ALL over the democratic world, the time comes for political parties to win, and the time comes for political parties to lose. It is no accident that, throughout recent British history, Westminster governments struggle when they reach double figures, and when they get into their teens they are normally limping to defeat.

The Labour governments of Tony Blair and then Gordon Brown lasted for 13 years, but they were clearly finished after 11. The Conservative governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major made it to 18, but the latter was on its knees for the final four years.

There is something instinctively natural about this. Governing is hard, tiring, and at times demoralising. To maintain the intensity required to do it successfully, for such long periods of time, is a feat beyond most.

Even in Scotland, where the governments of Alex Salmond and, now, Nicola Sturgeon are 15 years old, the SNP is a party which, at last year’s Holyrood elections, was ready to lose, exhibiting all the fatigue of their aforementioned Conservative counterparts. The difference, here, was that no other party was in a position to win. Scotland, in this respect, is different.

Back at Westminster, we are again witnessing a Conservative party which is ready to lose. Now in power for 12 years, the governments of David Cameron, Theresa May and Boris Johnson will be in their mid teens by the time the next general election rolls around.

There can be few governments which have experienced a more intense period in office than these ones. Two different periods of minority rule. Two different coalition or confidence-and-supply agreements. Two divisive, scarring referendums (and a third, far more boring one). A once-in-a-century pandemic, now morphing into a once-in-a-generation economic crisis, aided and abetted by a nuclear aggressor waging war in Europe.

It is rather difficult to escape the conclusion that this government is in a hole deeper than the length of the ladders it has to climb out. For the Conservative party, this will be seen as a good thing, with the benefit of hindsight, for it is currently behaving like an 18-year-old boy who doesn’t know what he thinks, what he wants or what he knows, and who needs to spend a couple of years farming in Africa while he works it out.

The party has utterly lost its compass. It has lost its philosophical and ideological ballast. Its economic policy belongs to Gordon Brown. Its asylum policy belongs to Nigel Farage. Its policy coherence resembles a game of ‘pin the tail on the donkey’.

Ironically, the cause of this ideological collapse is the electoral success of Mr Johnson himself. His ability to simultaneously convince the shipbuilder from Sunderland and the banker from Berkshire that he is one of them, understands them and will go over the top for them, is rare. Perhaps even unique amongst his peers.

Ditto his knack of corralling most Leavers and some Remainers, fiscal conservatives and high-spend enthusiasts, and more.

This bubble is now bursting. It is relatively easy to be all things to all people when you are on the up, however when the sky starts to fall in, as it has as a result of the Partygate fiasco, you end up being nothing to nobody.

There are now so many pockets of Conservatives who are unhappy with one or other aspect of Mr Johnson’s policy or conduct that it is rather difficult to keep up.

The traditional ‘shire Conservatives’ are more than a little cross at Downing Street’s Covid rule-breaking.

Other traditionalists are raising both eyebrows at proposed changes to the Ministerial code.

Fiscal conservatives are incandescent at the eye-watering levels of taxation and public spending. Liberal Conservatives are queasy at the contracting out of asylum seekers to Rwanda.

Free marketeers are scratching their heads at the post-Brexit difficulties in moving goods, services and people across borders.

Unionist Conservatives are disagreeing amongst themselves about how to deal with the restless nations, but they are united in their feeling that Mr Johnson is not the person to convince the Scots to rediscover their love for Queen and country, or to turn down the heat on the boiling pot across the Irish Sea.

Ironically, it is the existence of these small pockets of despairing MPs which led to what was a rather poorly timed (from their perspective) vote of no confidence in Mr Johnson as leader of the Conservative party at the start of this week. Uncoordinated and unstrategic, they fired their weapon accidentally, and too early. As the old adage goes, if you’re going to try to kill the king, you’d best not miss. They may not have missed entirely, but they increasingly appear to have inflicted only a flesh wound. Perhaps, if they had waited for the likely defeat in the two by-elections later this month, and for the bruising Committee of Privileges inquiry into Partygate, the blow would have been fatal.

That said, in the long term, these pockets of insolence are what will turn this blue government red. When they do, the Tory party would be well-advised to think carefully about their choice. Yes, they need someone with charisma. Yes, they need someone who can appeal to a range of demographies. Yes, they need someone who can command loyalty from his or her party.

However, most importantly, they need someone who has a coherent, consistent vision. Someone who has ballast. Someone who has a core philosophical view which runs through their entire agenda, from public service reform, to taxation policy, to national wellbeing, to international relations.

This may be some way away. Mr Johnson’s race is far from run. And Labour is showing few signs of being ready to win; ready to take power from a party which is ready to lose.

But, when the time comes, and if the Conservatives want to win again, win well, and win for a purpose, it would be sensible for them to choose a person with a vision which appeals more to the average person on the street than to the average member of the Conservative party.

Andy Maciver is Director of Message Matters and Zero Matters