Yes, but who are the Liberal Democrats for?

Two weeks ago, the BBC parliamentary channel showed the 1979 general election programme, Decision 79, exactly as it was transmitted on the day Margaret Thatcher came to power. As a candidate at my own count, I never saw the original show. For 15 glorious hours, 23 years later, I relived my triumph as David Dimbleby, David Butler and Bob Mackenzie (complete with swingometer) pored over the results. After four hours, Mr Butler tentatively declared that, on the basis of three early safe Tory seats – Guildford, Cheltenham and Torbay – the likelihood was a Tory victory.

All three of these seats now have Liberal Democrat MPs, which brings home the magnitude of the subsequent Tory demise. But the big question now is the extent to which there is further potential for additional gains at the Tories' expense. Or is it the case that the Tories cannot sink any lower, and therefore the challenge for the Liberal Democrats must be to target Labour constituencies?

This has been the subliminal debate at Brighton all week, as the party wrestles over future policy. "Who are the Lib Dems for?" was the question posed at The Independent's conference debate. Until the party can answer this question, it is difficult to know whether it will end up seeking to extend its appeal to the centre-right or, alternatively, trying to outflank Labour on the left by striving to capitalise on disillusionment with Tony Blair's policies.

In simple mathematical terms, the argument that the party should appeal to Tory voters, which is led by the Winchester MP Mark Oaten, makes considerable sense. His belief is that, for the Lib Dems to have a chance of overtaking the Tories as the principal opposition, they have to target Tory voters. This is what he did in his own constituency, where the 11,000 Tory majority in 1992 is now a Lib Dem majority of 10,000.

On this analysis, Mr Oaten's answer to our question is that the Lib Dems should be for consumer choice, local provision of public services and a willingness to embrace the private sector, if necessary, to improve public service delivery. This is a shameless pitch to stand on Tory ground, and it seeks to distance the Lib Dems from becoming the chief agitator for such producer interests as doctors, nurses and teachers.

But Mr Oaten is confronted by an alternative argument that starts from the basis that, first, the Lib Dems should be, in the words of Simon Hughes, "for our members" and "for people in the places where they have voted for us". Mr Hughes also points out that there are nearly as many Labour constituencies (51) where the Lib Dems come second as there are Conservative (58). By implication, Mr Hughes appears to suggest that Labour is the bigger target.

A complicating factor, however, has been overlooked by both approaches. There is also a need for Lib Dems placed second in Tory constituencies to recognise that the best way of gaining such seats is to appeal to Labour voters where their candidates lie in third place and have no chance of winning. Attention should also be paid to seats held by Tory frontbenchers such as Oliver Letwin, Theresa May and David Davis, where the margin of victory over the Lib Dems can be erased if the Lib Dems successfully pitch for the still substantial Labour vote.

These tactical decisions may give the impression that the Lib Dems are more concerned with electoral arithmetic than policy considerations. That is an unfair characterisation, but such calculations do act as a spur and a guide in forming a coherent set of policies. But a better method of proceeding to a detailed manifesto may be a return to first principles.

Menzies Campbell draws attention to the need for the Lib Dems to remember the roots of the party, based on John Stuart Mill's utilitarian theory of "the greatest happiness for the greatest number". Mr Campbell stressed the need at Brighton this week to ensure that the party becomes less prescriptive and more permissive – hence his willingness to take on the anti-foxhunting lobby and his unwillingness to criminalise law-abiding citizens. In a sideswipe at his party's occasional authoritarian tendency he said: "In the 1920s, the Lib Dems might have been in favour of Prohibition".

But the party is successfully discerning a profile of voters who are internationalist in outlook and concerned about the environment, public transport, civil liberties and constitutional issues, and who may provide a firm bedrock of support regardless of their previous party affiliation. The challenge is to capitalise on the disillusionment of Labour and Tory voters without the old charge of "all things to all men", which haunted, and ultimately checked, the party's advances in earlier decades.

Charles Kennedy is accused by some activists of having no strategy. Others say that there is a strategy – which is to have no strategy. Either way, Mr Kennedy has successfully built upon Paddy Ashdown's legacy; and he has time on his side. His is an incremental approach rather than Paddy Ashdown's "big bang". His biggest asset remains his image as the anti-politician. In an age when 40 per cent of all voters stay at home because they feel disengaged and powerless, perhaps the answer to this newspaper's question should be: "Liberal Democrats are for the powerless."

mrbrown@pimlico.freeserve.co.uk