MANCHESTER LIBERALS

Kennedy Must Be Brave, Not Opportunistic Or Trendy

The Liberal Democrats' spring conference in Manchester this weekend has
revealed both confidence and complacency. The party is rightly confident
that it can exploit both disappointment with the domestic policies of new
Labour and the perception that the Conservative Party has not dramatically
altered tactics or tone since the last election.

The recent pattern of council by-elections, along with other evidence,
suggests that the Liberal Democrats will do well in the forthcoming local
election campaign.

A strong performance here might severely embarrass Iain Duncan Smith and
Conservative Central Office. Charles Kennedy would be in a position to
restate his claim to be the "effective opposition".

The complacency, unfortunately, became clear during policy discussions. The
debate on drugs policy saw the party lurch from a position which is
distinctive but responsible, the call for a Royal Commission on cannabis, to
one that is far more questionable. Liberal activists chose to back a
blueprint which would end all prison sentences for the possession of cocaine
and heroin and which would downgrade ecstasy from a Category A to Category B
narcotic. Mr Kennedy is not obliged to take such a vote too seriously and it
is unlikely that the next Liberal Democrat manifesto will include it. But it
indicates a mood among party activists which is not brave, in the real sense
of that term, but either trendy or unworldly.

It did not suggest a desire to adjust to the realities of serious
opposition, never mind an alternative government.

The Liberal Democrat leader also opted to play safe in his own address to
his party. He could and should have taken the opportunity to prepare his
activists for a new approach to the public services.

This would have acknowledged that large injections of new spending alone
will not ensure progress and that structural reforms are also important.

There is an original contribution that the Liberal Democrats could offer
here which would mark them out from both of the larger parties.

But the essence of their approach still seems to be rooted in the quest for
higher taxation, an ambition which, while superficially "brave", actually
defers the need for the sort of serious debate which would make many party
stalwarts uncomfortable.

The same could be said for the overtures which Mr Kennedy made towards the
trades unions.

This might have been planned all along, but it looked like a somewhat
opportunistic response to the speech made on Saturday by John Monks, the
General Secretary of the TUC, in which he gave warning of an "explosive
cocktail" which might poison the relationship between ministers and
organised labour. This is territory which the Liberal Democrats could easily
exploit, but only at the price of their own integrity.

They can hardly position themselves as the party of imaginative solutions on
the public services while at the same time courting those who are doggedly
determined to resist any meaningful change in health, education and
transport.

In the short term, none of this will matter much. The Liberal Democrats are
unlikely to lose many, if any, votes in council contests over cannabis or a
cordial meeting held between its leader and Mr Monks. In the longer term,
though, the credibility of the party will turn on whether it can make hard
choices. To that extent, the meeting in Manchester - a city associated with
a truly brave brand of liberalism - has to be viewed as a lost opportunity.

Mr Kennedy and his colleagues should aspire to look rather more "effective"
and less like an "opposition" by the time of the main party conference
season.