By definition conservative means adverse to change.
It might also mean to conserve stuff, which is a good thing sometimes, like the planet for example. Running with your thought though, if it means adverse to change I wonder if conservatism has some kind of idealised or even ideal starting point? As in adverse to change from 1850, or 1950, and only accepting change slowly and reluctantly? Hmmn. Wasn't deregulation of the financial markets a massive explosive change ushered in by Thatcher?
The sole purpose of the modern day Tory Party, no matter how they try to hide it, is to protect the interests of the rich. Just like Trump and the Republican Party in the US.
I'm no Tory but I have a fairly clear sense of what I want in a Tory - fusty, rural, eccentric, jovial and above all sincere. They should have the demeanour of gentry (or at least, military folk) and use their cruel, hard-nosed commitment to self-interest in the service of personal liberty. They should oppose the nanny-state at every turn - ditto authoritarianism - and they should pay their servants well (and encourage everyone else down the rotary to do the same). They should put aside generous alms for the needy and they should love nature and its conservation. They should have an encyclopedic knowledge of their constituency and how old all of its churches are. Did Tories of this kind ever exist? It is perhaps a pipe-dream, but I can well imagine Tories of yore cleaving somewhat to this portrayal.
We are faced with a very different sort of Tory as the default. A sort of rapacious soulless bastard who thrives on hatred and positively relishes authoritarianism. Who disdains whimsy or even intellect; who frames everything as a fight and who never, ever chills out. Who embraces the alt-right, for fuck's sake.
Labour now have some principled politicians with good social-democratic aims and approachable demeanours. Not many, but a few. One is leader. It's almost enough.
Can the Tories please put forward some proper Tory politicians too? It's getting boring.
Small piece in The Times today, written by Katie Perior (she was a councellor in Bexley and probably an Addick, her brother is), she was a communications officer at no 10 until earlier this year, talks of the arrogance and bullying of Mays advisors, who I believe have just resigned.
She was on the TV earlier and seemed pretty cross at the mess. She seemed to realise that calling the election was a stupid risk at the time. If you slur somebody like Corbyn as a tactic, you have to be careful not to believe all the slurs. Respecting what he achieved in his own party despite the odds means you need to respect him and this was a big mistake May and her advisers made.
Always felt the Tories made a huge mistake in using "austerity" as a buzz word. They should have gone for "prudence", but such is the way of the way of the world that doesn't sound "proactive" enough.
Okay, I'll offer a rather unliberal version. I grew up through the eighties under Thatcher, and loathing for the Tories is rather hard wired into me, and austerity, brexit and the sort of stuff the Mail and Sun came out with last week haven't changed that a jot. I want to see the UK change into a fairer society and that will never happen under the current regime. So..... I want May to stay. She's incompetent and arrogant, can't listen to other views, can't admit a mistake and has suddenly aquired a hunger for power that will lead her to sacrifice anything, including basics like human rights to achieve it. Do a deal with DUP. They are some bizarre flat-earth crackpot organisation. Six months sharing power with that sort of organisation will do terrible damage to their image. Claim the UK demands a hard Brexit and try it. Stick two fingers up at half the electorate who didn't even want it, and a vague percentage who did, but didn't want to sabotage the economy, but simply wanted parliament to make the laws without any influence from europe. Keep labelling Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser while sharing power with the DUP. He avoided attacking May and offered policies instead. I want May to show she has nothing else to offer except being anti-labour. If the Tories really used their heads, they would let Corbyn form a government with an unworkable minority and a manifesto that a lot of centrist Tories won't touch. Labour are in a strong position in opposition but they don't have a mandate from the voters for their manifesto. But May will give it to them.
What is concerning and beyond party politics is that a conerstone of the Good Friday agreement is the neutrality of the UK Government. Cool heads are required because this arrangement will not last, but the fact that it is happening at all is dangerous and reckless and shows May puts power above our safety as it puts peace in jeopardy at a time whent there are clearly strains in the region.
Some honesty from all sides would be nice and would disproportionately have helped the Tories.
I am thinking especially about the problem we share with every developed economy in the world, namely over indebtedness which stifles secular growth prospects and in turn obviously tax receipts, real incomes etc. Explaining to voters why their standards of living will be permanently impaired going forward wouldn't have gone amiss.
When you have a crisis, you have more debt. You recover by growing. That is how it works and has worked. Austerity works when you are the only one doing it - it is a movement and people do need to ask themselves why given all the evidence that it doesn't work, why it is so popular! I'm not one to praise Blair, but during the boom years before the GLOBAL financial crisis we were spending more on public services and shrinking the debt!
Every surplus has to be balanced by deficit - this is the mathematics of economies and betrays the dishonesty of Tory politicians. The richest country in the world has been in deficit since the 1800s. You prolong the agony when you contract and shrink GDP. That is why the 2015 of austerity target the government set in 2010 was never going to be achieved. The last growth figures were 0.2%. This is ridiculous.
When you have a crisis, you have more debt. You recover by growing. That is how it works and has worked. Austerity works when you are the only one doing it - it is a movement and people do need to ask themselves why given all the evidence that it doesn't work, why it is so popular! I'm not one to praise Blair, but during the boom years before the GLOBAL financial crisis we were spending more on public services and shrinking the debt!
Every surplus has to be balanced by deficit - this is the mathematics of economies and betrays the dishonesty of Tory politicians. The richest country in the world has been in deficit since the 1800s. You prolong the agony when you contract and shrink GDP. That is why the 2015 of austerity target the government set in 2010 was never going to be achieved. The last growth figures were 0.2%. This is ridiculous.
I would be inclined to agree ordinarily but I would make three counter arguments:
- our starting point is a fiscal deficit of say 5% GDP even after years of mild austerity; - the last global recession/financial crisis was caused by excess debt (not simply the usual vagaries of an economic cycle); and - there are plenty of countries (notably Ireland) that are now growing strongly again after going through the years of austerity-driven pain to fix their finances.
But the excess of debt was caused by the crisis - that is my point. Most serious economists will tell you that Ireland's recovery was not linked at all to austerity so they are a poor example.
The reason growth is 7% in Ireland is its export industries and being fortunate that there is buoyancy in the country’s top export markets, along with European Central Bank quantitative easing and historically low interest rates. Together these factors helped to stabilise the banking system and supported the recovery. These factors wont work for us given our different economies.
I haven't followed UK politics as closely in the last ~year and a half as I would otherwise. So I'll keep this brief.
One thing I think is worth mentioning is that politics is cyclical. It seems less so in the UK where you don't *have* to have parliamentary elections every two and four years (did you hear that Madam Prime Minister?). But it tends to be the case that when a party is in power they will see their lead grow, then lessen, then power will change hands. We see that here too. A lot of other people have articulated things far better than I can, but that would be what I would say. To an extent, this is kind of normal.
I haven't followed UK politics as closely in the last ~year and a half as I would otherwise. So I'll keep this brief.
One thing I think is worth mentioning is that politics is cyclical. It seems less so in the UK where you don't *have* to have parliamentary elections every two and four years (did you hear that Madam Prime Minister?). But it tends to be the case that when a party is in power they will see their lead grow, then lessen, then power will change hands. We see that here too. A lot of other people have articulated things far better than I can, but that would be what I would say. To an extent, this is kind of normal.
C'mon @SDAddick I was hoping for at least several pages of analysis from you.
The first thing the Tories need to do is admit to themselves two things. It will take time, because they are both very unpalatable. One looks back, the other looks forward - and they are both horrible. But until they can accept these two truths, they can't shed the mistakes they've accumulated and they can't build a popular consensus. First, they have to understand they lost the election. Second, they have to understand that their next goal is to build a strong, popular and effective opposition.
1. They lost the election. This is clear and obvious to everyone, except those who most need to understand it. The election was an unequal race to win a working majority. No party - including the Conservatives - won a working majority. So they lost. And, until they accept that, they can't move forward. There will be lots of members of parliament, ministers, supporters and party workers who will trot out the mantra. "We won the most seats and we secured the most votes". Irrelevant. At least, irrelevant to anyone seriously considering what the party needs to do from here.
Yes, it was close. Yes, they have more seats than almost all other parties combined. Yes they won the "popular vote". But we don't do it like that here, do we? The governors are the ones who are allowed to govern. And only with a majority can they govern. They lost.
2. They need to work towards being a strong, popular opposition. Preposterous right? "We're the party in charge", right? "We're not in opposition!", right? "The Prime Minister is a Tory!", right?
Wrong. At least, wrong if you're thinking about how the party needs to improve. Because it cannot improve while it's feebly hanging on to power. The Conservatives need to assume they will lose the next election and win the one after that. Because the worst possible place to be - especially for the Conservative party - is to be the party clinging, embarrassingly onto power, while the population pokes fun at them. Ask John Major.
So, once they have made those two admissions, what do they do next? Well, here is a list, to start with.
1. Plan a proper, simple offer. Make it believable. And, most of all, make it aspirational. Tories should be talking about how much they support people trying to get rich; not people who are rich. They've already got Jonathan Harmsworth and Paul Dacre's votes: they're wealthy. They need to get their readers' too. But they need to pitch their offer at helping people to get there, not just people who are already there. Make it a good offer; make it simple; and repeat it at every opportunity. That way, lots of people will be engaged by it at the next election (which they will lose) and more at the following one (which they could win).
2. Find a credible leader. Theresa May won't fight the next election: that means they need a credible, serious, capable, media-friendly leader. And preferably one who is a complete contrast to Jeremy Corbyn's straight, old, male, London persona. The most obvious contrast to that would be Ruth Davidson. But I don't think the Tories are that ambitious yet. Give it to Boris and he can be the fall guy who loses the next one, before finding the right person to win it after that. But, for the Tories, getting the right leader - no matter how long it takes - is much more important than merely replacing Theresa May with someone slightly better (Hammond? Fallon?) soon. John Major blew his majority and it took several attempts to find David Cameron. Theresa May has blown her majority - they need to find the right leader and it probably won't be the next one.
3. Increase membership. It's obvious that the people who influence voters are the people they know. So a party with a larger membership, full of committed, enthused evangelists is going to shift the needle. So campaigning for this ailing Tory party should not be restricted to winning votes at local, national and European elections: it needs to be aimed at winning more members. A "ten pound Tories" campaign to get students signed up, offering them membership from 18-25 will drive votes - and, just as importantly, continued support - from their cohorts. This will be badly needed while they're in the wilderness years.
4. Stop lying. The Tories used to be the nasty party. You could trust them to be nasty. You knew you couldn't be a criminal, an illegal immigrant or a scrounger under the Tories and expect to be accepted by the Tories. They were honest about their nastiness. But they stretched it: they picked on all immigrants; unemployed people; disabled; union members; doctors... this is where their nastiness exceeded the invisible boundary. And now, they're reduced - in the public's opinion - to being liars. "There will be no snap election". "There will be no tax or national insurance rises". "Our social care policy is fair". The lies have been coming thick and fast. So much, that people assume anything they say is likely to be proven to be untrue very quickly. They need to drop the lies. Start being honest. And win back public confidence. Sometimes, they're going to have to admit stuff that's unpalatable. What people want is honest, trustworthy politicians. The current Tory cadre - May, Johnson, Hammond, Hunt, Gove... - is too chock-full of people with only the faintest familiarity honesty. Win back a much-needed reputation for honesty and the party might win another election in the 2020s.
Once they've gone through the painful admission that they lost the election and they need to build towards being a strong opposition and once they've planned a proper offer, found a proper leader, acquired more members and stopped lying, they will be in a position to win an election. And, if they're lucky, it might be the next one.
Chizz, some interesting thoughts and observations,
Just one I wanted to pick up on in particular - 3. Membership.
I've never really thought about it before as I've never been a member of a political party, don't think I ever would be as I don't feel that strongly about a particular party/name to do so. But thinking about it I don't personally know a single person who is a member of any political party other than Labour. Why is that? Especially as I probably know more Tory voters than Labour one's.
Having just looked it up the Conservatives have around 150,000 members, Labour around 480,000 although that was as at March 2017 (so will undoubtedly have risen for Labour) this had previously been reducing following Corbyn's election as Leader.
Only around 1.6% of the electorate are currently a member of the main 3 parties (CON, LAB, LIB's).
So why is membership that important? Through Labours most successful period in the last 40 years they had their lowest membership since records began in 1928.
is it historically parties have had their most successful periods when they are towards the centre?
The primary thing that needs to be addressed is campaigning and debating the issues properly. The level of debate from the Tories was abysmal. Labour policies were left completely unchallenged. Corbyn's policies were not too different from the far left policies put forward by Michael Foot. At that time Tory leaders and campaigners successfully got over why socialist policies are detrimental to the majority of people. This was helped by the failure of some of these policies in the 70's. The current batch of Tories failed to debate this. The campaign couldn't have been worse, let alone the own goals on care and pensions.
Chizz, some interesting thoughts and observations,
Just one I wanted to pick up on in particular - 3. Membership.
I've never really thought about it before as I've never been a member of a political party, don't think I ever would be as I don't feel that strongly about a particular party/name to do so. But thinking about it I don't personally know a single person who is a member of any political party other than Labour. Why is that? Especially as I probably know more Tory voters than Labour one's.
Having just looked it up the Conservatives have around 150,000 members, Labour around 480,000 although that was as at March 2017 (so will undoubtedly have risen for Labour) this had previously been reducing following Corbyn's election as Leader.
Only around 1.6% of the electorate are currently a member of the main 3 parties (CON, LAB, LIB's).
So why is membership that important? Through Labours most successful period in the last 40 years they had their lowest membership since records began in 1928.
is it historically parties have had their most successful periods when they are towards the centre?
I think Labour have 650k members and growing @Rob7Lee. I read a really good quote this morning from a Labour person that went something like " The Tories can throw money at an election but we can throw people".
The primary thing that needs to be addressed is campaigning and debating the issues properly. The level of debate from the Tories was abysmal. Labour policies were left completely unchallenged. Corbyn's policies were not too different from the far left policies put forward by Michael Foot. At that time Tory leaders and campaigners successfully got over why socialist policies are detrimental to the majority of people. This was helped by the failure of some of these policies in the 70's. The current batch of Tories failed to debate this. The campaign couldn't have been worse, let alone the own goals on care and pensions.
As somebody who was around at the time I can assure that Corbyn's policies are very different from those of Michael Foot's. I would agree though that the Tories failed miserably to debate just about any policies, including their own.
If the US comes calling for us to send troops to some pointless war, we find the money.
Need to refurb parliament. We find the money.
Need to bail out banks. We find the money.
Want to renew a hugely expensive weapon we've never used and likely never will. We find the money.
The 'magic money tree' exists. It's just politicians often choose to use it for things that don't benefit you and I like a lot of things they could spend the money on would.
I haven't followed UK politics as closely in the last ~year and a half as I would otherwise. So I'll keep this brief.
One thing I think is worth mentioning is that politics is cyclical. It seems less so in the UK where you don't *have* to have parliamentary elections every two and four years (did you hear that Madam Prime Minister?). But it tends to be the case that when a party is in power they will see their lead grow, then lessen, then power will change hands. We see that here too. A lot of other people have articulated things far better than I can, but that would be what I would say. To an extent, this is kind of normal.
C'mon @SDAddick I was hoping for at least several pages of analysis from you.
I would if I could mate! But I feel like it would just be sort of standard commentary against conservatism/austerity measures/etc.
What the Tories will have learnt from this debacle is that arrogance and assumption is not the way to win an election; that you can't call an election on a one-policy strategy; you need to properly interact with the general public and if you are offering strong, stable leadership then demonstrate it yourselves rather than rely on the opposition's lack of decisive leadership to do the job for you.
They may have lost the current youth vote for good after this performance; add to that the extra millions reaching voting age in the next 4 years, plus the older, home-owning Tory voters dying off in the same period; they will have a difficult time at the next election, regardless of how they perform during this period in office.
As much as anything, Theresa May's performance as a "strong and stable leader" lost them their majority and perhaps the most important change the party needs to make is to find a new, dynamic, compelling and personable leader. Not easy!
I thought that many of the Tory members were also Labour members and had elected Corbyn in the last leadership vote to ensure a Tory landslide victory in a GE.
Chizz, some interesting thoughts and observations,
Just one I wanted to pick up on in particular - 3. Membership.
I've never really thought about it before as I've never been a member of a political party, don't think I ever would be as I don't feel that strongly about a particular party/name to do so. But thinking about it I don't personally know a single person who is a member of any political party other than Labour. Why is that? Especially as I probably know more Tory voters than Labour one's.
Having just looked it up the Conservatives have around 150,000 members, Labour around 480,000 although that was as at March 2017 (so will undoubtedly have risen for Labour) this had previously been reducing following Corbyn's election as Leader.
Only around 1.6% of the electorate are currently a member of the main 3 parties (CON, LAB, LIB's).
So why is membership that important? Through Labours most successful period in the last 40 years they had their lowest membership since records began in 1928.
is it historically parties have had their most successful periods when they are towards the centre?
I think Labour have 650k members and growing @Rob7Lee. I read a really good quote this morning from a Labour person that went something like " The Tories can throw money at an election but we can throw people".
And they did. I saw it at first hand through the election how we were being mobilised and organised. It was impressive but happened underneath the scrutiny. I said during the campaign that it is an error to think about this in the party political terms of the past. This is a popularist movement, but very interestingly, for the world as well as this country, instead of a movement of hate, it is one of care and compassion. The rules that we use to try to make sense of things don't apply anymore.
I thought that many of the Tory members were also Labour members and had elected Corbyn in the last leadership vote to ensure a Tory landslide victory in a GE.
That's a myth used by the blair bods to stop new members voting for the leadership
Comments
Running with your thought though, if it means adverse to change I wonder if conservatism has some kind of idealised or even ideal starting point? As in adverse to change from 1850, or 1950, and only accepting change slowly and reluctantly?
Hmmn.
Wasn't deregulation of the financial markets a massive explosive change ushered in by Thatcher?
I'm no Tory but I have a fairly clear sense of what I want in a Tory - fusty, rural, eccentric, jovial and above all sincere. They should have the demeanour of gentry (or at least, military folk) and use their cruel, hard-nosed commitment to self-interest in the service of personal liberty. They should oppose the nanny-state at every turn - ditto authoritarianism - and they should pay their servants well (and encourage everyone else down the rotary to do the same). They should put aside generous alms for the needy and they should love nature and its conservation. They should have an encyclopedic knowledge of their constituency and how old all of its churches are. Did Tories of this kind ever exist? It is perhaps a pipe-dream, but I can well imagine Tories of yore cleaving somewhat to this portrayal. We are faced with a very different sort of Tory as the default. A sort of rapacious soulless bastard who thrives on hatred and positively relishes authoritarianism. Who disdains whimsy or even intellect; who frames everything as a fight and who never, ever chills out. Who embraces the alt-right, for fuck's sake. Labour now have some principled politicians with good social-democratic aims and approachable demeanours. Not many, but a few. One is leader. It's almost enough. Can the Tories please put forward some proper Tory politicians too? It's getting boring.I want to see the UK change into a fairer society and that will never happen under the current regime.
So..... I want May to stay. She's incompetent and arrogant, can't listen to other views, can't admit a mistake and has suddenly aquired a hunger for power that will lead her to sacrifice anything, including basics like human rights to achieve it.
Do a deal with DUP. They are some bizarre flat-earth crackpot organisation. Six months sharing power with that sort of organisation will do terrible damage to their image.
Claim the UK demands a hard Brexit and try it. Stick two fingers up at half the electorate who didn't even want it, and a vague percentage who did, but didn't want to sabotage the economy, but simply wanted parliament to make the laws without any influence from europe.
Keep labelling Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser while sharing power with the DUP. He avoided attacking May and offered policies instead. I want May to show she has nothing else to offer except being anti-labour.
If the Tories really used their heads, they would let Corbyn form a government with an unworkable minority and a manifesto that a lot of centrist Tories won't touch. Labour are in a strong position in opposition but they don't have a mandate from the voters for their manifesto. But May will give it to them.
With a bit of luck ;-)
I am thinking especially about the problem we share with every developed economy in the world, namely over indebtedness which stifles secular growth prospects and in turn obviously tax receipts, real incomes etc. Explaining to voters why their standards of living will be permanently impaired going forward wouldn't have gone amiss.
Every surplus has to be balanced by deficit - this is the mathematics of economies and betrays the dishonesty of Tory politicians. The richest country in the world has been in deficit since the 1800s. You prolong the agony when you contract and shrink GDP. That is why the 2015 of austerity target the government set in 2010 was never going to be achieved. The last growth figures were 0.2%. This is ridiculous.
- our starting point is a fiscal deficit of say 5% GDP even after years of mild austerity;
- the last global recession/financial crisis was caused by excess debt (not simply the usual vagaries of an economic cycle); and
- there are plenty of countries (notably Ireland) that are now growing strongly again after going through the years of austerity-driven pain to fix their finances.
One thing I think is worth mentioning is that politics is cyclical. It seems less so in the UK where you don't *have* to have parliamentary elections every two and four years (did you hear that Madam Prime Minister?). But it tends to be the case that when a party is in power they will see their lead grow, then lessen, then power will change hands. We see that here too. A lot of other people have articulated things far better than I can, but that would be what I would say. To an extent, this is kind of normal.
1. They lost the election. This is clear and obvious to everyone, except those who most need to understand it. The election was an unequal race to win a working majority. No party - including the Conservatives - won a working majority. So they lost. And, until they accept that, they can't move forward. There will be lots of members of parliament, ministers, supporters and party workers who will trot out the mantra. "We won the most seats and we secured the most votes". Irrelevant. At least, irrelevant to anyone seriously considering what the party needs to do from here.
Yes, it was close. Yes, they have more seats than almost all other parties combined. Yes they won the "popular vote". But we don't do it like that here, do we? The governors are the ones who are allowed to govern. And only with a majority can they govern. They lost.
2. They need to work towards being a strong, popular opposition. Preposterous right? "We're the party in charge", right? "We're not in opposition!", right? "The Prime Minister is a Tory!", right?
Wrong. At least, wrong if you're thinking about how the party needs to improve. Because it cannot improve while it's feebly hanging on to power. The Conservatives need to assume they will lose the next election and win the one after that. Because the worst possible place to be - especially for the Conservative party - is to be the party clinging, embarrassingly onto power, while the population pokes fun at them. Ask John Major.
So, once they have made those two admissions, what do they do next? Well, here is a list, to start with.
1. Plan a proper, simple offer. Make it believable. And, most of all, make it aspirational. Tories should be talking about how much they support people trying to get rich; not people who are rich. They've already got Jonathan Harmsworth and Paul Dacre's votes: they're wealthy. They need to get their readers' too. But they need to pitch their offer at helping people to get there, not just people who are already there. Make it a good offer; make it simple; and repeat it at every opportunity. That way, lots of people will be engaged by it at the next election (which they will lose) and more at the following one (which they could win).
2. Find a credible leader. Theresa May won't fight the next election: that means they need a credible, serious, capable, media-friendly leader. And preferably one who is a complete contrast to Jeremy Corbyn's straight, old, male, London persona. The most obvious contrast to that would be Ruth Davidson. But I don't think the Tories are that ambitious yet. Give it to Boris and he can be the fall guy who loses the next one, before finding the right person to win it after that. But, for the Tories, getting the right leader - no matter how long it takes - is much more important than merely replacing Theresa May with someone slightly better (Hammond? Fallon?) soon. John Major blew his majority and it took several attempts to find David Cameron. Theresa May has blown her majority - they need to find the right leader and it probably won't be the next one.
3. Increase membership. It's obvious that the people who influence voters are the people they know. So a party with a larger membership, full of committed, enthused evangelists is going to shift the needle. So campaigning for this ailing Tory party should not be restricted to winning votes at local, national and European elections: it needs to be aimed at winning more members. A "ten pound Tories" campaign to get students signed up, offering them membership from 18-25 will drive votes - and, just as importantly, continued support - from their cohorts. This will be badly needed while they're in the wilderness years.
4. Stop lying. The Tories used to be the nasty party. You could trust them to be nasty. You knew you couldn't be a criminal, an illegal immigrant or a scrounger under the Tories and expect to be accepted by the Tories. They were honest about their nastiness. But they stretched it: they picked on all immigrants; unemployed people; disabled; union members; doctors... this is where their nastiness exceeded the invisible boundary. And now, they're reduced - in the public's opinion - to being liars. "There will be no snap election". "There will be no tax or national insurance rises". "Our social care policy is fair". The lies have been coming thick and fast. So much, that people assume anything they say is likely to be proven to be untrue very quickly. They need to drop the lies. Start being honest. And win back public confidence. Sometimes, they're going to have to admit stuff that's unpalatable. What people want is honest, trustworthy politicians. The current Tory cadre - May, Johnson, Hammond, Hunt, Gove... - is too chock-full of people with only the faintest familiarity honesty. Win back a much-needed reputation for honesty and the party might win another election in the 2020s.
Once they've gone through the painful admission that they lost the election and they need to build towards being a strong opposition and once they've planned a proper offer, found a proper leader, acquired more members and stopped lying, they will be in a position to win an election. And, if they're lucky, it might be the next one.
Just one I wanted to pick up on in particular - 3. Membership.
I've never really thought about it before as I've never been a member of a political party, don't think I ever would be as I don't feel that strongly about a particular party/name to do so. But thinking about it I don't personally know a single person who is a member of any political party other than Labour. Why is that? Especially as I probably know more Tory voters than Labour one's.
Having just looked it up the Conservatives have around 150,000 members, Labour around 480,000 although that was as at March 2017 (so will undoubtedly have risen for Labour) this had previously been reducing following Corbyn's election as Leader.
Only around 1.6% of the electorate are currently a member of the main 3 parties (CON, LAB, LIB's).
So why is membership that important? Through Labours most successful period in the last 40 years they had their lowest membership since records began in 1928.
is it historically parties have had their most successful periods when they are towards the centre?
Need to refurb parliament. We find the money.
Need to bail out banks. We find the money.
Want to renew a hugely expensive weapon we've never used and likely never will. We find the money.
The 'magic money tree' exists. It's just politicians often choose to use it for things that don't benefit you and I like a lot of things they could spend the money on would.
They may have lost the current youth vote for good after this performance; add to that the extra millions reaching voting age in the next 4 years, plus the older, home-owning Tory voters dying off in the same period; they will have a difficult time at the next election, regardless of how they perform during this period in office.
As much as anything, Theresa May's performance as a "strong and stable leader" lost them their majority and perhaps the most important change the party needs to make is to find a new, dynamic, compelling and personable leader. Not easy!