One of the wonders of our political system is the immediate, peaceful transition of power.
A candidate becomes an MP as soon as the returning officer delivers the result, and the presumption of a national result turns into an actual change of government within hours.
The effect is to convert the momentum of electoral victory into legitimate authority literally overnight.
There’s no waiting round for months – a la United States – while a lame duck administration runs down the clock pardoning criminals, playing petty pranks like removing the letter W from White House keyboards, or, more sinisterly, using the pulpit of high office to delegitimise the result.
Our system can feel precipitous, but it is what Jeremy Hunt, in his moving election night remarks dedicated to his children, described as “the magic of democracy”. When the British people deliver their verdict at the ballot box, it is immediate and undisputed.
Just as this can put wind in the sails of an incoming government, it can be hugely challenging for those who voters have just ejected from power. While Labour grapples with the nice problem of how to adapt to running the country, the Conservatives face the less enjoyable challenge of adapting to opposition.
They didn’t want to be in this situation, but adapt they must. There are numerous huge questions facing the Tories – strategic post mortems on the election; political recriminations; philosophical and policy debates on what’s next – but before any of these, they have to tackle the basics of setting up a functioning Opposition.
The new government is in place, and is getting on with announcements like allowing on-shore wind farms, and so His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition must get to work too.
There are appointments and announcements to scrutinise, and policy changes to question; in a little over a week the King’s Speech will present a full legislative agenda.
While the Conservatives have bruises to nurse and losses to mourn, they have to get on with the job the electorate has given them. Doing so does not require answers to the big political questions, not yet. Instead it means four practical choices about running a party which has just lost 251 MPs, including a swathe of its front bench.
First, they must decide the timeline and process for the leadership contest: quick (over the summer), long (ending by December) or somewhere in between (concluding by or at the Party’s conference in late September).
In 2005, the last such contest in opposition, there was a damaging and misguided attempt by the outgoing leadership to strip the party’s membership of a democratic vote, before running a long contest from May through to December.
This time, there hopefully won’t be any effort squandered on trying to make the process less democratic; instead, the main question seems to be timing, with many voices urging the party to take it slow.
Just to complicate matters, none of this can be decided until Tory MPs have elected a new Executive of the 1922 Committee, which controls the process. That contest has already begun and will be concluded shortly.
The timing of the race influences the next choice: who will lead the Opposition in the meantime? A short leadership contest might see Sunak stay for weeks, but he won’t hang around if it runs for months (it would be politically awkward – General Custer had the decency to perish in his Last Stand, rather than hanging round afterwards to ask weekly questions of Sitting Bull).
If the party wants a longer race, it will need a caretaker leader. That means someone without skin in the game, so not a leadership contender, but also with sufficient ability and clout to lead Tory MPs in the meantime. Labour won’t be pulling any punches – whoever steps up must be able to knock their colleagues into shape as a functioning Opposition, and make a decent fist of PMQs against a triumphant Sir Keir Starmer.
That informs the third question: what becomes of CCHQ? Historically, a lot of Conservative headquarters staff leave after an election either because all the money has been spent, or because there are government adviser jobs to fill (or both).
This time, there’s a growing clamour for a deliberate clearout, from MPs, candidates and grassroots activists angry at the malfunctioning and underperformance of HQ.
Who might implement such a revolution? A caretaker leader might well lack the authority to do so. Instead, reform of the party’s institutions would reasonably be deferred to a new permanent leader – but there are already whispered concerns that such a delay might allow the worst performers to dig in and cling on, despite everything that went wrong.
Last, but far from least, is the question of money. All of the above – employing advisers; getting an effective Opposition operation going to take the fight to Labour; even running a proper leadership election, with hustings around the country – takes cash.
The party was on its uppers before the election began, and reportedly had to ration campaigning activity because it ran out of money before it ended. Now, to coin a phrase, “there’s no money left”.
I gather many previous donors are already asking why they should give to a party that lost so badly, without first seeing evidence of how it intends to change and recover.
Without a new leader, without a clear plan, without solid evidence of internal reform, and without – yet – an interim leader to set out how it intends to get those things, the Conservative Party will struggle to raise funds from its frustrated and results-focused donor base.
But without funds, it will find it hard to even begin to answer those questions. I don’t envy that caretaker, whoever they may be, one little bit.
Mark Wallace is chief executive of Total Politics Group