I may have had gloomier drinks with a friend, but I honestly can't remember when.

"You do realise there's every chance you'll be the Editor that has to cover the disintegration of the Tory Party?"

Odd to think my wise, oft-turned-to, and very well-informed interlocutor in this instance, is a Conservative Party member.

"Possibly" I reply but add (as I have here before) I believe rumours of the Party's demise are exaggerated and premature. I had to admit it might still happen but suggested it's down to the Party to see that it doesn't.

Doggedly, my friend doesn't let up:

"Yes, but everyone keeps bleating on about unity. It's all very well saying it but on recent evidence unity is going to be hard to actually achieve. Also, I'm telling you, whoever wins this leadership contest won't make it to the next general election. It's going to get worse before it ever gets better"

I have to say Conservatives would do well to truly absorb just how many people, especially within their own ranks, believe it is inevitable that, in a couple of years, we'll be doing this all over again. They may be wrong, but there are a lot of them out there. That's before you even count the Westminster commentariat and those that went to Reform. As my friend concluded:

"I'm sorry Giles, but we're just not done burning, yet"

So, in the face of an 'adapt or die' scenario, is the third option to stay just-about-on-life support while others fill the gap? In that case, sorry Meatloaf, but two out of three really is bad.

Dark as my friend's predictions are, I do take issue with such fatalism. Surely if you convince yourself something is inevitable, it just becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The path to "told-you-so" pyrrhic vindication is then lined with all the 'signs' one chose to see, and littered with the evidence-to-the-contrary that was wilfully ignored.

It's also a gilt-edged invitation to mass apathy and no one inspires voters with the slightest whiff of that in the air.

That said, I also have an issue with some of the responses to calls for unity. I understand the scepticism, there's still a lot of frustration, even anger, to come out before the Party is really ready to move on, but it must and I'm not convinced it has a choice.

All four leadership candidates want the party to come together. Without it doing so the Party may well end up doing this again because the cold hard reality outside the Tory bubble is that the public is tired of disunited parties, whatever colour the rosette.

So, here's what I said to my friend over that drink:

It's time to get serious, to listen, and shed some bad habits.

Amid the smouldering ruins of the election result, there are glimmers of hope. Labour continues to disappoint with surprising speed. But it is no more inevitable that the Party will capitalise properly on this than it is that it will implode.

The path from staggering to its feet, thoroughly cleaning that dust off, healing, and working to be match-fit again, let alone win, whilst simultaneously trying to 'earn the right to be heard', is fraught with risks.

The Party has a long history of overcoming these risks and being successful. It has never done so without a high degree of unity of purpose. Thus, the calls for unity from all the potential leaders is not naïve noise. It's a necessary foundation, not just for rebuilding, but for building anything meaningful at all.

To be crystal clear, this is not a plea for support for one candidate over another, or that whoever wins won't have to persuade people to give them their full support. They too will have to adapt, whilst leading.

All six who stood have been clear that the machinery of the party needs a complete overhaul. That is going to mean changes and members and party officials are going to have to accept those with good grace.

All the leadership contenders have said they'll accept the result and stick around to support the new leader. They should. The party doesn't have enough MPs for two-year sulks or campaigns running in sleep mode ready to burst into life at the first sign of trouble. The last five years have provided ample proof that this is a recipe for failure.

Tory MPs in the last Parliament might at this point say, for their part, they've tried holding the line, and their nerve, and in doing so seen lots of their colleagues cease to be MPs. Voicing their concerns, preferably in private, is, to be fair, part of their job.

However, private behaviour, visible factionalism, the emergence of the so-called 'Five Families', and a worrying tendency for bouts of herd panic simply won't cut it when you have just 121 MPs. Nobody thinks democracy is served by blind allegiance (there was an equally bad public reaction to that in the last Parliament and under different PMs) but authentic and sustained teamwork would surely not go amiss.

Equally, 'Big Beasts' tempted by a bit of back-seat-driving should perhaps temporarily revoke their licenses. Their valuable wisdom doesn't need to be disseminated in the pages of a newspaper or in accepting the flattering invitation to the studios that, in my broadcasting experience, only really come if they have criticism to impart. As another friend, this time from the media, has said:

"It'll take them time to ween us off a dose of Blue-on-Blue."

How you build this necessary unity must be for the Party and the new leader but the idea of a broad church with a common creed is not without merit as a starting point.

On a more selfish note, what if my despondent friend is wrong? If the Party does unite and sing harmoniously from the same song sheet what then do we do here, at ConservativeHome?

We'd welcome progress, certainly. At the same time, and at the risk of attracting charges of hypocrisy (which helpfully the Labour Party seems to have a magnetic hold on right now), I will say simply - we have always been independent of the Party. We are not funded by it or dictated by it. We will be its critical friend. There are enough wise voices hosted on these pages (and I'm always in the market for more) to warn, guide, and observe the future of the Party without the need for internal warfare in the Party itself.

Sadly it is also true that if we do have to chart its disintegration then, with a heavy heart, that is what we'll do.

Yes, 'unity' is sometimes a slogan. It's also been used to guilt the unconvinced to slog on unwillingly in one direction, or even been a sign of resignation because it's what any party says when their team is flat on its back. The problem is that achieving a united party is an essential pre-requisite for getting anywhere worthwhile at all.

Tonight, friends of the Party, of ours at this site, leadership candidates, donors, supporters, and members will 'unite' for ConservativeHome's election-delayed summer reception.

I'm not only looking forward to welcoming them for the first time as Editor, but after my last drink discussing the Party's future, it would be good to hear some positive predictions over a glass - I just hope people have them.