Lib Dem internal elections .... women only posts ....

[ArabellaSaurus]

https://www.libdems.org.uk/internal-elections

At fucking last. Buried in among alllllll that prevarication and careful phrasing and balancing is the key point:

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

'Women' means women. Not men calling themselves women.

Well done, LibDems.

'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’.'

when you say ‘the Supreme Court decision’ , the commenters on that article say ‘ an obscure ruling’ 🤣🤣 context: ‘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.’

There is separate provision for people with the PC of GR. 10% quota.

'obscure ruling' - that's priceless @99bottlesofkombucha

As for no trans representation - I thought the Scottish government was the representation for the trans side?

Whilst this is true for Schedule 16 (clubs and associations), it is not true for Section 158 (positive action). Quotas based on race are permissible.

Oh I missed that. Given that the ‘trans’ population is 0.5% that seems rather excessive. I wonder what their justification is and how that affects them getting the best candidates. The pool of ‘trans’ identifying politicians is fairly small I would think.

Although if there was someone they really liked they could just make them identify as trans for the quota? obviously all a complete farce.

Yes, and Amnesty's lawyer was nonbinary, although her existence has been repeatedly cruelly denied by various trans activists.

TBH I've tried to find her name since, and couldn't.

Yes, the suggestion in the article that to maintain proportionality they should round up allocated spaces to the nearest whole number, so how they went from 0.5 to 10% is baffling.

"LGBT+ Liberal Democrats condemn our party's decision to base internal gender quotas on sex assigmed at birth."

https://x.com/LGBTLD/status/1983238296441376944

But I thought this was about a proportionality test for positive action, not quotas?

I thought quotas were illegal?

Curious ref to the Census figure for trans, it's not an accredited statistic owing to the ONS incompetence in that aspect of their survey design.

Lib Dem civil war breaks out over trans rights

Party members condemn leadership for banning biological males from taking women’s roles

A spokeswoman for Liberal Voice for Women said: “It is good to see the party has taken on board legal advice and is now changing its quotas following the Supreme Court ruling to ensure quotas for women are reserved for women.

“However, we are concerned that the new quota guarantees those with a trans identity at least one place on every committee over 10 people, despite the fact trans people are only 0.5 per cent of the population, alongside the fact there is no evidence they are under-represented on Lib Dem committees.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/10/29/lib-dems-civil-war-trans-rights-ed-davey-terf/ and https://archive.is/HijZ6

Huge win for Lib Voice for women who were blocked from having a vote on this in the Lib dem conference. The Greens are next... Tik Tok.

Another article

Lib Dems Change Gender Quota Rules Against Wish Of Voting Members

https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/lib-dems-change-gender-quota-rules-against-voting-members-will

Again, I'm a bit confused about this.

I thought that all women short lists were specifically legal because of legislation that will expire in 2030, but that quotas are 'positive discrimination' which is illegal.

Positive action is legal, but must be proportionate, and one of the ways to establish proportionality is by establishing a benchmark for representation, but that is not the same as guaranteeing a place on a committee - have I missed something?

have I missed something?

I dont think so. That's why I quoted that bit from the article.

But also, does this mean that 1 place on every committee will be to the detriment of women's proportionate representation.

'Lib Dems follow law despite members voting to break it'

Baroness Ludford, President of Liberal Voice for Women :

Sarah Ludford 🇬🇧 🇮🇪🇪🇺 🇺🇦

This is the result not only of the Supreme Court judgment - which
EdwardJDavey said in April he & the party accepted so he could hardly not act (finally..) - but also of a lot of hard work & heavy lifting by LibVoice4Women,
hollowood_zoe & her colleagues

The 3 positive action rules cited in the OP demonstrate just how farcical quotas are for positions on committees.

If you have to round up every PC on its own to whole numbers, when do you stop? For example, the PC of religion includes every belief and no belief. So does the committee need a person of every individual belief and an atheist?

Or does it mean x% have to be of any religion whatsoever (and x% be atheist), so they are therefore representative of all religious people? According to the 2021 census 37.75% of the UK is atheist. So if the committee compromised 62.25% Sikhs, does that represent balance? Or do they need 0.9% of the committee to be Sikh to represent the actual prevalence of Sikhism in the UK (and do the same with all the other religions).

From their examples it seems like they would lump it all together e.g. for race you're either in an ethnic minority (10%) or you're not and for disability you're either disabled (5%) or you're not. But how does the committee expect its quota of ethnic minorities/disabled/religious people to represent the interest of each individual minority within that PC?

And that's before you even try and unpick what happens to the committee quota when someone represents multiple PCs. If someone is a black, homosexual, disabled woman who identifies as male at what point do you say there's too much diversity in this one candidate for them to be eligible for the committee? According to the Lib Dems' logic it's probably simple: you're not permitted to be included if you represent more than one PC. That's certainly what they have said about their positions that are reserved for women because it excludes any woman who isn't also "cis" i.e. their quota for these women-only positions excludes any woman who doesn't believe in gender identity and/or any woman who identifies as a man.

It implodes on itself in logic and sounds highly vquestionable in law.

Personally, I think all quotas should be scrapped and that it's far better to have networks that help to change demographics of committees/universities/industries to be more reflective of society from the bottom up. E.g. a black, lesbian women's network could form to specifically focus on issues that impact this demographic if they feel it is warranted. Alternatively, perhaps a women's network, or an LGB network or a black people's network (or any combination of two). Networks sharing ideas and support are going to be far more meaningful over time to effect change that benefits society than top down quotas that don't even make sense.

Having won the right to exist Lib Dem Voice for women is running a full slate in the internal elections. Take the party back! It is going to be long hard fight to end sexism inside the Lib Dems, but it has to be done there and ALL THE OTHER PARTIES.

Internal Elections: Help us Rebalance the Lib Dems!
26 Oct
Voting opens in the triennial Federal Elections at 1pm on Tuesday 28th October.
Liberal Voice for Women is standing a strong slate of candidates who will be focused on responsible governance, sound policy, and inclusive, respectful engagement with members.

We have made significant strides in recent years, in particular in creating space for open discussion on issues concerning sex and gender, and helping the Party stay on the right side of the law when it comes to its internal policies and practices.

Our presence at Federal Council and Conference Committee meetings has allowed us to build key relationships and encourage different perspectives. We have also been fortunate to engage with many members, councillors and MPs at our stands at Party Conferences. We are grateful for the many words of support and encouragement we have received there.

https://liberalvoiceforwomen.org/blog/federal-elections-2025

Thats great.

They aren't giving in. They are using 'cis', so they are saying biological women are a subset of women which includes transwomen. Need another push.

She used to be Mermaids’ lawyer. Lui Asquith

https://www.russell-cooke.co.uk/news-and-insights/news/trans-people-fearing-arrest-due-to-confusion-around-supreme-court-ruling-say-campaigners-the-independent

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/blogs/lgbti-network/idahobit-spotlight-lui-asquith-solicitor-mermaids

Fall out inside Lib Dems continues to grow. Increasing attacks on the leadership for admitting biology is a thing.

Liberal Voice for Women

Lib Dem Voice has 3 articles all condemning quota changes. Rebecca states "since April at every opportunity Ed has dropped the ball when it comes to trans rights. At a time where we needed a leader, Ed just hasn’t delivered. It’s a stain on our party." thread

https://nitter.net/LibVoice4Women/status/1984299859428417929

I thought the comment under Prue's piece about 'party policy of Trans industry' was quite the reveal!

Never been a LD voter, but keeping a fraction of an eye on this battle. I used to think Lab might be over the worst of it's bout of genderism, but I've grown more pessimistic on that score, so it would be nice to see concrete signs of recovery in the LDs. Their traditional of liberalism ought to make it harder to shut down debate and I firmly believe that in an open debate amongst reasonable people, the gender critical case will prevail.

(It's still hard to accept that one of the few 'political' issues that I'm absolutely sure about and consider fairly simple to understand has created an unbridgeable rift between me and a lot of people I thought had an overlapping worldview.)

The Supreme court is not an "obscure" body and it was certainly not an obscure ruling. It was a ruling meant to clarify what has always been law since the instigation of the Equalities Act in 2010, regarding the protected category of 'Sex' and its meaning in law.

The judgment was arrived at after long deliberations, analysis and investigation into the workings of the act and the inter-action of the different protected categories within it, by an esteemed panel of highly experienced and respected legal minds.

Gender re-assignment is its own category - and the protections it affords are still in place. Nothing has actually changed at all - except for the false assumptions and assertions that 'Sex' was really inter-changeable with the concept of 'Gender'. Sex was always intended to mean ithe common sense and universally understood 'biological sex'. 'Certificated' sex is not the same as biological sex and the law never intended that it should be,.

The protected categories of 'Sex' and Sexual Orientation' are meaningless if self identified or certificated gender is taken to be the same thing as 'Sex' - as the whole act is then riddled with inconsistencies and illogicalities in application.

Consulting trans organisations would have made no difference at all to the ruling. It wasn't a consultation exercise. It was an exercise in clarifying matters of law and legal intention. This is what many seem to find difficult to grasp.

The ruling was unanimous and clear. It clarifies was is already law and what always was law - until activist organisations tried to super-impose their desires onto the act and spread the idea that male people had a legal right to enter into female categories. They never did. It was female rights which had been trampled and misrepresented for all of those years, not the rights of those with the progtected category of 'Gender -Re-Assignment' .

The law has not changed. It has merely been clarified.

You are not telling me anything I don’t already know.