This is the third and final posting covering the generally taboo subject of how any governing party might tackle the taboo subject of ensuring that when they eventually lose it causes the least damage possible.

In part one I covered the local campaign aspects and in part two I covered some of the national campaigning issues which turned on leadership and rebranding. In this third and final part I look at the planning that could occur even when in government, to ensure that opposition may mean a loss of power, but may not lead to a total loss of influence. What might a sensible plan for opposition look like that integrates national purpose with local campaigning?

1. Create a proper leadership settlement. Whilst Jim Callaghan stayed on more than a year after his 1979 defeat, the trend now seems to be for a leader to go straightaway. The first leadership election after a defeat is probably vital in setting the tone for whether an opposition wants to regain power quickly. Throughout the 20th century the Tories were quite effective in sending the message that they wanted to win back power. Labour was much less successful. Having modernised itself in opposition between 1994-97, can it do the same again or will it be too exhausted after a long period in power and will the personal ambitions of those who might seek to lead hold it back?

2. A rapid post-mortem. If the defeat is looking likely much of the post-mortem will have already occurred before polling day as various factions write their narrative about the defeat to position themselves for the aftermath. Pro and Anti Europeans did this in both Labour and Tory parties after their respective defeats. This debate damaged the credibility of both parties. If an election is lost at a spring election a post-mortem should be encouraged through the usual party factional group summer conferences, with party annual conference used much more to relaunch a new leader and a party eager to return to power. Again will leadership contenders seek to follow this script?

3. A quick-fire policy review. In these days of all parties aiming for a narrow centre with fewer ideological divides, there may be less policies that are actually unpopular for a losing party to drop. The Tories dropped strong opposition to devolution within months of the 1997 general election. The question for Labour if it were to go into opposition, is whether it will have any significantly controversial policies to drop? Will the initial debate be to shift to less centrist policies on nuclear power, nuclear weapons and public sector modernisation? Or will it be more around civil liberties issues such as Identity Cards? I suspect that a Labour Party in opposition will see much less policy division at the top than either if its Tory and Labour predecessors. It may then be well-placed to unite under an effective opposition leader.

4. Identify the divisions within the party and tackle them. Again both Labour and Tories had clear divisions between moderates committed to the previous government policies and hardliners. The victory of the hardliners for a period in both cases set both parties back in opposition. If Labour were to lose in 2010 what are the divisions that could set it back? I've mentioned some policy areas, but the biggest area of concern is likely to be from public sector unions wanting to campaign against the Tories who will probably using existing Labour legislation and ministerial secondary powers to increase private and third sector involvement in public services. The Doctors may be rebelling against Gordon Brown, but watch out for nurses taking on and forcing a u-turn out of David Cameron in his first term!

5. Make the most of the winner's honeymoon. In 1997 Tony Blair came to power committed to the spending plans of his predecessor. David Cameron promises the same if he wins. Much of this is a message about continuity to make a change reassuring. A recently defeated opposition should draw the lesson of this too and not waste time opposing policies that they are likely to have implemented themselves. It is probably better to use the first two years to be seen as supportive to a popular new government, whilst building the public persona of any new leader and the new Shadow team. The second half of the parliament is where there will be a need to campaign on the narrative and mesages the opposition have chosen.

6. Reorganise, recruit and campaign. In 1947 the Tories had modernised themselves. In 1961 Labour conducted an organisational review. In 1993-97 Labour modernised and recruited heavily. The Tories under William Hague probably did their best bit of work in 1997-98 in reforming their archaic systems and establishing a proper board and constitution. Labour has probably done enough in terms of significant structural change already. In opposition it can use its Short Money to ensure it develops detailed policy options that strengthen its NPF system. The key thing it will need to do is identify local campaigns to a national theme with the main focus on recruitment and fund-raising. The 430,000 members of late 1997 is unlikely to be repeated, but a target of 250,000 members - perhaps as a result of public sector union campaigns is certainly plausible. Ironically the first years are probably worse for large scale donations, so perhaps Labour staff should be learning much more how to tap into the sort small-scale internet fund-raising that Barack Obama's campaign is developing.

The above is an attempt to look at the issues any new opposition would face after a period of government, but which it should be anticipating now, with someone responsible for taking this work forward.

However let's not assume anything is a done deal? Despite a 20 point deficit, Harold Wilson's dictum on short time periods still holds true for the current government. I recall starting work in Whitehall as a junior Civil Servant in early 1982 when Mrs Thatcher was 15 points behind the Alliance and neck and neck with Michael Foot's Labour. Just then a group of scrap metal merchants from Argentina set sail............