Do Lib Dems need a de-tox or just an identikit?

As you would expect, the slightly astonishing assertion made earlier in the week by Lib Dem MP Tim Farron that David Cameron and his party are “toxic”, has sparked a further flurry of press coverage about “growing unease” within the party over decisions and how they are taken.

According to various publications, activists on the ground report that the previously successful portrayal of Lib Dem ministers as a moderating force no longer carries much weight in the constituencies. Clegg has been reduced to compliant glove puppet status, thanks to perceptions reinforced by the press and Mock the Week.

Farron goes some way towards defining the dilemma facing Lib Dems by contending that it is vital for his party to avoid becoming managerial in government. He feels that ministers must remain spiky when it comes to defending their crusading principles. Otherwise, he says "our identity is going to be potentially compromised if we are not careful."

He fails to say whether describing the Iraq war as illegal from the dispatch box fits into this game-plan but you can see where he is coming from.

The kind of blurred accountability that arises from coalition government is particularly well illustrated by the on-line exchanges between Peter Black and former Labour council leader Jeff Jones. Neither can say with any authority whether the ‘signals’ that rail electrification from London to Swansea is about to get ditched reviewed are true. The same could probably be said of those higher up the food chain but whilst this no more than an indication that the process of government remains as opaque as ever, the danger is that the new third force in politics will be seen to be is living down to the critics’ expectations.

Even Simon Hughes, who beat Farron to become deputy leader, admits that Lib Dems have struggled to spell out their own distinctive policies so far. But then again both coalition partners appear to have their share of runners-up warning believers of the perils associated with straying from the true path.

Nevertheless, Hughes is just as clear that the Lib Dems should distinguish more clearly which policies they actively support from those they are obliged to back as where part of a collective responsibility that is unwelcome but unavoidable. He adds, "We need to be clear when things come from the Conservative stable this is not our proposal but we have accepted it because it is part of the package."

It will be fascinating to see, and if, Clegg and his colleagues can deliver on that aim when so many are demanding clarity and consistency on public spending plans. A coalition that is intent on internal blame-shifting cannot expect to have much of a shelf life – which may explain why the electoral reform package announced this week is to be fast-tracked by both partners.