Steve Richards: Tony Blair is back in business. So what does this mean for progressive voters?

Do not be deceived by the surface familiarity. The outcome of this election is very different

The eerily familiar post-election ritual unfolds. Tony Blair reshuffles his Cabinet; the Conservative leader announces his resignation, and Charles Kennedy hails the gain of a few more seats. This is what happens on the day after general elections. It is almost comforting.

The eerily familiar post-election ritual unfolds. Tony Blair reshuffles his Cabinet; the Conservative leader announces his resignation, and Charles Kennedy hails the gain of a few more seats. This is what happens on the day after general elections. It is almost comforting.

Do not be deceived by the surface familiarity. The outcome of this election and the political context are very different. Already we know that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition will not be contesting the next election. What a contrast to the Conservatives' third victory in 1987 when Margaret Thatcher and Neil Kinnock both intended to go on and on to the next election (although Thatcher did not make it). We were in for more of the same then. As I wrote last Tuesday, each of the main parties is going through a period of transition now.

For Tony Blair, the political outlook is less rosy than he had imagined when he resolved last summer to stay on and fight for a third term. During the second half of last year, he uncharacteristically misread the public mood and assumed he could move on from the war with Alan Milburn by his side and Gordon Brown nowhere to be seen. Now Mr Blair begins his third term with Mr Brown by his side and Mr Milburn nowhere to be seen.

These symbolic changes and the much reduced majority do not mean Mr Blair will be joining Mr Milburn on the backbenches within months. Mr Blair's lengthy statement outside Downing Street yesterday gave the impression of an ambitious agenda that would demand his prime ministerial attention for three or four decades rather than a year or two. It sounded almost as if he had changed his mind and decided he also would go on and on. That was the point, of course, to send out a clear signal he was back in business and plans to remain for a significant part of the third term.

Normally these post-election statements are relatively short. Harold Wilson tended to declare on these occasions: "I've got a job to do and I'm going to get on with it." Mr Blair made a 10- minute speech in case there were any doubts whether he had a job to do and was going to get on with it. I suspect that Mr Brown, who was not consulted about the contents of the long mission statement, watched uneasily. Some Labour MPs would have been twitching nervously also.

I could spend an entire column speculating about how long Mr Blair will stay as Prime Minister and probably will do so (several times) in the future. But for now, there are more fundamental issues from the election. Mr Blair has worked always on the broad assumption that while the Conservatives could recover at any moment, Labour supporters had nowhere else to go. On Thursday, quite a lot of Labour's voters switched to the Lib Dems. They had found somewhere else to go and in the process gave a boost to the Conservatives.

The Liberal Democrats had argued during the campaign that it was perfectly feasible for Labour voters to switch to them without inadvertently helping the Conservatives. Their theory was the equivalent of arguing that Chelsea will win the Premiership next season even if they lose most of their games: Don't vote Labour and Labour would still win. The Liberal Democrats promoted the theory with energetic vigour as they ruthlessly wooed disaffected Labour supporters. In doing so, they succeeded in attracting anti-Blair protesters but were far less successful in winning over disillusioned Conservatives.

This was one of the twists of the election. The Liberal Democrats' intense targeting of Tory marginals failed spectacularly. While a number of Labour MPs lost their seats because of protest votes, Oliver Letwin, David Davis and Theresa May are back to enjoy another of their party's leadership contests in a bigger parliamentary party.

The progressive vote in Britain risks being split between Labour and a third political party as it was in the 1980s. Mr Blair and his successor will need to address this problem by paying more attention to the deserters. Rupert Murdoch is not the only figure who has somewhere else to go. There is no point in seeking a progressive consensus if progressives are attempting to defeat each other at the polls to the benefit of the Conservatives.

Michael Howard's final service to the Conservatives is to ensure that his party's latest leadership contest is held under less wacky rules. Whether this produces a less wacky outcome compared with some recent contests is less certain. We are already in a situation where the battle over the leadership rules will become partly a row over the party's future. Those on the right of the party are already arguing that grass-roots members must have a say, the activists who chose Iain Duncan Smith last time.

Thursday's result was the worst possible for those Conservative MPs who recognise the need for a fundamental overhaul of their party. They had hoped the outcome would be bad enough to provoke wholehearted alarm even among elderly members. Instead, echoing again Labour's days in opposition, there will be some MPs and even more party members who instinctively believe that one more heave will do the trick.

Conservative MPs have a tendency to mistake leadership contests for power. During these contests, the media take them seriously. What they say and the decisions they take seem to matter. For a few weeks, they enjoy themselves enormously and then proceed to elect someone wholly unsuitable. Eighteen months ago, Mr Howard came to the rescue of a party that was becoming a laughing stock. Under Mr Howard, there were fewer laughs and more professionalism. He will be recognised as a leader who saved his party. But he did not have the time and probably the political inclination to instigate a fundamental overhaul.

The Conservatives have emulated the presentational skills of New Labour in its opposition days, but overlook the more substantial work of Blair/Brown, their lectures on what a centre-left party stood for, further speeches to contextualise the changes they were introducing and the policies carefully linked to broader values. These are the pre-conditions of a Conservative recovery.

Yesterday a range of Conservative MPs told me that the shadow home affairs spokesman, David Davis, is the clear favourite. Knowing Mr Davis a little I am sure he is capable of describing himself in such flattering terms. He has got the self-confidence and the presentational skills. Has he got the vision required to give the Conservatives a broader appeal and does he know what that appeal should be?

This is not a question only for Mr Davis. It is easy to speak of the need for a wider appeal, much harder to bring it about. After yesterday's result Mr Blair and his successor also face a similar challenge. After eight wearying years, they are about to discover whether a party can renew itself successfully in power.

s.richards@independent.co.uk