It is easy to set up a political party. You just have to register with the Electoral Commission and raise some cash to fund the deposits of your candidates. Then you are at the races. In the first three months of this year, 34 novel political outfits were formed, among them the Aspire party, the Legacy party, Save Us Now, the For Britain Movement and the Psychedelic Future party.

New party gets £50m backing to ‘break mould’ of UK politics Read more

I am not sticking my neck out very far when I forecast that none of them will form the next government of Britain. What is extremely hard is creating a new party with the potential to get to power. Since 1900, only one new party, that would be Labour, has become a governing party of the UK. It took 45 years, the Great Depression and two world wars for Labour to grow from startup to majority government. If your ambition is to reshape the political landscape of Britain, there has been a less demanding route than trying to break through an electoral system that is highly hostile to new contenders. That simpler method has been to take over one of the old parties and change it from within. In my lifetime, the one-nation Tory party of Harold Macmillan was transformed into a Thatcherised party. The pro-European Conservative party that took Britain into the Common Market has mutated into the Brexiteering party that is wrenching us out of the EU.

It is 37 years since a group of leading Labour moderates, appalled by the party’s lurch to the left in the 1980s, broke away to form the SDP, which had the ambition to replace Labour as the alternative government to the Conservatives. Tony Blair did not join that breakaway. He stayed with the Labour party until he eventually got into the position to change it into New Labour. Jeremy Corbyn and his allies have done a Blair in reverse since 2015. Well over half of Labour’s current membership have joined – or rejoined, in the case of some of the older comrades – the party since he ran for leader. Its ideology has been radically recast. Control of party headquarters completes a takeover of its power structures. Demoralised Labour MPs have become internal exiles within their own party. Mr Corbyn is now king of the castle.

Despair at this state of affairs among non-Corbynite parliamentarians and members fuels a constant background conversation about the creation of a new party, and that talk has become louder in recent weeks. The phoney unity that prevailed since the election has broken down over the chemical weapons attack in Salisbury and the shameful proliferation of antisemitism in Labour’s ranks that has been accompanied by threats of deselection against MPs who protest about it. Some anguished liberal Tories express a yearning for a new party. Senior Lib Dems, who might be expected to view this as a menace to their existence, have been giving encouragement to the idea, a recognition that they don’t have the heft to fill the gaping hole in the middle ground of British politics.

To have any chance of success, the first must for a new party is a potential audience. That seems to exist. There is a substantial segment of voters who feel disenfranchised by the choice between a Corbynised Labour party and a Rees-Moggifying Conservative party. In the run-up to the last election, 45% of respondents told one pollster that “there is a need for a new centre-ground party”, a larger proportion of the electorate than either of the big parties managed to attract at the ballot box. Another survey suggests that 56% of voters do not feel that any of the existing political parties represent them. An appetite seems to be there.

Another thing you require for a new party is money. This would not be a problem. There is an affluent constituency, who are both appalled by the May government and horrified by the thought of a Corbyn premiership, who are waiting to get out their cheque books. Some of them are former donors to Labour. Some used to give to the Tories. Other potential backers of a new party are of no previous affiliation. As my colleague Michael Savage reveals in today’s Observer, one network of entrepreneurs and philanthropists has as much as £50m ready to spend. More would be available from other sources. A new party could be in danger of having an embarrassment of riches given that it would be attacked – from both the Corbynista left and the Brexiter right – as a vehicle for the moneyed elite. It would be very important for a new party to show that it had the support of a wide spread of voters, not just business people with deep pockets.

The project would need a name. Some Labour people have talked about breaking away as “Real Labour” or “True Labour”. That would present legal difficulties and cramp the scope to attract defectors from the Tory party and support from voters who do not naturally identify with Labour. The fundamental pitch of a new formation would be as the “Sensible party”, but it couldn’t call itself that because, when I checked with the Electoral Commission, I found that the name has already been taken. “Mainstream” is one potential label I’ve heard mooted, which sounds moderate and inclusive without being as anaemic as “Centre party”.

A new party would have to have a policy platform broader than just opposing Brexit and it would need to be creatively open-minded about addressing the challenges facing Britain. Another must is convincing leadership with some star quality. Emmanuel Macron’s sensational breakthrough in France is the most often cited inspiration for a new party. He built En Marche! seemingly from scratch, but he had not actually come from nowhere. He had a track record as a senior minister and an established public profile that went with that. He also had the help of some seasoned operators. He was young, which energised his campaign with dynamism and freshness, but he also had experience, which gave him name recognition and plausibility as a leadership candidate. He was also smiled on by a context that was highly propitious. The traditional party of the left in France – the socialists – had become so unpopular that François Hollande did not even stand for re-election.

The traditional party of the right had also been discredited and its candidate for president was enveloped in a dark cloud of scandal. The stars were well aligned for a new party.

Some of the conditions for a similar earthquake in Britain are present today. Voter attachments to the traditional parties have been decaying for a long time. The rise of identity and values as political dividers is further loosening old allegiances. The historic voting coalitions that have sustained the Conservatives and Labour look brittle. Politics has become more fluid and faster moving. Many Britons don’t like the choice presented to them by the red-blue duopoly and the country refused to give either of them a majority at the last election. When asked to choose whether they want Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister, a big number of voters prefer “neither” and “don’t know”.

The opportunity exists for a new party, but it would be a massive gamble. What is so far lacking is a critical mass of MPs prepared to take the large risks involved in making it happen. It is said, and it is true, that recent events have pushed many Labour MPs to breaking point, but that does not mean they are quite ready to break with their party. One thing that stops them is a deep attachment to Labour as an idea and a tribe, along with a continuing reluctance among many to accept that their party has been lost to Corbynism for the foreseeable future. One of this view likes to say to distraught colleagues: “It will pass.” Another thing holding them back is Brexit. I have heard a significant number of Labour MPs say the time is not yet ripe for a new party because they have a duty to “hold it together” until the critical parliamentary votes on Brexit have played out.

The moment of truth will come when we are closer to the EU departure date. It will be then that we will find out whether the many conversations about a new party amount to anything more than idle chatter.

It will be then that we will discover whether wistful talk turns into the bold action that would be required to make it happen. History scoffs at the idea. Precedent suggests that a new party will fail. Then again, the past few years have repeatedly shown us, from the rise of Jeremy Corbyn to Brexit, that precedent has become a lousy predictor.

• Andrew Rawnsley is an Observer columnist