Is this what you really wanted?

ON the one hand, this was an unbelievable victory for Labour. Who would have thought 13 years ago when Neil Kinnock was bellowing "all right" that Labour would be in power, with large majorities, for more than a decade?

By this view, Tony Blair is now the most successful Labour politician ever - neither Ramsay MacDonald nor Clement Attlee nor Harold Wilson won three consecutive victories and stamped their mark on an entire generation.

But, on the other hand, this was a major humiliation for Labour. A majority of 161 was slashed by nearly 100 and they won less than 36 per cent of the popular vote, making this the least popular Government ever. It was a result that was a complete repudiation of both the war and their leader.

"So many good friends have lost their seats," said Cherie Blair to one member of the Trimdon faithful early yesterday morning while her husband was being mobbed nearby. "So sad."

Now turn to the Conservatives. On the one hand, this was at the very least a satisfactory step forward that did not demand an immediate resignation of their leader. They avoided the humiliations of 1997 and 2001, gained 35 seats and, by the time the sun rose over Sedgefield, they were indisputably installed as the Opposition.

But on the other hand, they still only appealed to 32 per cent of the electorate. They have been flatlining for more than a decade now. The only reason they made any advances was because, in the South, the Labour vote crumbled to the Liberal Democrats.

And Michael Howard announced that he was going - not in a hurry, like John Major and William Hague after previous elections, not in embarrassment like Iain Duncan Smith in between elections. But still Mr Howard is about to join the ranks of the Tory leaders who have been unseated by Mr Blair.

So who was the loser of the election? Obviously, Mr Blair - such a disappointing majority, he can't possibly stay on very long...

Yet, on the other hand, Mr Blair, for all his vulnerability, is still in a job. He's the one who went to Buckingham Palace yesterday; he's the one with a third working majority; he's the one picking a Cabinet and running the country.

The Tories, by contrast, are leaderless for the fourth time in eight years, and about to plunge themselves into a bitter contest which has just one inevitable outcome: they will end up, once again, choosing the leader they don't really want.

Perhaps Charles Kennedy and the LibDems were the real winners. After all, on the one hand, they fought a principled campaign, gained some spectacular swings and won enough seats to make this their best election since 1923.

But, on the other hand, the eight seats they have gained barely take up a single bench in the House of Commons and do not amount to a big breakthrough into three party politics. Their campaign boast that they are the "real alternative" to Labour is empty - they are, quite demonstrably, not the Opposition.

Sure, they have racked up plenty of impressive second places so that they seem well-placed for a final push in 2009. But how many Labour defectors, angry at the war and hateful of Mr Blair, will stay put in 2009? The war will be long forgotten, Gordon Brown will be leader and those defectors, fearful of repeating the mistake of 2005 and letting the Tories in, will happily desert the LibDems and go home to a more traditional Labour Party.

Does this mean that Mr Brown is the real winner of the 2005 General Election? On the one hand, the only reason that Mr Blair pulled off any sort of a victory is because Mr Brown was prepared to support him. Mr Brown, and his stewardship of the economy, made Mr Blair's victory possible - but because that victory was so dismal, Mr Blair's replacement by Mr Brown must be hastened. In fact, Mr Blair could make a dignified retreat, blaming his heart complaint - a readymade excuse.

Yet, on the other hand, will Mr Blair really jack it all in after just a couple of months? What would his right-wing enemies say about that? They already brand him a liar. This failure to fulfil his promise of serving a full third term would be branded "the final lie". Would he volunteer for such a political epitaph?

And let's look at the sort of man Mr Blair is. During this campaign, he has had his character thoroughly trashed by what his agent John Burton called the "venom and rubbish" of his opponents. In fact, Mr Blair has deliberately sought those opponents out, angrily taking their accusations on the chin and becoming increasingly exasperated at their refusal to see the "good faith" that led him to war. What sort of person would put himself - and his caring family - through such a sound thrashing only to jack it all in after a couple of months?

Mr Blair may be able to do it five times a night, but he isn't a sado-masochist to boot.

The man who stepped into the chill of the new Trimdon day yesterday morning didn't look to be on the verge of quitting. He looked relieved to have emerged from the darkness of a vicious campaign having suffered only sustainable damage which means he can put his definite plans for a third term into action.

Even in private to his Sedgefield posse, Mr Blair maintains "a third term means a full third term" - a view his neighbour, Alan Milburn, regularly repeats.

This, though, is a little optimistic view of the future. Surely Mr Blair will have to give his successor time to become acquainted with the British public. More importantly, if the French vote "yes" to the European Union constitution - as now seems increasingly likely - in about two years' time, Mr Blair, too, will have to hold a referendum. This date with destiny, and a possible defeat, would seem to hold the key to his departure.

And (this other hand, by the way, is a remarkably big one) what is most likely to go wrong within the next two years? The economy, stupid. Will Mr Brown's ambitious public spending coincide with an economic slowdown?

Conservatives are already muttering that this might have been a good election to lose. They have avoided inheriting Mr Brown's black hole. Instead, they can sit back and watch Mr Blair retire and Mr Brown's key selling point - economic competence - evaporate. So it is far too early to anoint Mr Brown as the winner.

Indeed, after all of the hands have been probably weighed, only one appears the strongest. And that, trite as it may seem, belongs to the British people.

They didn't want Michael Howard as Prime Minister. They didn't want a Conservative government. Nor did they want a LibDem one. They didn't want another all-powerful Labour government, and they didn't want Mr Blair, personally, to emerge without having had "a kick in the ballots".

But they did want a moderated Labour government because they are still intrigued as to where this experiment of massive investment in public services might lead.

They alone got what they wanted.