Spare a thought, if you would, for Roger Tullgren of Hässleholm in Sweden. This ardent heavy metal fan believes that his obsession has made it impossible for him to pursue a conventional career or to live life as do others. For a decade he has sought, as he puts it, to have being a head-banger formally classified as a handicap. The authorities have now taken pity on him. His enthusiasm has been officially declared to be a “disability”, so allowing Mr Tullgren to work as a part-time dishwasher and also claim state benefits.

A similar charitable attitude might be taken towards the 63,000 people who are today the membership of the Liberal Democrats. They, too, must have a sense of being on the outskirts of society. Their passionate interest is not appreciated by the bulk of the population. Their party in its various forms has come third in 24 general elections running. And this weekend, for the second time in fewer than two years, ballot papers will have come through the letter box asking them to choose a leader for their organisation.

The outside assessment of the contest so far has been uniformly unflattering. It is said to have been a scrappy affair, especially for Nick Clegg, the front-runner. Even he seems to accept that criticism. He had hoped, he lamented to this newspaper on Saturday, to have addressed the country at large but has instead been engaged in introspection.

I suspect that this and his performance to date matter less than the pundits imagine.

After all, internal party elections are never attractive. The struggle to become the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party this year was a pretty dire spectacle. Sir Menzies Campbell’s elevation to the Lib Dem leadership in March last year followed a quite bitter competition which few would find inspiring. The battle for the Conservative crown in 2005 consumed seven long months and was won on the basis of what the media decided one Tuesday lunchtime in Blackpool. I doubt if there has ever been one of these campaigns anywhere that was genuinely edifying. Democracy is a wonderful ideal but, as with sausage, it is best not to inquire as to how precisely it is constructed.

That reality has been compounded by the character of the Liberal contest. It has come about six months too early for Mr Clegg, who was not really prepared for the challenge so soon (by contrast, Chris Huhne has barely stopped campaigning for it since he last lost out). The favourite has not had the time to hone his message – as has sometimes been obvious. The contest has also been framed by the approach of his rival Chris Huhne, who has been harsh, negative and remorselessly focused on chiming with the prejudices of his party activists. A one-time multilateralist has happily thrown Trident overboard, slammed his opponent for the alleged heresy of favouring education vouchers targeted at the poorest children and endorsed a truly wacko scheme last week by which any law passed by Parliament could be overturned if enough signatures were collected in 100 days to call a referendum on it. The party of Gladstone and Lloyd George finds itself reduced to Big Brother gimmickry.

Yet, in the end, none of this will probably matter. For Mr Clegg has three advantages.

First, he is fresh and novelty has been crucial in all recent party elections. The last politician in Britain to lose one leadership contest and then come back to triumph in another opposed election was Michael Foot in 1980 (not the most cheering of precedents).

Secondly, while Mr Huhne’s tactics might wow the most hardcore Lib Dem storm-troopers, they will surely shock the more kindly types who are the bulk of the membership.

Finally, Mr Clegg has the priceless asset of the backing of a substantial majority of MPs (39 for him, a meagre 11 for Mr Huhne, with 13 who don’t know, won’t say or have not noticed that there is a vacancy for the leadership) and a firm majority of parliamentary candidates in seats where the party has a chance of victory. They will hold considerable influence in the places where the number of card-carrying supporters is at its highest.

If Mr Clegg has been unlucky with the timing of this poll, he might, as compensation, enjoy substantially better, if unexpected, fortune with the moment of his succession.

No leader of a third party can transform his prospects simply by his own actions. His opportunity is determined by the space that the two much larger parties afford him. The contraction of that territory is what undermined Charles Kennedy and did for Sir Menzies throughout his tenure. Without a prevailing public mood that is antagonistic to both the Government and the official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats cannot expect to prosper.

Recent events, logic and opinion surveys indicate, could afford Mr Clegg his moment. A collapse in confidence about the competence of ministers has not, intriguingly, been matched by any upsurge in faith in David Cameron and his colleagues. A market exists for an antipolitics politician if someone is slick enough to claim it. There is a chance, therefore, that if Mr Clegg were to wager everything, as he should, on relentless, even reckless, candour – introducing a frankness into public life on every topic, including his party's failings – he could secure an audience. Honesty in politics is the principle that should be his watchword. It also chimes with his personality and his policy instincts.

Should Mr Clegg have the courage to seize straight-talking as his own, then he will have a far less torrid time in charge than his predecessor. If he is seen as bold, blunt and unpredictable, then even the cynical media could assume an interest in him and his party. For heavy metal rock bands and Liberal Democrats share something vital in common. Their standing ultimately depends on the sheer volume of noise that they can manufacture.

Times Recommends

• Five golden rules for regulating banks
• Uighurs’ cry echoes round the world
• It is not just democracy that is illegal