Lib Dems Launch Faith Review After Campanale Discrimination Admission
The Liberal Democrats have appointed Richard Newby, the former Liberal Democrat leader in the House of Lords, to lead a review of how the party treats candidates and members of different faiths and of no faith.
The appointment was shared with members in an email from leader Ed Davey and president Josh Babarinde, days before the party's conference in Brighton. It was reported on 22 September 2026. The Guardian
The case behind the review
The review follows the civil case of David Campanale, a former BBC journalist selected in 2021 as the Liberal Democrat candidate for Sutton and Cheam and removed in August 2023. Campanale, an Anglican layman, argued that discrimination against his Christianity ended his political career. Church Times His legal dispute with the party lasted four years. Premier Christianity
The party admitted direct discrimination, treating him worse because of religion or belief, and indirect discrimination, where a neutral rule still disadvantages people of a belief. It also admitted failures in handling complaints about his treatment. That admission closed liability, the question of fault. Quantum, the question of money, is still disputed.
Campanale valued his claim at £788,740.75 including interest in a schedule of loss. The party rejected that figure in a counter-schedule and called it "grossly inflated and egregious". The Guardian No final award has been reported. The damages argument focuses on a lost political career and related losses.
Pressure for a wider look came from inside the party. Former leader Tim Farron and former deputy leader Simon Hughes called for an independent inquiry into Campanale's treatment and an apology. Hughes said he would pursue a separate investigation once Campanale's case was resolved. The Newby review is the leadership's response to those calls. It is internal, led by a party peer, not the separate process Hughes discussed.
What the review will cover
The brief described to members is broad. Like a hiring process with several gates, it will examine candidate approval, selection and deselection for inclusion of different faiths, plus support for candidates, the handling of complaints and disciplinary cases, and training for local party officers. That covers the full path from approval to removal, plus the system for hearing grievances.
The broader context here is procedure as well as reputation. Local officers control selection, different officers control complaints, and training links the two. Looking at all four together shows where friction arose and whether redress worked.
In my view, timing matters. Fault is settled but the sum to be paid is not, so the review cannot prejudge Campanale's case. Clear terms, open evidence standards and a timetable that respects the court process will decide whether members of faith and of no faith see it as credible.
