This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/15/the-guardian-view-on-lib-dem-leadership-scrutinise-brexit
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| The Guardian view on Lib Dem leadership: scrutinise Brexit | The Guardian view on Lib Dem leadership: scrutinise Brexit |
| (7 months later) | |
| Tim Farron’s personal contortions over religious belief let the Liberal Democrats down. But his – and his party’s – scepticism on Brexit may well be vindicated in the end | |
| Thu 15 Jun 2017 18.35 BST | |
| Last modified on Mon 27 Nov 2017 22.37 GMT | |
| Share on Facebook | |
| Share on Twitter | |
| Share via Email | |
| View more sharing options | |
| Share on LinkedIn | |
| Share on Pinterest | |
| Share on Google+ | |
| Share on WhatsApp | |
| Share on Messenger | |
| Close | |
| The Liberal Democrats are running out of opportunities to miss. Coalition government presented chances to change British politics but ended in electoral humiliation. Recovery looked possible when Theresa May called a snap poll two months ago. An avowedly pro-European party might have scooped up support from a wide range of voters made anxious by the prospect of a hard Brexit. But that plan did not bear fruit. | The Liberal Democrats are running out of opportunities to miss. Coalition government presented chances to change British politics but ended in electoral humiliation. Recovery looked possible when Theresa May called a snap poll two months ago. An avowedly pro-European party might have scooped up support from a wide range of voters made anxious by the prospect of a hard Brexit. But that plan did not bear fruit. |
| Tim Farron’s devout Christianity was not the primary cause of his party’s underperformance, so it was self-regarding to present his resignation as martyrdom for an attachment to scripture. The Lib Dems needed new leadership because the incumbent had overseen a strategic failure: he had navigated the turbulent waters of British politics poorly. He did not deliver enough votes or seats for his party. | Tim Farron’s devout Christianity was not the primary cause of his party’s underperformance, so it was self-regarding to present his resignation as martyrdom for an attachment to scripture. The Lib Dems needed new leadership because the incumbent had overseen a strategic failure: he had navigated the turbulent waters of British politics poorly. He did not deliver enough votes or seats for his party. |
| Mr Farron’s squirming over Biblical prohibitions on homosexuality certainly harmed the effort. It should not have been difficult for the leader of a liberal party to express a liberal attitude – unambiguous acceptance of differences in sexual orientation – when invited. Instead it took days to tease out Mr Farron’s view. He sees that inquiry as a symptom of aggressive secularism and of liberalism turning paradoxically illiberal in its suspicion of Christianity. | Mr Farron’s squirming over Biblical prohibitions on homosexuality certainly harmed the effort. It should not have been difficult for the leader of a liberal party to express a liberal attitude – unambiguous acceptance of differences in sexual orientation – when invited. Instead it took days to tease out Mr Farron’s view. He sees that inquiry as a symptom of aggressive secularism and of liberalism turning paradoxically illiberal in its suspicion of Christianity. |
| Public figures must be allowed an interior moral realm. Politicians should also be allowed to hold convictions in conflict with the policies of the parties they represent. To demand total alignment of private thought and public action is a precept of tyranny, not liberalism. But for a Lib Dem leader to be guided by faith in a direction antithetical to the values of many party members and target voters was unsustainable. It posed a test of political judgment that Mr Farron failed. | Public figures must be allowed an interior moral realm. Politicians should also be allowed to hold convictions in conflict with the policies of the parties they represent. To demand total alignment of private thought and public action is a precept of tyranny, not liberalism. But for a Lib Dem leader to be guided by faith in a direction antithetical to the values of many party members and target voters was unsustainable. It posed a test of political judgment that Mr Farron failed. |
| His resignation solves that problem but not others. The path offered by the Lib Dems – a third way between Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour and Theresa May’s Tories – was less enticing than they anticipated. The election polarised opinion, and while Brexit was the backdrop to the campaign it was never the prominent subject of debate. The two biggest parties pledged unyielding loyalty to the referendum result, albeit with differences of emphasis. They – and events – then conspired to avoid engagement with the detail of how withdrawal from the EU might safely be enacted. Even with more effective leadership it is hard to see how the Lib Dems might have forced their dissenting position on to the agenda. Many of the remain voters that Mr Farron wanted to court were insufficiently passionate in their feelings about the EU to make it the leading motive in their decision. Or they calculated that their concerns about Brexit would be more efficiently expressed by boosting the main opposition party. Labour thus found itself the repository for hopes that Mrs May’s march towards total severance of European integration might be thwarted. But Mr Corbyn outperformed expectations in the election in part by reassuring leavers that he was on their side, too. Many were tempted back from affiliation to Ukip. The leader of the opposition offers clarity of purpose on many issues but on Brexit he is strategically bound to ambiguity. | His resignation solves that problem but not others. The path offered by the Lib Dems – a third way between Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour and Theresa May’s Tories – was less enticing than they anticipated. The election polarised opinion, and while Brexit was the backdrop to the campaign it was never the prominent subject of debate. The two biggest parties pledged unyielding loyalty to the referendum result, albeit with differences of emphasis. They – and events – then conspired to avoid engagement with the detail of how withdrawal from the EU might safely be enacted. Even with more effective leadership it is hard to see how the Lib Dems might have forced their dissenting position on to the agenda. Many of the remain voters that Mr Farron wanted to court were insufficiently passionate in their feelings about the EU to make it the leading motive in their decision. Or they calculated that their concerns about Brexit would be more efficiently expressed by boosting the main opposition party. Labour thus found itself the repository for hopes that Mrs May’s march towards total severance of European integration might be thwarted. But Mr Corbyn outperformed expectations in the election in part by reassuring leavers that he was on their side, too. Many were tempted back from affiliation to Ukip. The leader of the opposition offers clarity of purpose on many issues but on Brexit he is strategically bound to ambiguity. |
| So there is still a vacancy for a party that will make interrogation of Brexit its defining purpose in the new parliament. The election result proves that Mrs May does not have a mandate to proceed as she had intended, but it doesn’t contain any obvious alternative prescription – certainly none on which a consensus might be built. Twelve Lib Dem MPs can hardly claim to speak for the nation. But they are entitled to wield what influence they have in a hung parliament to advance the central cause on which they were elected and, with judicious leadership, they might well find their Brexit-scepticism vindicated over time. The folly of a reckless dash away from EU allies needs constant exposure. That might be the last opportunity for the Lib Dems to regain a purpose in British politics. | So there is still a vacancy for a party that will make interrogation of Brexit its defining purpose in the new parliament. The election result proves that Mrs May does not have a mandate to proceed as she had intended, but it doesn’t contain any obvious alternative prescription – certainly none on which a consensus might be built. Twelve Lib Dem MPs can hardly claim to speak for the nation. But they are entitled to wield what influence they have in a hung parliament to advance the central cause on which they were elected and, with judicious leadership, they might well find their Brexit-scepticism vindicated over time. The folly of a reckless dash away from EU allies needs constant exposure. That might be the last opportunity for the Lib Dems to regain a purpose in British politics. |
| Tim Farron | |
| Opinion | |
| Liberal Democrats | |
| General election 2017 | |
| Religion | |
| Brexit | |
| European Union | |
| editorials | |
| Share on Facebook | |
| Share on Twitter | |
| Share via Email | |
| Share on LinkedIn | |
| Share on Pinterest | |
| Share on Google+ | |
| Share on WhatsApp | |
| Share on Messenger | |
| Reuse this content |