The Liberal Democrats are running out of opportunities to get lost. Coalition government presented opportunities to change the British policy, but it ended in electoral humiliation. The recovery seemed possible when Theresa May called a snap poll two months ago. A well-known pro-European party could have picked up the support of a wide range of voters made anxious by the possibility of a hard Brexit. But that plan did not bear fruit.
Tim Farron’s devout Christianity was not the primary cause of his party under performance, so that it is self-referent to submit his resignation as the martyrdom by an attachment to the deed. The Lib Dems need new leadership because the owner had overseen a strategic failure that he had to navigate the turbulent waters of the British policy wrong. He did not offer enough votes or seats for his party.
Mr Farron writhing on prohibitions Bible about homosexuality, without a doubt harmed the effort. Should not have been difficult for the leader of a liberal party to express a liberal attitude – unequivocal acceptance of differences in sexual orientation – when invited to do so. In its place it took days to unravel the Lord Farron. He sees the inquiry as a symptom of aggressive secularism and the liberalism of inflection, paradoxically, not liberal in his suspicion of Christianity.
Public figures should be allowed inside in the moral sphere. Politicians should have the right to hold beliefs in conflict with the policies of the parties they represent. To demand total alignment of private thought and public action is a rule of tyranny, not liberalism. But for a Lib Dem leader to be guided by faith in a sense the antithesis of the values of many members of the party and of destination of the voters was unsustainable. It poses a test of political judgment which the Lord Farron failed.
His resignation solves the problem, but others do not. The path offered by the Lib Dems – a third way between Jeremy Corbyn of the Labour and Theresa May Tories – was less attractive than anticipated. The choice of a polarised opinion, and while Brexit was the backdrop of the campaign was never the major topic of discussion. Of the two major parties pledged unwavering loyalty to the outcome of the referendum, although with differences of emphasis. Them – and events – then conspired to avoid engagement with the detail of how the withdrawal of the EU can safely be enacted. Even with more effective leadership it is difficult to see how the Lib Dems could have forced their dissident position on the agenda. Many of the voters are still that the Lord Farron wanted to court were not sufficiently passionate in their feelings about the EU is the main reason for his decision. Or it is estimated that their concerns about Brexit would be expressed more efficiently, increasing the main opposition party. Work as well, finds himself in the repository of the hope that the Lady of the march toward total separation of the European integration can be frustrated. But the Lord Corbyn exceeded expectations in the election, in part, to reassure the graduates that he was on their side, too. Many were tempted to re-affiliation to Ukip. The opposition leader who offers clarity of purpose on many issues, but in Brexit he is strategically linked to the ambiguity.
Therefore, there is a vacancy for a party that is going to do the interrogation of Brexit your definition of purpose in the new parliament. The result of the elections shows that the Lady does not have a mandate to proceed as she had thought, but it does not contain any obvious alternative recipe – without a doubt, none of which a consensus could be built. Twelve Lib Dem MPs can hardly claim to speak on behalf of the nation. But to those who have the right to exercise the influence that they have in a parliament without a majority to advance the central cause on which they were elected, and, with judicious leadership, which may well find its Brexit-skepticism vindicated over time. The madness of a reckless rush out of the EU allies needs constant exposure. That could be the last chance for the Lib Dems to recover a sense of purpose in British policy.