The Liberal Democrats are currently a significant force in British politics, attracting millions of votes. We hold a substantial number of parliamentary seats, control local councils across the country and have a loyal base of support. Yet, listening to the news or watching political programmes, you could often be forgiven for thinking there are only two major parties. Is this something we should worry about?

I have voted Liberal and Liberal Democrat for around 60 years, and in all that time I have never had my own candidate win. That is quite a sobering thought. It also makes me wonder how much of the problem is the way our electoral system works, rather than simply how well we communicate. What do others think?

At present, so many people vote tactically. They may support us but decide that they need to vote for someone else to prevent another candidate from winning. When we eventually get PR, will that change? And will it be enough?

This is not simply a question of getting more publicity. It is also about voters understanding what we stand for.

News coverage naturally concentrates on conflict, arguments, scandals and dramatic events. A thoughtful speech about social care or local government may get little attention, while one controversial remark can dominate the headlines. This makes it particularly difficult for a party whose strengths include balance, pragmatism and nuance. Those qualities do not always make a memorable news story. Are we seen as too wishy-washy?

Perhaps we need to ask a simpler question: when somebody says “The Lib Dems are the party that…” what do we want them to say?

We have good practical policies on almost everything: housing, health, social care, education, civil liberties, local government, the environment and electoral reform. But having lots of policies is not the same as having a clear identity. People cannot be expected to remember a long list.

The environment is an interesting example. We have a substantial environmental agenda, supporting action on climate change, renewable energy, nature recovery, clean rivers and seas, better insulation and a more sustainable economy. Yet many people probably associate environmental politics much more strongly with the Green Party.

Could we – should we – do more to make the environmental part of our identity visible? Not by abandoning our other concerns, but by showing how they connect. Housing, transport, farming, energy and water, as well as being economic and social issues, are environmental issues. Poor housing costs people money. Pollution affects health. Climate change affects the economy. Protecting nature and improving our environment can therefore be presented as part of creating a healthier and more prosperous society. Do you agree?

Another possibility is to look at how we tell our stories. Instead of beginning with a policy, could we begin with the problem it solves for ordinary people? Instead of saying what we believe about insulation, for example, could we talk about warmer homes, lower bills and healthier lives? What do you think?

None of this means that our politics should become simplistic. Our problems really are interconnected. Housing cannot be separated from local government, social care from health, or economic growth from education and infrastructure. But we may need to explain those connections more simply, since voters tend to concentrate on their own local problems.

There is also the voting structure. Britain’s FPTP system encourages politics to be presented as a contest between the government and the party most likely to replace it. Journalists naturally follow that story. Third parties can therefore be marginalised even when they have considerable public support.

So perhaps the question is not simply “How do we get more media coverage?” It is “How do we become impossible to ignore?” What ideas do you have?

We don’t need to manufacture outrage or become more confrontational – that is not our style, and does not reflect who we are. We need a distinctive story about what we uniquely bring to British politics. How do we go about that?

This is a discussion paper, not a set of recommendations. But perhaps we should consider whether clearer themes, more consistent language and a stronger connection between our environmental, economic and social policies could help people see the Liberal Democrats in a more positive – and votable way.

We may not have a shortage of policies. We may have a shortage of voters knowing what they are.

* Veronica-Mae Soar is an archery historian, writer of short stories, articles and poems, as well as a nature supporter and environmental campaigner.