I read the article and it doesn't really seem that bad. What he says is this:
“Basically what the party needs is some sort of a force – whoever it is – of people who are perceived as future leaders going out and saying: this is what we want this party to stand for. I did it in the 80s and 90s. They can decide what’s appropriate for the 20s and 30s.”
He's not telling us how he wants the party changed, he's just calling for a big visible change in the party that will help us win elections again.
I get what you're saying there. I should have read the article closer. Yes, you're right about that.