YOU can tell that the Liberal Democrats have got under the skin of the other parties. They faced a virtually identical barrage of criticism yesterday from Michael Howard and Paul Boateng and The Sun devoted most of two pages to attacks on the party’s “loony left” policies, speciously linked to stale rumours about Charles Kennedy’s alleged drinking habits. Being noticed is always part of the battle for the Lib Dems, but that is no longer enough if the party is to challenge the Tories.

The real problem for the Lib Dems is not being “loony left”, despite the occasional dotty debates, but incoherence and inconsistency. This ambivalence is partly a deliberate electoral tactic to scoop up protest votes. Some party strategists argue that since this approach has worked so well, why do we have to change it now? But the price of success is close scrutiny.

At one level, the Lib Dems are developing a serious alternative approach based on smaller central government, less state interference in industry, fiscal discipline and a real devolution of financial responsibility and accountability.

The most striking example of a fresh approach has been the speech by Vincent Cable, the Trade and Industry spokesman. It was not just his proposals, the privatisation of Royal Mail and the replacement of the present Department of Trade by a department of the consumer, as his tone. He rejected not only socialism, but also corporatism, “the begging-bowl culture of an industrial, or agricultural, welfare state”; and what he described as “the cronyism and sycophancy” of new Labour towards the rich and powerful.

That all sounds fine, but Dr Cable’s free market and free trade message clashes with the instincts of many Lib Dem delegates, and MPs. They often call for government help when a local business is in trouble. That was evident from the speeches in yesterday’s debate, even though the vocal minority lost the vote. Today’s Lib Dems do not feel like the party of Cobden and 19th-century Manchester liberalism.

Matthew Taylor, the party’s Treasury spokesman, said the party would begin by looking at how money is spent before always demanding increases in the total. But his tough overall macro-economic message is undermined by many of the party’s spending policies. Of course, budgets can be re-allocated, but this will probably help only at the margin.

The Lib Dems want to scrap charging the elderly for personal care and to abolish tuition fees. Such a reaffirmation of the universal principle reiterates their belief in social justice, but it makes dubious economic sense when the main beneficiaries are the better-off. The same objection applies to scrapping health charges.

The idea of replacing council tax by local income tax should not be dismissed out of hand, but true localism and making councils accountable will require a very large transfer of revenue-raising from the centre to town halls, and a shift in the tax burden from the elderly to the better-off middle aged.

The Lib Dems cannot avoid the implications of their new thinking. They want to be taken seriously, but that means hard choices. You cannot please everyone all the time.

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• UK regional accents thrive against the odds
• ‘Scarecrow’ wind farms put rare birds to flight
• What an anti-climax: G-spot is a myth