According to Andrew Rawnsley (The Observer 19/9/2010/) Lisa Smart joined the LibDems at the turn of the year 2010. Nick Clegg lived in Putney at 2 Parkfields, Putney. Lisa Smart lived about 12 houses away at Flat 8, 366 Upper Richmond Road. She stood for election twice for the party coming 3rd on both occasions. She managed to get on the LibDem Leadership Programme. She met Nick Clegg and told him she wanted to be an MP.
Some have speculated that political appointments may have influenced succession plans in the constituency. Questions remain about how peerages and selections are handled within parties, particularly in cases like that of Andrew Stunell and Lisa Smart. However, there is no confirmed evidence of any arrangement.
Some observers have questioned whether political succession and peerage appointments in parties like the LibDems have always been purely merit-based. For example, when Andrew Stunell stepped down, Lisa Smart — a rising figure in the party — became more prominent. Whether any internal understandings shaped these outcomes is unknown, but such arrangements, if they occurred, would raise questions.
Some have speculated about the internal dynamics surrounding Andrew Stunell’s departure and Lisa Smart’s rise in the Liberal Democrats. Stunell, already an MP, an OBE, and a knight, was later appointed to the House of Lords — a move that some observers saw as part of a broader pattern of party figures being rewarded. Smart, a rising LibDem politician, was selected to contest the seat after his departure. While there is no confirmed evidence of a direct arrangement, questions have occasionally been raised about how such transitions are handled within political parties.
Hilary Stephenson, who had previously served as Andrew Stunell’s agent and later became Deputy Chief Executive for Elections & Field under Nick Clegg, is seen by some as a key link between the party leadership and local constituencies. Known for her methodical approach and close attention to scheduling and planning (as reported by colleagues), Stephenson was deeply involved in national campaign strategy.
Around the time Andrew Stunell stepped down from his parliamentary seat, Lisa Smart emerged as a likely candidate to succeed him. Some party observers have pointed to the highly organised nature of the transition — with Smart gaining visibility in the Hazel Grove area and appearing to have strong support from senior local figures, including Stunell himself and his office manager, Andrew Garner.
While the Hazel Grove seat did go through a formal selection process, some critics within the party have raised concerns over how open and competitive that process truly was. Questions have been asked about whether the outcome had been strongly guided from early on — particularly by those with influence over local campaigning and candidate support.
Whether this amounted to careful planning or an overly managed process is a matter of interpretation. What remains clear is that Smart’s selection followed a timeline that, to some, seemed unusually well-coordinated — prompting speculation about just how democratic internal party mechanisms really are.
In 2012, Lisa Smart was still living in Putney and was active in Liberal Democrat politics in London. She had recently stood as the party’s candidate for the Greater London Assembly. According to local event records and social media activity, she was involved with the Merton Liberal Democrats in late May 2012, including attending a thank-you party on 28th May. In June, she took part in further events, including an evening with MP Dan Rogerson on the 27th and a visit to Grove Ward, Kingston, the following day.
By mid-July, Smart posted on social media that she was “northern bound on the train from Euston,” indicating a shift in her political activity. She later became increasingly visible in the North West, where she would eventually be selected as the Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate for Hazel Grove. While her transition from London politics to a northern constituency has drawn interest and speculation from some observers, there is no publicly confirmed evidence that a decision about her candidacy had been made at that early stage. Her selection followed the formal processes required by the party.
By July 2012, Lisa Smart had been a member of the Liberal Democrats for approximately two and a half years. Around that time, Andrew Stunell’s future plans were becoming clearer, and he would formally announce his intention to stand down a year later, in July 2013. The party’s candidate selection process for Hazel Grove was scheduled to take place in August 2013.
Some within the local party later raised concerns about the timing of the selection process, suggesting that holding it during the summer holidays might inadvertently disadvantage potential candidates with school-age children, who could be away during that period. Among the names mentioned as possible contenders were Councillor Stuart Bodsworth and former councillor Helen Foster-Grime — both seen as strong local figures with potential interest in standing.
In July and August 2012, Councillor Shan Alexander, an Executive councillor, was serving as the membership secretary for the Hazel Grove constituency. Given her busy schedule, it was suggested that she might consider stepping down from the role. Around this time, Lisa Smart expressed interest in becoming more involved with the constituency’s membership activities. This gave her the opportunity to connect with many local party members over the following months.
Smart reportedly spent considerable time visiting members, getting to know them and their backgrounds, building relationships ahead of the party’s candidate selection process scheduled for July 2013. Engaging closely with members is an important part of any selection contest, as these members would ultimately have a vote.Councillor Tony Dawson, writing on LibDemVoice, highlighted how serving as a membership secretary can provide valuable experience and advantages in election contests, particularly when one has an extended period to build relationships with party members. In July 2013, the party announced that the selection contest would take place in the third week of August, a timeline some local members felt was quite tight. Observers noted that the schedule appeared to be carefully planned, with preparations reportedly underway since Lisa Smart’s arrival in Romiley in July 2012, with organizational support from Hilary Stephenson.
Some local Liberal Democrat members expressed concerns about the rushed nature of the selection process, but the timetable remained as planned.
In late June and early July 2013, the party’s Gold members magazine was distributed to members. While the issue featured an article on Stella Humphries, a dedicated councillor with 30 years of service on Stockport Council, some members interpreted the publication as indirectly supporting another candidate. As the selection contest approached, questions about the process grew among party members, some of whom had been seeking clarity from Andrew Garner throughout 2012 and 2013. Garner consistently maintained that everything was proceeding as expected.
When some party members described Lisa Smart as a local candidate, a canvasser expressed a different view, noting that Smart worked in London with Genesis in Belgravia and owned a property in Putney, while only renting a flat in Romiley. The canvasser questioned whether it was accurate to describe her as local, given she had been renting in Romiley for just over a year and had joined the party around early 2010. The canvasser and the members agreed to disagree and left the matter there.
Soon afterwards, the two members contacted Lisa Smart’s team to discuss the issue. It became known that information about Smart’s job in Belgravia and her Putney property was circulating. According to reports, the Lisa Smart team contacted the Returning Officer, Bruce Hubbard, who reviewed the situation. It was then decided that the individual who had shared details about Smart’s job and residence would reach out to the two members involved to clarify the situation and offer an apology. The Shan Alexander team reportedly agreed to this resolution.
Two hours later, the Returning Officer contacted the party to indicate that the matter required further attention and suggested that the Constituency Chair, Councillor Christine Corris, should speak directly with the members involved to explain the situation. While this action was taken, reports suggest that the Lisa Smart team remained concerned about the information circulating regarding Smart’s local connections. The party maintained its position that Smart was a local candidate, emphasizing the importance of presenting a united message.
Maintaining a narrative can be challenging when there are differing views within a political party. For any party, managing internal disagreements and controlling information is often seen as important to maintaining unity and presenting a consistent message to its members and the public.
In this context, it can sometimes appear that differing perspectives or inconvenient facts are difficult to accommodate, as unity and cohesion are highly valued.
Events were progressing quickly. The Shan Alexander team became aware that members of the Lisa Smart team were addressing concerns among selected members and supporters regarding a circulating story about Lisa Smart’s residence and place of work being in London. It appeared that efforts were being made to manage the situation and respond to the growing attention the story was receiving. The matter was becoming increasingly prominent, and it required timely action to address members’ questions and concerns.
He agreed to ask the Constituency Chair, Christine Corris, to contact members to provide an update and clarify the situation. However, upon realizing that there were over 200 members to reach, it became clear that contacting each one individually would be impractical. Instead, a letter was sent on behalf of the Constituency Chair to all members, addressing concerns about reports circulating regarding Lisa Smart’s place of residence and work, and affirming the party’s position on the matter.
When the Shan Alexander team inquired about the letter, Bruce Hubbard explained that sending it was necessary to address the concerns among members. It was noted that Bruce Hubbard is acquainted with Andrew Garner and Hilary Stephenson, which some observed as an interesting connection.
One Liberal Democrat member in Marple raised concerns with the Returning Officer about how the situation was handled. Bruce Hubbard explained that his actions were guided by instructions from party officials. Some observers later compared this to the concept of following orders within an organization.
Was Councillor Christine Corris aware of the details regarding the property in Putney or the job in Belgravia before she signed the letter? It is unclear whether these matters were discussed or verified prior to the letter being sent.
As Mr. Aitkin might say to Councillor Christine:
“If it becomes necessary to address serious issues within our party, armed with the commitment to truth and fairness, then so be it. We must be prepared to stand against misinformation and uphold the values we believe in. Our commitment to integrity begins today.”
Christine, as the Constituency Chair, the letter bears your name, address, and signature. Ultimately, you are responsible for the letter and its contents.
During the final four days of the campaign, Andrew Stunell personally visited several elderly members who were known to support Shan Alexander.
The Shan Alexander team raised concerns with the Returning Officer, but no action was reported to have been taken. A member reminded Andrew Stunell of the importance of remaining neutral during the contest, suggesting that his involvement might not be appropriate. Following this, other members of the Lisa Smart team communicated with those identified as supporting Shan Alexander, informing them that Sir Andrew Stunell OBE was supporting Lisa Smart.
As the campaign drew to a close, the hustings were held at Romiley Forum on Sunday 29th September at 2:00 pm. The event featured promotional materials for Lisa Smart placed on every seat. The proceedings were closely managed by members of the Stephenson team to ensure the event ran smoothly and according to plan. The Chair of the hustings, Christine Corris, opened the event and announced the format for the evening.
Each candidate was given 10 minutes to make a speech, followed by a Question Time segment. Members were invited to submit questions in advance, which the Chair and Returning Officer consolidated into five composite questions. Each candidate then responded to the same set of questions. Importantly, there were no questions taken directly from the floor. The questions chosen were generally non-controversial, and the candidates’ responses showed broad agreement. While the event was intended to demonstrate fairness and a democratic process, some attendees felt it did not fully meet those expectations.
At the end of Question Time, a member of the audience stood and suggested that, in an open and democratic party, questions from the floor should be permitted. This member was Mark Sanderson. His comments were met with opposition from some supporters of Lisa Smart, and no further questions from the floor were allowed.
The meeting then moved to the voting stage, and the Returning Officer noted that there was a strong turnout from the membership, especially with a significant number of postal votes. Lisa Smart’s extended period of engagement with members over the previous year was seen as an important factor in gaining support, particularly among members outside the Marple wards.
At the opening of the ballot boxes, there were unconfirmed reports suggesting that some of the postal ballot envelopes may have been opened prior to the official count. I am unable to verify these claims.
The winner was announced as Lisa Smart. Some observers felt that the contest was heavily influenced by pre-arranged factors.
The candidates who were not successful left the event, some feeling that the outcome had been influenced from the beginning. Meanwhile, the Lisa Smart team appeared satisfied with the result, confident that their efforts had been successful. However, this was just the beginning of the challenges ahead.
The “Lisa Smart for Hazel Grove” blog, which was among the more popular on LibDemVoice, was taken offline. Some believed this was due to the content sharing information that the party leadership preferred to keep private.
Here are some quotes save from that blog from genuine LibDem members
Stephen Walpole, (Skipton, North Yorkshire)
“If a person comes from outside the constituency, still owns a house outside their constituency whilst only renting a flat in the constituency and continues their work outside the constituency – how on earth can they be considered local to the constituency”?
“If she is not (elected) I predict she will be off to another constituency where she will rent a flat, become governor of a local school and attend various events and fetes before calling herself local. The whole thing stinks of dishonesty and cynicism, the one thing we should be trying to convince the general public we as politicians have put behind us. I actually think that the Liberal Democrats were bigger than this”.
“Politicians have for far too long been seen as cynical operators, what bothers me is that Liberal Democrat candidates are perpetuating that view”.
Councillor Tony Dawson, Southport
“Lisa has been describing herself as local to Putney for the past 10 years again and again right up to 12th May 2012. She appears for the first time on Stockport’s electoral roll in 2013. Can you be local in two places 200 miles apart at once”?
“A pedant might make an argument for it. But 98 per cent of normal people would give you a resounding No”.
Gareth Epps (Reading) Liberal Democrat Candidate Reading East, Co Chair Social Liberal Forum
“There appears to be some suggestion that the hustings were somewhat unconventional. In which case isn’t he website rather transparently economical with the truth”?
Peter Andrews (Leeds North West, West Yorkshire)
Not sure I would count renting a flat used only at weekends as moving to an area especially if you own a house elsewhere. I think if Lisa Smart is presented in campaign material as local you could be on tricky ground. If you are going to do that be clear and honest that is what you are doing. Don’t move to the area at weekends only and try to portray yourself as local it is disingenuous at best. Pretending to be local is not acceptable selection strategy to me. It shows a lack of confidence in your abilities and in the members to select the best candidate…I would be very unhappy if I were a member of Hazel Grove constituency party. It certainly looks and smells like a candidate being parachuted in from outside the constituency party with presumably inside knowledge that the seat was about to become vacant and the selection being subtly rigged in their favour all things which I find unacceptable”.
Councillor David Evans (Cumbria)
“I do think most people have an understanding of what local means and living there at weekends only and only for a year would never qualify. By most people’s definition, I think she would seem at best a second home owner (or if just renting even less than that)”.
NB If David Evans has smelt a rat on this so will have Tim Farron.
Several local individuals publicly expressed positive views about Lisa Smart without disclosing any formal affiliations. These included Mrs. N of Werneth Road, Chair of Bredbury and Woodley LibDems; Dr. M of Compstall; Councillor Margaret McLay; and Mr. and Mrs. F of Jessop, the Liberal Democrat constituency treasurer.
As the Lisa Smart team acknowledged their success, it became apparent that some issues still required attention. Between Monday 30th September and mid to late October, a meeting was held among key team members to plan the next steps. Notably, the blog on LibDemVoice that raised concerns began on 14th October.
The £425,000 house became a potential issue. Since the Land Registry records showed Lisa Smart as the owner, this information was publicly accessible to journalists. It is understood that the property was listed for sale around mid to late October, possibly through an estate agent named Alan Fuller. The house was sold relatively quickly, with the title deeds indicating a sale on Tuesday, 10th December, for £657,000—a notable increase in price.
Lisa Smart was also reported to have left her position at Genesis in London.
With that change, the only remaining focus for journalists would be on Lisa Smart herself. At this point, Ed Stephenson, son of Hilary and Richard Stephenson, became involved.
Lisa Smart participated in the Liberal Democrat Leadership Programme, which began in 2011 and was reportedly funded by Rumi Verjee, now Lord Verjee of Portobello. The programme was originally intended to support the advancement of Black and Asian women within the Party. When fewer candidates meeting these criteria applied, the eligibility was broadened to include a wider range of candidates, including Lisa Smart. Interestingly, the candidate who faced the most challenges during the selection contest was a woman of Asian and Black heritage. It is unclear how Lord Verjee might view the outcome of the selection process in this context.
This story involves ambition and complex political maneuvering from the start. It reflects challenges such as disagreements, differing motivations, and behind-the-scenes coordination. At a time when public trust in politicians is waning, it raises questions about the qualities we need in political representatives. Following controversies involving other figures, some may question the impact of new entrants to Parliament. The events in Stockport deserve careful scrutiny, allowing the wider public to form their own opinions about Nick Clegg and his associates.
Nick Clegg often emphasized his commitment to equality of opportunity, but some members in Hazel Grove felt the selection process did not fully reflect that ideal. The membership was presented with a list of five candidates—four of whom had only a few weeks to prepare, while one had a much longer period. While insider knowledge is generally discouraged in many fields, some within the Liberal Democrats perceived an advantage given to certain candidates.
Many people are aware of the events in Hazel Grove, and now so are you.
Ultimately, honesty remains the best policy.
This is what LibDems themselves think of Clegg.
https://www.libdemvoice.org/in-defence-of-nick-77644.html#comments
Councillor Christine Corris was involved with these controversial planning decisions:-
https://www.sheilaoliver.org/toxic-waste-dump-school-.html
https://www.sheilaoliver.org/offerton-precinct-1.html
https://www.sheilaoliver.org/offerton-precinct-2.html
https://www.sheilaoliver.org/offerton-precinct-missing-money.html
https://www.sheilaoliver.org/why-make-these-rogues-preferred-developers-.html
Councillor Shan Alexander faced prison for the killing of her passenger by her dangerous driving. She was Chair of the Stockport Magistrates and was involved with the suspect planning decisions regarding Offerton Precinct as above and as both Executive Councillor and Chair of the Magistrates in the repeated/malicious imprisonment of a sick, innocent man, fiercely protective of his two lovely daughters and dead at 58 by Stockport paedophile LibDem Executive Councillor John Smith.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/144196/Pioneer-Asian-JP-faces-ruin-after-causing-fatal-accident
So, under LibDem rule in Stockport there has been a massive rise in Liability Orders:-
