Lib Dems' best strategy for getting ahead could be just standing still

Lib Dem conference

All-women shortlists rejected by delegates

Campbell calls for urgent rise in defence spending

Kennedy will champion patients and consumers

The Sketch: For once, they resist the urge to get involved

Charles Kennedy told listeners to the BBC's Today programme on Tuesday that his party is neither to the left nor to the right of Labour, but "ahead". It might have been a slick soundbite, but it leaves unanswered some of the strategic questions now facing the Liberal Democrats. Having more than held their own in the June election and having pulled out of their joint cabinet committee with the Government, where do they go from here?

Part of the answer can be gleaned from looking at where the party did best in the election. The Liberal Democrats did relatively well in marginal constituencies they were defending, and in some seats they had most hope of gaining. But the party also did relatively well in working-class Labour seats where it has usually struggled. In these seats, the vote share typically rose by a percentage point or so more than the national norm. Meanwhile, it was here that Labour's vote fell most.

The party's success in more working-class areas is significant in indicating how New Labour's determination to occupy the ideological centre of British politics may be changing the kind of voter the Liberal Democrats are able to woo. According to the marketing research company ICM, the party's share of the middle-class vote is no higher than it was in 1997, whereas it rose by four points among the skilled working class and two points among the unskilled. Labour has gained ground among middle-class voters while losing it among the working class.

More startlingly, a poll conducted by ICM for the BBC in the final days of the campaign found that, for the most part, Liberal Democrat voters were slightly to the left of Labour supporters. They were most in favour of "tax and spend" and renationalisation of the railways, and most opposed to involving commercial companies in the running of schools and hospitals.

Of course, there are dangers for the Liberal Demo-crats in pitching their tent even a little to the left of Labour. This could run the risk of making the party less attractive to disgruntled Conservative voters.

Against this, however, are three factors. First, if New Labour is determined to keep moving to the centre, the Liberal Democrats may find themselves to its left even if all they do is stand still.

Second, at present the electorate's dissatisfaction with New Labour seems to comprise disappointment with the Government's record on improving public services with doubts that using the private sector is the solution. If this mood grows in Labour's second term, a party that opposes it from the left may have more appeal than one that does so from the right.

Third, the party's existing seats may not be put at as much risk by such a strategy as might be thought. Being somewhat to the left of Labour could help the party win tactical support from Labour voters and will do nothing to undermine the party's efforts to seek and establish a reputation for local activity.

New Labour's move to the centre has rewritten the rules. Settling for a position to its left may not be the only response for the Liberal Democrats, but it seems to be a serious option for the first time. The party could be facing a new strategic landscape.

John Curtice is the Professor of Politics at the University of Strathclyde