Nick Clegg's leadership of the Liberal Democrats is a year old this week and he has marked the occasion with a speech called “Why I am a Liberal”. It is an important title and nothing like as obvious as it seems. The species of liberalism that Mr Clegg sets out is uncomfortable for many in his party, which still bears the marks of an uneasy merger 20 years ago. Power, said Mr Clegg, should rest with neither corporations nor the State, but at the lowest appropriate level. Large monopolies should be broken up. Individuals may require help before they can live independent lives, but there should be no assumption that the State runs large tracts of the public realm. At a time when ministers have argued that their intervention in the economy warrants greater state protection, this is a salutary prospectus.

Mr Clegg has also, in his year in charge, subtly shifted his party's policy position. They are no longer tax raisers and they want to cut tax for the least well-off. The default Liberal Democrat position is now to call for reductions, rather than increases, in spending. The timing of these changes was inauspicious but, if Mr Clegg can hold the line through the recession, he will emerge in the right place. Under David Laws, the party has abandoned its echo of the teaching unions and is committed to schools reform and a premium budget for poorer children. The Liberal Democrats have advocated individual patient budgets in mental health and signalled that the principle should be extended further through the NHS. There were also interesting incipient thoughts in Mr Clegg's speech on childcare, family policy, housing and energy use.

Striking a more coherent liberal position has two accompanying virtues. First, it puts the Lib Dems in a good position in the event of a minority Tory administration. Second, it places them advantageously in the event that Labour moves to the left. Charles Kennedy thought that he could sneak into the political centre from the left. Nick Clegg knows that the only viable way to supplant the Labour Party is from the right. Overall, this is a very different party from the one that fought the 2005 general election. Then it was difficult to say what the Liberal Democrats stood for beyond opposition to the Iraq war.

Not that greater coherence has brought with it much popularity. This is in part because the electorate has rewarded the Government for its handling of the financial crisis. But it is also a judgment on Mr Clegg's performance as leader. So far he has struggled to find a way of dramatising the changes he has made. He has been newsworthy not for his thoughtful positions, but for his thoughtless remarks. Mr Clegg has the opposite of the usual political vice: there is no question he will not answer. He should curb his tendency to be tetchy under pressure. He has a loud voice that he should lower in the vicinity of journalists. He should realise he has nothing to gain from divulging personal details. It is true he lacks the protective shield around him that is enjoyed by the other party leaders. But he needs wiser advice and a larger operation that can only be provided by a donor of unimpeachable integrity.

For these reasons, the improvements that Mr Clegg has wrought with a clarity of vision and impressive judgment have mostly gone under the radar. If he can give his liberalism some good publicity he may yet make it more popular.