‘For a prime minister without strong, united opposition within or outside his party, David Cameron has had a rough few weeks.’

Careful, this sentence is rhetorically framed in Tory Triumphalism. The opposition is weak, even Mr. Corbyn’s fellow Labour Party members are tepid or worse.How many political stumbles, miscalculation or even mendacity, witting or unwitting, can the Eternal Tories make?  After this description of these blunders:

‘First there was the resignation of his welfare secretary in protest (he claimed) at cuts to disability benefits. Then came Tata’s announcement that it wanted to sell its British steel operations, throwing the future of the vast works at Port Talbot into doubt. Then, most threateningly of all, the Panama Papers revelations left the prime minister with questions to answer about Blairmore, his late father’s offshore trust which is incorporated in the central American republic and based in the Bahamas.’

Even the weakest opposition need only hammer away at Cameron, to make some inroads. It is political folly to even entertain such a thought? Or can Bagehot entertain the Janan Ganesh notion of a permanently aggrieved political minority, as the cost of the British practice of Democracy, in the age of the Rebellion against the Elites. Ganesh made this argument last week here:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/bbe57aa6-f1dc-11e5-aff5-19b4e253664a.html#axzz44aT6zHMq

‘Rich democracies may have to live with a caucus of permanently aggrieved voters amounting to a quarter or a third of the whole.’