to more diverse candidates.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Labour councillor missing in action
New NHS cash will be wasted if social care is left untouched
Prince William's billionaire pal dies after swallowing bee while playing polo
Transition Dundee Ceilidh #dundeewestend
The Trinity made comprehensible.
A remarkable woman and a park
Lib Dems in the King's birthday honours 2025
John Waller
Nigel Jones
Andy Daer
Simon R
15 Comments
I disagree.
Co-leadership in any kind of organisation is normally a mistake, and I see it as holding back those parties in both the UK and overseas which have tried it.
It is just a fact of life that if we are going to have unpaid roles at any level, there will be people who cannot take them up for financial reasons. Complaining about that is like complaining about gravity. Making it only half a role instead of full time may widen participation a bit, but only at the expense of divided focus, which is why I don’t like co-leaders.
I also see many disadvantages in making such roles paid ones, so would keep the status quo.
An interesting idea. Possibly with merit. Before I could be pursuaded, I need to know how it fits with our vce-president role. Since the VP position was created, about 4 or 5 years ago, I don’t recall hearing anything from them.
Co Presidents would be like Co Managers in football i.e. it doesn’t work.
Our President needs to be paid a salary in that way all members would be able to put themselves forward.
It’s remarkable how sketchily the president’s role is set out in the Federal Constitution:
“The President shall be the principal public representative of the Party.”
I imagine that definition will surprise the many who thought that was the leader’s role. And beyond it there is just a long list of boards and committees that the president is a member of or chairs.
It’s no surprise that the role has been interpreted in such different ways. To me the best presidents in any membership organisation act as the voice of the ordinary member in its higher counsels as well as representing the organisation to those members.
I share the authors view that the role should not be so dominated by parliamentarians. I also wonder if the idea that the president should be centrally concerned with reviewing and revising the party’s constitution will last.
Whilst I have my reservations about the concept of a co-Presidency, it could be reasonably argued that, as a means of addressing the argument that finding one person with the range of skills required by the role is difficult, as argued in 2008, it offers a potential solution.
It does assume that both postholders are of the same mind and communicate with each other well, but you can’t really test that until they’re elected, I guess, in the same way that any individual can only be judged on their merits in post.
But until you try, you can’t really tell.
I am, however, of the view that, by restricting choice for the members, you potentially exclude possibilities, and so I wouldn’t fundamentally object to any changes that allowed job sharing. Let the members decide if they think it can work.
I disagree and concur with Mohamed Amin.
Two chairman, and if they don’t get along. Then there is the briefing against one another. People know that it goes on. The keyboard warriors will have a field day.
The non executive side of the party is run by Volunteers, it has worked since the role was created. I’m sure there are candidates out there who will come forward. The problem for some would be who comes forward, and does their face fit.
I believe that an experienced president / chairman can fit in to any structure. The incoming chairman must be experienced at delegating some of his responsibilities to others and trusting them to deliver in the role.
The authors of the post both sit on the federal board.. Are they telling us something ahead of an announcement.. Testing the water as it were!
Am fully supportive of the co-presidency proposal ; almost impossible to find one person whose experience and strengths are equally well suited to meet the requirements of the two very different main components of the role
It would be interesting if Mark Pack could be persuaded to give his comments on this proposal.
The alternative of enhancing the role of Vice-Presidents should be looked at carefully. Their role should not be just honorary, and it would assist if their specific responsibilities should be enshrined in the party rules.
Rod – that is surprising. As Chair of LDCRE i would have thought you would welcome something which would make it easier for ethnic minority members to stand
A Solution in search of a problem. Just pay the person who fulfils the role.
Cliques will be formed, I would respect the suggestion more if it had been raised years ago, This could be deemed as a stone in the water moment to gage the ripple response.
Blaming this off road I’ll thought out idea as a solution to increase race equality is laughable disingenuous clumsy and offensive in equal measure.
I say this especially as the presidential elections are upon us. Looks like strategising to me. Is history repeating itself. People know what I mean.
At the top of any organisation a chairman (President) is remunerated plus expenses paid for their time.
The last two presidents fulfilled the position in different style.
Baroness Brinton had two very credible and effective communicator as paid assistant.
Dr Chris Adams and Adam Hanrahan.
Mark Pack does not have an identifiable assistant that accompanies him in the current position. Is that by accident or by design. I suppose the latter.
How much expenses has been claimed per year by the last two party presidents including staff help during the time they have fulfilled the role?
As a federal board member and a politician that uses FOI to known great effect. Let’s have an answer please.
Happy Thursday All.
Back in 1974 when local government was reorganised, it was decided that councillors should get an allowance, £10 for every day you attended a meeting. Lots of people were outraged and said that the job had always been done on a voluntary basis, but there is now an annual allowance for councillors with additional responsibility payments where required. True it varies from council to council (and in my view shouldn’t), but as councils are destined to be much larger then it’s perfectly justified.
The role of Party President, like that of councillors, has grown and is a full time job if done properly. It should not be the province of a relatively wealthy elite who can afford it or pensioners who no longer work. I agree with Rod, that it should be paid, a modest amount, but enough to make up for lost income or time. It’s not a role MPs should fill, they have enough to do.
Go on Federal Board, bring forward a sensible proposal so that any party member with relevant experience can afford to stand if they want to.
Rod – “Is history repeating itself. People know what I mean.”
what on earth does this mean ?
“At the top of any organisation a chairman (President) is remunerated plus expenses paid for their time.” – this isn’t the case – the chairs of most voluntary organisations and charities are not paid
“Baroness Brinton had two very credible and effective communicator as paid assistant.
Dr Chris Adams and Adam Hanrahan.” Their job was not to communicate on behalf of the president
Dear All,
There is a danger in jumping to conclusions about the motivations of individuals, especially on the basis of an opinion piece. So, perhaps, it is better to focus on the actual proposal rather than questioning its motivation.
I probably have a deeper insight into the role, how it might work and what it entails, than most here – that’s what happens when you’re married to a former Party President (Ros Scott, for the benefit of more recent party members).
There is no doubt that the job has changed. Ros did it on a expense allowance of about £5,000 per annum and without a designated staff resource. I tended to do the travelling with her in a consort role (and yes, paid my own way) and arranged most of the travel and accommodation. And, of course, meetings were in person, rather than online, which takes up more time.
The party also has a Company Secretary, which is a much-needed support but which didn’t exist then. The issues that confront political parties have evolved and are sometimes more complex and demanding. On the other hand, the core purpose of the President, to lead and represent the voluntary party to the political leadership, hasn’t changed.
So, things are a bit different, and perhaps we ought to consider reflecting that. Would members vote for a job share Presidency? I don’t know. Many of the potential issues have been raised above, and I’m pretty confident that, if you confronted members with the option of voting for a jobshare, they’d ask those same questions.
But I’m wary of Federal Board bringing forward too detailed a set of proposals. The Presidency, and its priorities, change over time, and the skillset varies accordingly – how the President sees their role dictates what skills they might need more. Deciding on what the terms of engagement are – allowances, staff support – might be helpful though. After all, you’d expect that if you were applying for a job, so why not here?
Not a party member anymore, but as a now-outsider, it feels to me that the solution is to have two separate roles rather than electing two people to one position and hoping they can split the role between them. Create a separate admin-focused position (the sort of thing other organisations might call a general secretary) so you can elect people to specific positions.
Why stop at two? Once we’ve defined the roles of Party President it’s time to decide what structure can best fulfil them. There is no obvious reason to me why a person is needed as its sole representative. It is a procedural job and a team might be best suited to it so whatever is needed at the time is given a name for that job. A sleight of people would enhance the Party’s image and improve efficiency and effectiveness.