This is a Liberal bloodbath, all losses to our left. Shifting right would bring us an eternity in opposition

To lose one Liberal heartland seat could be attributed to misfortune. To lose several, and across multiple states, is a disaster.

Affluent, well-educated, and progressive, they have been strongholds of the Liberal Party for decades, and not traditional battleground seats. They have produced its senior leadership, underwritten its fundraising, and provided much of its membership.

It’s a bloodbath of sizeable proportion. And if we ever wish to return to the government benches, it is incumbent upon us to learn the lessons of this defeat.

Dave Sharma, who was the Liberal member for Wentworth until his defeat by “teal” independent Allegra Spender in the federal election on Saturday.Credit: Getty Images

To my mind there are at least three lessons.

First, the Liberals must recreate the broad church envisaged by Menzies that will allow us to win the seats necessary to win government. There are already predictable voices claiming that the party needs to conduct an ideological purification, purge its moderate elements and embrace more muscular conservatism.

This is a profound misdiagnosis, and would be a recipe for an eternity in opposition. The British Conservatives tried this after Tony Blair won in a landslide in 1997. The Tories shifted to the right, with policies centred around law-and-order, immigration and “tough on crime” rhetoric. They lost successive elections to Blair.

It was only when David Cameron became leader and consciously went about shedding the Conservatives’ “nasty” image that they became once more electable.

If the Liberal Party tacks right and abandons the teal seats for a generation, it will not be able to form government. Australia is too politically centrist and too urbanised for a more conservative offering to be able to win the number of seats necessary to form government, especially with compulsory and preferential voting.

This is not the United States. That is the electoral truth.

We did not lose any seats to our right. We lost them entirely to our left. And if we are to regain government, we will need to regain the political centre.

This does not require an abandonment of our ideological core. Small government, less regulation, support for business and free enterprise, a commitment to individual rights and freedoms, and robust defence and national security remain our most valuable offerings.

But on the topical issues of the day — climate change, equality and a federal integrity commission — we came up short. We had credible policies and proposals to address each of these issues. But there was in the electorate a profound lack of belief in the sincerity of our commitment to genuinely addressing them.

This is hardly surprising. You cannot spend hundreds of hours denigrating the need for a policy response in these areas and then be surprised if the voters conclude your attempts to deal with them are half-hearted.

I doubt the next election will be fought on these issues, but they are a study in the need for parties to ensure their values keep in step with the electorate.

Kevin Rudd won government for Labor in 2007 by promising to ratify the Kyoto protocol and offering an apology for the stolen generations, while assuring that in other key respects – economic management and national security – he would be a study in continuity with the Howard government.

Albanese followed the same prescription, adopting a small target and promising to match us on the economy and national security, whilst pledging to do more to deal with issues that had become irritants for the public. The independents adopted a similar strategy, presenting themselves as non-threatening alternatives to Liberals.

Second, and essential for a government seeking a fourth term, we failed to make the case for why people should positively vote for us. The campaign was largely about the risks of an Albanese government, not the attraction of another Coalition term.

The superannuation/housing policy was the lone exception, but it came late in the campaign and was an orphan. We offered little on tax reform, deregulation, industrial relations, federalism, indigenous issues or industry policy.

We could have promised to pursue civilian nuclear power. We could have promised to close the workforce participation gap between men and women. We could have proposed working with the states to eliminate stamp duty and payroll tax. This would have entailed risks, but at least would have sharpened the policy contest, and meant we were fighting the election on our terrain, not that dictated by our opponents.

Finally, it may well be that the two-party system is irretrievably fractured in Australia. Consumer tastes have demanded more differentiated products for some time. People are no longer restricted in their choices to Holden and Ford when buying a car, or Telstra and Optus when taking out a phone plan, or to Visa and Mastercard for credit.

The age of a few dominant brands is well and truly over, with niche offerings created to appeal to niche markets.

This disruption has seemingly now reached Australian politics. It may be a forlorn quest to recreate an umbrella political brand that is sufficiently broad in its appeal while remaining ideologically coherent. It may be that we need new parties, ideologically sympathetic but with distinct personalities and offerings, to assemble new governing coalitions.

I support the two-party system, but it appears — given the low primary vote for both major parties — that the electorate will not stomach the rigidities and compromises that come with it.

Our political future may well be German-style “traffic light” coalitions of multiple parties to form government.

If that is the way the winds are blowing, then we should position ourselves for it. The last war is always a poor guide to the next. But we must heed its lessons.

The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.