Local elections in England and Wales have given a real drubbing to the governing Labour Party. It has lost more than 460 seats overall as well as control of key strongholds such as Newcastle and Leeds, and ended up as the third party after the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, the first government party to do so. With a general election likely within a year, all eyes are on Mr Tony Blair's leadership - will he survive or depart soon?
The result in London, where Mr Ken Livingstone was re-elected as mayor on a Labour ticket, was full of political significance and historical irony for the party. Mr Livingstone's majority was down on the last time, when he stood as an independent socialist. His decision to rejoin the party has made him vulnerable to its unpopularity, but given it one of the few comforting results on this occasion, in keeping with his progressive record in office.
Interpreting the longer term implications of this result is made unusually difficult by the role of the Iraq issue, in addition to the normal electoral cycle of anti-government votes in mid-term local elections. It is made more so by the Conservatives' failure to make a decisive breakthrough in these elections. That is expected to be underlined when results of the European Parliament elections are announced this weekend, showing a strong performance by the UK Independence Party, which competes with it for votes. As national domestic issues assume greater importance Mr Blair's position should improve.
Iraq is accepted to be a major reason for Labour's unpopularity, for all that the issue is not decided at local level. Many of its supporters have swung to the Liberal Democrats or abstained, citing Iraq, given that this party made it a central issue in the campaign. That factor does not explain the Conservatives' relatively good showing, however; this has more to do with growing mistrust of Labour and increased credibility of Mr Michael Howard's leadership. Britain's electoral geography and demographics mean that Labour piles up majorities more easily than the Conservatives in general elections, when issues like health and education are much more salient for voters than foreign policy issues such as Iraq.
Nevertheless, Iraq tests Mr Blair's national leadership in ways that go well beyond the normal run of such international issues. The United Kingdom went to war in coalition with the United States, with great cost and casualties, and based on faulty evidence. Much will therefore depend on how Iraq plays out over the next year. Mr Blair cites the changing diplomatic and political context there, as a new government prepares to take control, supported by a unanimous United Nations Security Council resolution. He hopes it will be able to assert control, provide greater security and oversee reduced resistance, with the result that it will not dominate the political agenda as it has done over the last year. If it does not go that way, Mr Blair will have to adjust politically to his party critics on policy, as the election manifesto is fashioned. Without such flexibility he will be more vulnerable as leader.