MINUTES after Jim Murphy's dignified press conference in Glasgow yesterday, a tear-stained seasoned Labour hand remarked that "things could only get better." She spoke for many as desperately disappointed Labour activists throughout the UK tried to come to terms with David Cameron running the country, this time with an overall majority.

Few had envisaged that scenario, although by 16.43 on Thursday Tory activists were texting to say a majority was on the cards. They were cock-a-hoop, not least at the prospect of running a government without having to kowtow to a Liberal Democrats, Ukip or the DUP.

The Tories ran a ruthless campaign. From the moment they learned Scotland had voted No in last September's referendum they knew it was game on. David Cameron was first out of the blocks on September 19, resurrecting the possibility of English votes for English laws. In one calculated gesture he raised Scottish hackles, gave the SNP a cause celebre, and catapulted English and Scottish nationalism onto the Tory agenda in England and Wales. He was aided and abetted by hysterical coverage in sections of the right-wing press.

Mr Cameron had set a trap. Gordon Brown, former prime minister and then MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, took the bait the very next day on September 20, and from that day until the ballot boxes closed on Thursday night the Tories flagged up the possibility of an SNP/Labour coalition calling the tunes.

The tactic worked. Perhaps we will find out in time exactly how many people in England and Wales voted Tory rather than risk the SNP dictating terms but, even if they shifted only tens of thousands of votes, that was enough to cause damage to Labour's prospects.

These prospects were never great. Not even the most optimistic Labour activists ever believed Ed Miliband would lead a majority government. Most party activists and MPs had not voted for him in the first place - they preferred his brother, David - so it was only when they suspended their good sense and judgment that they imagined he might lead them into government.

The more common view was that he might become prime minister if he won enough seats to cobble together a coalition with the Liberal Democrats and/or the SNP. And it was never clear if he would or if he wouldn't. Cynics thought he would talk to the SNP if that's what it took to breach the Downing Street gates.

In Scotland, hundreds of thousands of people who voted No in the referendum voted for the SNP. There will be many reasons. Nicola Sturgeon, the leader of the SNP, was a more attractive and more effective leader than Mr Miliband. She assured people that they could vote SNP without risking another referendum. She resorted to Old Labour rhetoric, she talked about progressive politics, and she insisted throughout that the SNP would have no truck with the Tories, that a vote for the SNP would help deliver and keep a Labour Government honest.

While the SNP's record in government is not progressive on many fronts, Ms Sturgeon elevated the SNP above the normal political debate to land a devastating blow on Labour's fortunes in Scotland, and keep the Tories in power. The scale of the defeat cannot be overestimated. Labour must overcome enormous challenges if they are to ready themselves for next year's elections to the Scottish Parliament.

Jim Murphy, the leader of the Scottish Labour, has declared his intention to stay in post. He's been in the job for only five months and, though he fought an energetic campaign, he failed to improve Labour's standing at the polls.

Last year, when he won the leadership election in Scotland, he acknowledged that the party had for "too long lacked a clear message, a clear offer and continuity of leadership". He, along with other leading lights in the Scottish Labour party, must share the blame for that.

Another Scottish leader may have fared better but it's unlikely. Mr Miliband proved to be no more popular in Scotland than he was in England, and in the leadership stakes the choice was between Ms Sturgeon and Ms Miliband rather than Ms Sturgeon and Mr Murphy. Ms Sturgeon delivered a clear message, tapped into the electorate's hopes and aspirations, and simultaneously executed the role of First Minister while playing the anti-establishment card. Her advisers had given her good advice, and she used to it to good effect.

In Scotland, Mr Murphy has an immediate opportunity. While the UK party decides upon Mr Miliband's successor, Mr Murphy should get on with making Scottish Labour fit for purpose. For too long it has been riven by the legacy of division and cliques left by earlier Labour leaders. Mr Murphy must learn from these mistakes, as must Mr Miliband's successor. The only criterion for selection should be ability, not allegiance to one personality or another.

In the run-up to the General Election, Mr Murphy made a number of policy announcements. The electorate deserved better: they needed to know how and why decisions were made, whether the issue was fracking or tuition fees. Tablets set down from on high rarely work, and if there is a sensible, vigorous debate there is more chance of putting a message across successfully.

Who knows who will succeed Mr Miliband but, for the sake of British democracy, it should happen sooner rather than later. When Mr Brown stood down Labour created a political vacuum filled only by the Tories erroneously blaming them for the global financial crisis.

Labour now has hard thinking to do. Those who prefer to languish in a comfort zone in which they talk only to themselves will be alarmed. If they want to win again they need to have a broad appeal. Otherwise, as Tony Blair pointed out during the recent campaign, an election "in which a traditional left-wing party competes with a traditional right wing party" will have a traditional result.