Why does Theresa May face no opposition?

Rarely has any prime minister been in such a strong position with such a slender majority. Theresa May appears to be mistress of all she surveys. Her party could echo Hartley Shawcross: “We are the masters now,” and it is hard to find a serious commentator who believes that this mastery could come to an end at the next election. There is a simple explanation for all this. Never have the two principal opposition parties been so badly led. In both cases, they have the worst leader whom their party has ever had to endure. Even so, it would be foolish for wise Tories to relax into complacency. Political nature abhors a vacuum.

The British electoral system usually produces strong governments but often leads to weak political science. It turns pluralities into majorities and tempts those who analyse election results into anthropomorphising the electorate, claiming that the British people decided on a change in national direction, when in reality, a relatively slender net switch of allegiance has led to a dramatic reversal of fortune. Equally, the ability of a prime minister to appear so commanding with less than forty percent of the vote conceals the extent to which there has already been a withdrawal of consent from the current political system, reinforced by an unmet demand for a new approach. Europe has cut across all of this and brought with it an irony. As Theresa May was a tepid Remainer, it should not be impossible to bring her position under fire. Instead, Brexit has compounded the opposition’s problems. Could anyone explain Jeremy Corbyn’s position on Europe? I thought not. There is an even harder task: to name all the Labour MPs who have stood against Mr Corbyn for the leadership. Anyone who could pass that test deserves an anorak woven out of cloth-of-gold plus a contract from Hollywood to recruit teams of dwarves for the next Snow White.

But Europe is not the sole political issue. Moreover – and this is an appallingly temerarious prediction which could leave me looking very stupid indeed – it might prove easier to resolve than has been generally expected. If so, normal political service will be resumed sooner rather than later, and with it a widespread public interest in a new centrist politics: for a party which will seize the opportunities that the Liberals have squandered over several decades. During this long period, politics has seemed polarised. There are the Tories, the political wing of the Treasury: never happier than when lecturing hungry sheep about the price of grass. Opposite them, Labour, the political wing of Camden Council’s social services department, never happier than when banging on about Thatcher’s cuts. In this contest, the Tories generally win, because whatever many voters claim to think, they trust actuaries more than social workers.

But what a chance for the Liberals! They should have been saying that you do not need to choose between common sense and compassion: you can have both. The Tories claim to stand for economic strength, though they often get it wrong. Labour claims to stand for social justice, though they never seem to produce much. Not only do we stand for both: we insist that they depend upon each other. You cannot have a healthy society without a strong economy; you cannot have a strong economy in a failing society. So we believe in prosperity and in social generosity. Try to separate them and you will soon have neither.

It is a powerful centrist message. With the right management, the centre ground could be immensely valuable political real estate. So what have the Liberals used it for? The equivalent of a couple of shanty-town stalls, one selling misshapen earthenware pottery, the other, dun-coloured shawls made from goat-hair and beard-clippings. They have also given the impression that they are ill-at-ease in the centre and would prefer to escape off to the Left.

Under Tim Farron, there is little prospect that this will change. Although the Liberals will probably do well in the May local elections, that is of little long-term consequence. There is a senior Liberal who could make a more significant case, but his name is Nick Clegg. Most Liberal activists regard him as toxic. There are people in the Labour party who would be happy to contest the centre ground and signal the re-birth of Blairism: more toxin. As gloomy Labourites rush to point out, if the SDP could not break the mould in the era of Jenkins, Owen, Steel and Shirley Williams, what chance do Snow White’s followers have today?

Yet that is a less strong argument for inspissated gloom than might appear, for three reasons. First, the big beasts of the SDP found it impossible to share a cage. David Owen should have been their most formidable vessel, except for one difficulty: he was a fire-ship. Second, in those days Labour tribalism was stronger. Though Michael Foot did his best to reduce it, he only got as low as twenty-seven percent. Jeremy Corbyn should easily beat that. Third, the SDP was facing Margaret Thatcher. In the crucial election of 1983, her percentage share of the vote actually fell by 1.5%, but she could electrify her own supporters – even if many of her opponents would have liked to electrocute her. If the centre could field as strong a team in 2020 as in 1983, it would come second in terms of votes, though not of seats.

That prospect does not enthral gloomy Labourites and one can understand why. Few politicians ever enjoy writing off the next election, especially three years out. But as the Old Girl would have said, there is no alternative. Persevere with the present arrangements, and the spectre of lost elections stretches into the distance, like Banquo’s descendants in Macbeth’s appalled vision. To avoid that fate, the gloomies will have to screw their courage to the sticking-point. There was the SDP: a heroic failure. There was the Blairite attempt to turn the Labour party into the SDP: a heroic deception. There will have to be a third attempt, possibly under new political figures who are as yet unknown.

Unless and until that happens, the Tories will have fun projecting themselves as the party of social justice and Theresa May will be the mistress now. I am told that more bright young Labour MPs have had secret meetings with head hunters. What a surprise.