21st August 2025

In recent years, questions have been raised about how political succession and candidate selection are handled inside the Liberal Democrats. The case of Lisa Smart’s rise in Hazel Grove has become one of the most discussed examples, attracting both praise and criticism from within her own party.

From Putney to Hazel Grove

According to political commentator Andrew Rawnsley (The Observer, 19 September 2010), Lisa Smart joined the Liberal Democrats at the turn of that year. At the time, she was living in Putney, just a short walk from Nick Clegg’s home. Smart stood twice for election in London, both times coming third, before being accepted onto the LibDem Leadership Programme. She told Clegg she wanted to be an MP.

In 2012, Smart was still active in London politics, standing as a candidate for the Greater London Assembly and attending Liberal Democrat events across the capital. By mid-summer that year, however, she began to shift her political focus north, becoming increasingly visible in the Hazel Grove constituency.

The Stunell Succession

When Sir Andrew Stunell — long-serving Hazel Grove MP, OBE, and later a knight — announced he would step down in 2013, Smart emerged as a strong contender for the seat. Stunell’s support, along with that of his office manager Andrew Garner and senior campaign strategist Hilary Stephenson, was seen by many observers as pivotal.

While a formal selection process took place, some local members questioned whether the contest was truly open. The timing of the selection, scheduled for August 2013 during the school holidays, raised eyebrows. Critics suggested that potential rivals were disadvantaged, while Smart had already spent more than a year engaging with local members as constituency membership secretary.

A Managed Process?

Some party activists described the process as unusually well-organised in Smart’s favour. Promotional material for her campaign appeared on every seat at the hustings, while questions from the floor were not permitted. Concerns were also raised about neutrality after Stunell was seen visiting elderly members known to support rival candidate Shan Alexander in the closing days of the contest.

Several members voiced their concerns publicly. Councillor Tony Dawson of Southport remarked that Smart had been “local to Putney for the past 10 years” and only appeared on Stockport’s electoral roll in 2013. Others, like Gareth Epps of Reading, described the hustings as “unconventional.”

Quotes collected from party activists capture the mood:

  • “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 fetes before calling herself local. The whole thing stinks of dishonesty and cynicism.” – Stephen Walpole, Skipton
  • “Don’t move to the area at weekends only and try to portray yourself as local. It is disingenuous at best.” – Peter Andrews, Leeds
  • “By most people’s definition, she would seem at best a second home owner — or if just renting, even less than that.” – Councillor David Evans, Cumbria

Internal Tensions

Concerns about Smart’s links to London — including her employment with Genesis in Belgravia and ownership of a Putney property — sparked unease within the local party. Letters were circulated under the name of Hazel Grove Constituency Chair Christine Corris affirming Smart’s “local” status, though some members later questioned whether the full facts had been known.

By the time the selection contest concluded, Smart had won. Yet the controversy surrounding the process left some party members disillusioned, with accusations of a “managed outcome” lingering long after the hustings ended.

Wider Questions

The Hazel Grove episode highlights broader concerns about how political parties manage succession, peerages, and candidate selections. Stunell was elevated to the House of Lords, while Smart, still relatively new to the area, became the standard-bearer for the Liberal Democrats locally.

Nick Clegg often spoke of fairness and equality of opportunity, yet critics inside his own party argued that the Hazel Grove selection did not live up to those ideals.

Local Fallout

Controversy over political influence in Stockport is not confined to candidate selection. Local planning decisions — including those involving Offerton Precinct and the toxic waste dump school site — have also raised questions about the role of senior Liberal Democrat councillors such as Christine Corris and Shan Alexander.

Alexander, who served as both Executive Councillor and Chair of Stockport Magistrates, later faced a prison sentence following a fatal road accident. Past reporting also links her to contentious local planning cases and to the treatment of residents raising concerns.

Conclusion

The story of Lisa Smart’s candidacy for Hazel Grove is one of political ambition, careful organisation, and unresolved questions. While no rules were proven to have been broken, the perception of an inside track undermined confidence in the fairness of the process.

As one party member observed:

“Politicians have for far too long been seen as cynical operators. What bothers me is that Liberal Democrat candidates are perpetuating that view.”

With national trust in politicians already fragile, episodes like this leave local people wondering whether party democracy is more carefully managed than it appears.