There were no tears shed inside No 10 at the news of Donald Rumsfeld's resignation, writes Frank Millar, London Editor
It has become the fashion to divine only bad days left in this final phase of Tony Blair's premiership. And, in truth, the occupant of 10 Downing Street has never far to look for trouble, with daily headlines competing to decide whether war gone wrong or a police corruption inquiry will provide his final epitaph.
So yesterday's clinching news from the battle for control of the American Senate might be presumed to have triggered another bout of familiar dread among Mr Blair's shrinking inner circle. Yet even the darkest cloud can contain a silver lining, and of one thing we can be certain - there were no tears shed inside Number 10 at the news of Donald Rumsfeld's resignation as US defence secretary.
Chancellor Gordon Brown reportedly stayed up late on Tuesday night watching as the political map of America was dramatically redrawn. And the heir presumptive will be waiting as keenly as Mr Blair to discover what, if anything, the sweeping Democrat victory portends for a change of direction in Iraq.
Britons across the party political divide certainly had no difficulty interpreting the Republican loss of both Houses of Congress and the predicted "beginning of the end" of the Bush presidency.
"It's the war, stupid," opined the Daily Telegraph in response to "the clarion message given by the sacking of the architect of the invasion and occupation of Iraq."
Borrowing from President Bush's own words, the Financial Times meanwhile saw "another hammering" for Mr Blair's reputation, with the prime minister - seemingly now an increasingly isolated and lonely voice demanding that the allies "stay the course" in Iraq - set to feel the icy blast of the American president's defeats.
Yet there is no hint that Mr Blair thinks he has suffered another hammering. Far from it, his surprisingly buoyant aides think he (and they) have already "taken the hits" over the war, the intelligence failures over Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction; the Guantánamo and prison torture scandals; four official inquiries that, they not unreasonably observe, failed to prevent Mr Blair winning last year's general election.
Insofar as the triumphant Democrats might launch fresh inquiries into the political decision-making processes leading to the war, the professed confidence in Whitehall is that Mr Blair has nothing to fear and arguably something to gain. Indeed the stated reservation about any outbreak of "inquiryitis" is privately couched in terms of the capacity to divert attention and energy from the tasks ahead.
If that sounds like a "spin" too far, Mr Blair's allies would seem on stronger ground in suggesting that hopes for victory in the presidential election in two years' time will prevent the Democrats lurching wildly to the left. Continuing confidence in President Bush is reinforced by a strong conviction that "the Democrats are confused", that they will not push for early withdrawal from Iraq and that, while "tactics" may change, the Bush/Blair "strategy" will remain the same.
Hence foreign secretary Margaret Beckett's warning yesterday against any "precipitous" move to withdraw British troops: "In both Afghanistan and Iraq we have to have the courage of our convictions," she told the Royal United Services Institute military think tank in London.
Critics will think Mrs Beckett, like Mr Blair, deluded and urge them - as former ambassador Christopher Meyer did yesterday - to influence the Washington debate in anticipation of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission headed by former secretary of state James Baker.
Mr Blair's instinct will be to allow things to settle somewhat before flying off to see President Bush. But if he finds the changed landscape conducive, we are less likely to see him using any perceived opportunity to press for a speedy exit strategy from Iraq than for a renewed political push for a Middle East settlement.
In his speech to the Labour conference in September, the prime minister cited this personal commitment as one of his principal reasons for remaining in office a while longer.
However, optimist though he is, Mr Blair knows an alternative scenario presents itself as a result of the American mid-term elections. If that finds consensus harder to achieve and policy-making ground down, he will inevitably come to be seen as the lamer of the two in a failing partnership with President Bush. And a currently becalmed, if sullen, Labour Party might quickly rediscover its impatience for change.