David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, pronounced himself “mortified” by the results of the local elections in England. His candour is always welcome, but his binary bluntness misses the more subtle messages sent by voters. Instant analysis of these contests invariably leads to unduly sweeping conclusions. In this case, there is the assumption that electors in Newcastle or Trafford switched sides because of events in Baghdad or Basra. There are a host of reasons why individual electors or particular parts of the country might have moved from Labour either to the Conservatives, or from the Liberal Democrats to the Conservatives. This was not a one-size-fits-all election.

Nor was it quite as bad a result as it might sound. The BBC’s analysis rather dramatically concluded that Labour would have won only 26 per cent of the overall vote if every part of Britain had conducted local elections on Thursday. This would have placed the party third behind the Conservatives (38 per cent) and the Liberal Democrats (30 per cent). This is a remarkably poor outcome for the Prime Minister. When compared with the 2001 general election, it looks appalling. But when contrasted with other recent local contests, a more rounded picture emerges. In 2000, for example, the Tories won 38 per cent and Labour a modest 29 per cent. The equivalent picture last year was that the Conservatives secured 34 per cent of this theoretical poll while both Labour and the Liberal Democrats were on 30 per cent.

The shift compared with either 2000 or 2003 is not, therefore, unprecedently seismic. The Conservatives are clearly a stronger force under Michael Howard than under Iain Duncan Smith, but they are not yet taking large chunks of territory that they could not secure under William Hague. With certain exceptions, new seats acquired are not ideally situated for them. And the outcome of the European elections tomorrow night may temper the enthusiasm of Conservative Central Office, nervously awaiting the size of the UKIP surge.

There will, nonetheless, be a thesis expressed within the Labour Party that runs as follows. If we are not losing many votes to the Conservatives, its advocates will assert, then we must instead have discarded them to parties perceived as standing to the left of Tony Blair. The best and fastest way to reconcile those electors would be to move in their direction. New Labour should thus forget the “new” and concentrate on the “Labour”. In the most extreme version of this blueprint, the Prime Minister himself should be sacrificed as a peace offering (in more than one sense of the term).

This would not merely be an overreaction, it would be madness. To abandon the middle ground in a desperate attempt to appease those who have flirted with the Greens, the hard Left such as George Galloway’s Respect or even the more pacifist parts of the Liberal Democrats would be to court disaster come the general election. The poll held for the BBC of all electors, not just those who participated in this election, contained some interesting findings. It suggested that Labour retained a very significant advantage on economic management and that a larger proportion of the public believed that there were signs of improvements in the public services than thought that 12 months ago. Mr Blair’s personal standing has taken something of a battering in this period, and an increasing percentage of the population has lost faith in him, but the notion that he has become a spectacular liability to his party is not proven.

Now is the time for ministers to build on what has been achieved and press forward with reforms at a faster pace. To be momentarily politically mortified is one thing. For a party to develop a death wish is another.