The Liberal Democrats have quietly commissioned an internal review into the treatment of members and candidates who hold religious beliefs, a move triggered by a high-profile discrimination claim that has exposed deep fractures within the party. Lord Newby, the former party leader now sitting in the House of Lords, will chair the “Inclusion and Faith Review”, which was announced to members via email from leader Sir Ed Davey and president Josh Babarinde just days before the autumn conference in Brighton. The inquiry comes weeks after the party admitted direct and indirect discrimination in the case of David Campanale, a former BBC journalist and selected parliamentary candidate who is seeking nearly £790,000 in damages.
A Review Born of Legal Pressure
The review was established in “direct response” to the Campanale case, according to party insiders, though it has not been publicly announced. Campanale was selected as the candidate for Sutton and Cheam in 2021 but was removed in August 2023. He argues that hostility toward his Christian faith cost him his political career. In a civil claim that has sent shockwaves through the party, Campanale submitted a schedule of loss totalling £788,740.75, including interest. The figure encompasses injury to feelings, aggravated damages, past and future earnings, the loss of a prospective MP’s pension, counselling costs, and what his legal team describes as “loss of a chance” or “loss of political capital”.
The party has admitted liability for direct and indirect discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, as well as failures in handling complaints about his treatment. Yet it cannot comment on ongoing court proceedings. Instead, the Newby review is being framed as an attempt to answer the broader question: are people of faith being systematically disadvantaged within the Liberal Democrats, and to what extent does the evidence support that conclusion?
The Campanale Allegations
Details of Campanale’s experience have raised serious questions about the culture within local party associations. In his claim, he alleges that at a meeting in January 2022, he was questioned by approximately 30 people about his Christianity. He says he was asked whether he was enjoying his “martyrdom just like Jesus did”. The incident suggests a level of theological interrogation that sits uneasily with the party’s self-image as a bastion of liberal tolerance.
The case has drawn interventions from heavyweight figures in the party’s history. Former leader Tim Farron and former deputy leader Simon Hughes both called for an independent inquiry into Campanale’s treatment and a formal apology. Hughes told this publication he will “pursue” a separate investigation once the legal proceedings conclude. He drew a sharp distinction between the court case and the party review. “The Newby review is explicitly not about any past or present legal case and cannot be about David’s case, which is still before the courts and with one remaining possible internal party appeal,” he said. “The review however is greatly to be welcomed and I believe it will allow the party to meet one of the two big objectives which David, [the] Lib Dem Christian Forum, I and others were seeking.”
Internal Scepticism and Scope Concerns
Despite the welcome from some quarters, the review has been met with sharp criticism from within the party ranks. One senior source pulled no punches. “This review offers no remorse, no apologies to members misled so badly nor contrition towards the victims of breaches including Campanale and other Christians who once formed a bedrock of activists among our party’s nonconformist tradition. All should have had an apology by now.”
The same source suggested the timing is tactical. “As it stands, the review looks like a ploy to impress a court judge as the review of Campanale’s case is meant to be published right before damages are considered.”
Another insider highlighted the human cost. “The review doesn’t recognise the pain [Campanale’s case] brought on members, and it has to be asked why key individuals refused to act when they received complaints or requests to investigate complaints around Campanale’s deselection.”
Questions also surround the review’s remit. Activists and figures within the party have privately criticised the lack of a formal public announcement. There is uncertainty over whether Lord Newby will have access to confidential complaints and candidate selection material. The terms of reference cover candidate approval, selection and deselection processes, support for candidates, the operation of complaints and disciplinary procedures, and training for local party officers. But whether the inquiry will extend beyond religious faith to other protected beliefs remains unclear.
The Gender-Critical Flashpoint
That ambiguity has become a focal point for anxiety among a section of the membership. There is particular concern about whether the review will examine the party’s treatment of people with gender-critical beliefs. The issue erupted at the Brighton conference on Monday, when members passed a motion rejecting official guidance from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission on how organisations should implement the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman. The motion labelled the guidance “discriminatory and unworkable”.
The conference fringe programme over the weekend featured discussions on Christian nationalism and the political use of religion, underscoring the breadth of the theological and cultural terrain the party now navigates. The Liberal Democrats have previously stated the party is “home to people of all faiths and none, including many Christians”, but declined to comment on the specifics of the review or the Campanale case.
Why it Matters
The Liberal Democrats have long traded on their reputation as the party of conscience, the natural home for dissenters and minorities. But the Campanale case and the review it has forced reveal a party struggling to reconcile its liberal credentials with the realities of identity politics in the 2020s. If a former BBC journalist and approved parliamentary candidate can be driven out over his faith — and the party’s first instinct is a quiet internal review rather than a public reckoning — the damage extends far beyond one legal bill. It strikes at the credibility of a party that claims to champion inclusion but may have built structures that quietly exclude. How Lord Newby’s inquiry handles the Campanale precedent, and whether it dares to follow the evidence into the contested territory of gender-critical belief, will define whether this is a genuine moment of reform or a holding operation designed to manage a courtroom.
