I am willing to believe Andrew Rawnsley`s claim that there is a "segment of voters who feel disenfranchised by the choice between a Corbynised Labour party and a Rees-Moggifying Conservative party", but whether this "appetite" is sufficient to make the creation of a new political party worthwhile is doubtful (Opportunity knocks for a new party. But will anybody dare open the door? 08.04.18). The point of such a venture can only be to divide the Labour vote as happened in 1983, hand the Tories another five years of wielding their callous power, and blame the election defeat on a left-wing manifesto, to discourage the adoption of transformational policies.
Despite moderate Labour being defeated in recent general elections, some millionaire donors, who have absolutely no connection or empathy with the millions of voters they need to support them, now think our most unfair and unequal society only requires minor changes. They are never going to back a party intent on ending tax avoidance, increasing the top levels of tax, or promising significant pay rises for teachers and carers. The "challenges facing Britain" about which they are concerned are not the same as the ones facing the millions of low-paid, landlord-exploited people fed up with rich politicians ruling for the benefit of the few.
As for the idea that there exists a "convincing" leader with "star quality", perhaps Rawnsley was thinking of someone like Clegg or Osborne, two likely candidates for a post requiring a determination to maintain the status quo at all costs!