Simon Heffer:

None of us really wants to live in a one-party state. A strong opposition is unquestionably good: it prevents abuses of Parliament, stops government complacency and often prevents governing parties descending into civil war. That said, the mood among some Tory MPs that an early election should be used to close Labour down is understandable.

That Labour languishes in opinion polls – however reliable they are – even after one of the most pitiful, ideologically warped and vision-free Budgets I can remember says much for its irrelevance. It was ironic that, in the week of Philip Hammond’s disaster, film should emerge of the shadow chancellor, former IRA sympathiser John McDonnell, advocating a 20 per cent wealth tax on the top 10 per cent of “rich” people. Labour seems determined to beat its own record for the longest suicide note in history when writing its next manifesto.

In our prosperous democracy the sort of opposition needed is one that would not turn Britain into a European North Korea. We are, supposedly, all middle-class now, and want a choice between two sensible parties. Labour must be obliterated so it can be reborn as a party whose appeal extends beyond half a million student union bolshevists.

Talk of an early election, led by Lord Hague in wrong and unconstitutional. Lord Hague is correct in discerning that Labour can only lose a snap election, and lose it heavily, cementing the Tories in power for five years. But the objections to this course – an enthusiasm for which the Prime Minister does not share – are legion.

First, the absurd Fixed Term Parliaments Act (which should be repealed at once with, to avoid accusations of manipulation, the repeal effective only from the next parliament) makes it nearly impossible to call an election. Second, is even if the Act did not exist, why would Her Majesty agree to a dissolution? The Tories’ majority should last them to 2020; and the Queen’s old prerogative powers of refusing a dissolution existed to protect the public from a stream of unnecessary elections and the caprices of a cynical prime minister.

Also, the Budget does not fill me with hope that the Tory manifesto would be inspirational. Whether the election were next month, next year or in 2020, Labour would lose. But perhaps if it is delayed until 2020 the Government would have acquired some ideas about what to do with a mandate, ideas that match the notion of what the Conservative Party is supposed to stand for. Given the evidence of the Budget, the party seems to be struggling.

Perhaps Brexit has so overwhelmed those charged with making policy that they cannot find the intellectual energy to think of anything else. Or, more shamefully, perhaps they look at the ludicrous and picaresque quality of what passes for an opposition and feel they simply don’t need to try.

Having heard Labour’s education spokesman, Angela Rayner, trying (with all the intellectual prowess of a cowpat) to defend her party’s bigoted stance on grammar schools last week, one can understand why some may take that view.

But it isn’t an early election that is needed to finish off a politically bankrupt Labour Party, it is a compelling vision of a Britain in which everyone has a chance of prosperity and success, and where those disqualified from the race by old age or illness are decently cared for.

What made the Budget so rank was its absence of such a vision. It wasn’t just that the self-employed are a main engine of our economy, it was that so many people are forced to become self-employed because grotesque over-regulation militates against firms being able to afford to employ them. There was a time when Tory chancellors fought against red tape: I don’t recall Mr Hammond even mentioning it, unless I dozed off during his performance and missed it.

A proper Tory believes in aspiration and enterprise, and seeks to involve as many people as possible. One sensed that Mr Hammond’s oblique support of grammar schools through extra education funding was something he was doing to curry favour with the Prime Minister – whose support of these excellent, meritocratic institutions is utterly sincere. Mrs May is committed to enhancing social mobility, another true Tory concept – lifting people up to the level of the best rather than dragging everyone down to the level of the worst. Sadly, her Chancellor and party seem incapable of following her lead.

I’m glad Mr Hammond wants to rectify the scandal of social care, but why not implement the Dilnot report’s recommendations, making everyone contribute to a fund, rather than punish the risk-takers on whom economic success depends? Why did he not outline an exciting programme of deregulation to free business and improve productivity, profits and employment? Above all, why did he not act on the truth that our state is too large, and that the most effective way to raise revenue is to cut taxes?

To finish off Labour, and guarantee an era of successful Tory rule, this Government needs a vision of a Britain liberated from state control, not one that advocates control with a prettier face than that offered by the Corbynistas. Thank God there are three years until the next election in which such a vision can be fashioned: because on last week’s showing, it is going to take a lot more work – and thought – to get there.