Young Mr Kennedy is having a lovely war

I am not alone in thinking that at some time in 2003 our politics will change. We may all turn out to be wrong. People were wrong about the Suez fiasco of 1956, as they still are. In fact little changed as a result of that disaster. The Conservatives went on to win the 1959 election overwhelmingly under Harold Macmillan and to stay in power for another five years. Under Margaret Thatcher we took military action in the Falklands without the active approval of the United States – something that Suez was supposed to have shown to be impossible.

The year 1973 is a more clearly marked point of change. The system of fixed exchange rates set up at Bretton Woods had already broken down. The great inflation which had been caused partly by the Vietnam conflict was proceeding merrily on its way. Israel went to war. The price of oil trebled or, according to some calculations, quadrupled. In this country, the post-1945 consensus collapsed.

And yet, the 1970s are described as "dull". The critics who write in these terms are usually interested mainly in music, films and fashion. In politics the decade, and particularly the year 1973, established the pattern of the way we live now – or, rather, lived until quite recently.

The Liberal Democrats are the most obvious beneficiaries of the collapse of the stockmarket, the war on Iraq and the Government-induced panic about terrorism (which, as I have pointed out several times in this space already, is itself also a product of the early 1970s). They originally called themselves the Social and Liberal Democrats, from the merger of the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party in 1988. The initial proposal was to have "the Democrats" as their short title. But this appellation did not catch on, not least because of the possibility of confusion with the US party of the same name. In 1989 the present title was adopted, though the old title is retained for formal and legal purposes.

It is often said that they have "no policy". Exactly the same used to be said of their predecessors. It was not true then, and it is not true now. They have a policy all right, though you have to buy up the entire contents of the Liberal Democrat bookstall at the party conference to find out what it is. But then, by "policy" most people do not mean what a party proposes to do about this, that or the other. They mean rather what a party "stands for", printed in block capitals with the broadest of brushes.

Here, certainly, the party does tend to vary its slogan according to the audience being addressed. But all parties do the same. Most politicians do likewise. Indeed, Mr Tony Blair is, since the retirement from active politics of Mr Bill Clinton, the greatest living exponent of telling audiences what they want to hear, or what he thinks they want to hear. He usually guesses correctly, though on Thursday the select meeting in north London probably wanted to hear something about Iraq – as the distinctly non-select heckler was to demonstrate – in addition to boasts about the traditional Labour virtue of forcing poor students into debt. In comparison with Mr Blair or, for that matter, with Mr Iain Duncan Smith (inasmuch as he matters to anyone), Mr Charles Kennedy is a model of straightforwardness and plain dealing. He is still criticised, however, for pursuing what his predecessor H H Asquith called a policy of masterly inactivity. The problem is that Mr Kennedy looks inactive even when he is buzzing about all over the place like a fly over a sirloin, as he was during the election.

In recent weeks too he has been making a louder noise than is his habit. One reason is that his foreign affairs spokesman, Mr Menzies Campbell, is ill. Everyone wishes him a speedy recovery. In one sense this is a disadvantage for the Liberal Democrats, who miss his reassuring presence and his knowledge of international law and diplomatic practice. In another sense, however, it is an advantage for them. Or, rather, it puts Mr Kennedy at a premium. If Mr Campbell is unavailable, he has to appear before our admiring eyes instead.

He has always had his spot at Prime Minister's Questions immediately after Mr Duncan Smith. And very good use he has made of it in the past few weeks. At least twice, perhaps more often, he has asked the same question: whether Mr Blair will send British troops into action too if Mr George Bush attacks Iraq without the authority of the UN. And from Mr Blair, with all the predictability of a scene from the D'Oyly Carte opera, answer comes there none.

Mr Kennedy has not allied his forces with Labour's awkward squad. Last week 40 Labour MPs voted against the motion for the adjournment after the defence debate. This was seven more than had voted for the same motion a few weeks ago. They were joined by a few Liberal Democrats and assorted nationalists. But most of the full complement of Mr Kennedy's 52 stayed in their seats.

The Liberal Democrats are following the same logic as, I would estimate, the majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party. It is to emulate Asquith yet again and to wait and see: in this case whether any military action against Iraq has the authority of the UN. There is a substantial minority which believes that an attack on Iraq that was wrong before does not become right merely because it has the sanction of a procedural vote secured by perhaps questionable means amid the bars and bagnios of New York City. And it may be that the minorities will become larger or, with Labour and Liberal Democrats alike, even turn into majorities once a few Iraqi schools and hospitals have been satisfactorily incinerated. But, for the moment, faith is reposed in the sanctity of the UN, which Mr Blair questions at his peril.

The best test would be a by-election. Alas, by-elections are not what they were. Whether because MPs are younger or healthier – whatever the reason – they do not come about as often as they used to. Certainly there is no contest pending. If there were, the Liberal Democrats would stand a good chance. My own hope would be for one of Labour's awkward squad to make a sacrifice by resigning and contesting the seat as a Labour peace candidate.

Mr Kennedy would, I hope, give him or her a clear run. The Tories would naturally have to stand on a pro-war platform. It is by no means certain that Mr Alastair Campbell would insist on putting up an official pro-war Labour candidate. There are recent precedents. Dick Taverne successfully refought Lincoln. Bruce Douglas-Mann, however, lost at Mitcham. At least this would not be a pointless sacrifice. And it would certainly embarrass Mr Blair no end.