As expected, Tony Blair's Labour government was re-elected in Britain's general election last Thursday. Not surprisingly it was returned to office with a reduced - but comfortable - parliamentary majority.

Before analysing the vote, it has to be pointed out that this victory is indeed historic for Britain's Labour Party. From 1979 to 1992 Labour lost four consecutive general elections to the Conservatives. When it lost the 1992 election, people were saying that the Labour Party was simply not electable.

Mr Blair changed all that. Not only was he elected in 1997 in a landslide - he was then re-elected in 2001 in another landslide. The 2001 electoral victory also made history because it marked the first time a Labour government was re-elected. So last week, history was made once again when a Labour government was elected thrice in a row.

Mr Blair's third consecutive electoral victory has put him at par with Mrs Thatcher who won three consecutive general elections in 1979, 1983 and 1987, and who governed Britain for 11 years from 1979 until 1990,when she was challenged for the party leadership. Mr Blair has now served as Prime Minister for eight years and is unlikely to serve another full third term. Whether he would want to equal Mrs Thatcher's record and spend another three years in Downing Street before stepping down is still to be seen. However, Mr Blair has made it clear that he will not contest another general election as party leader, so I doubt that his own party will force him out office. He will just have to choose the right time to make his exit and anoint his successor.

Last week's election gave 355 seats to Labour, 197 to the Conservatives and 62 to the Liberals. This represents a loss of 57 seats for Labour, a gain of 31 seats for the Conservatives and a gain of 10 seats for the Liberal Democrats. In terms of the popular vote, Labour got 36 per cent, five per cent less than in 2001, the Conservatives got 33 per cent, one per cent more, and the Liberal Democrats got 22 per cent, almost four per cent more than the 18.3 per cent they got in 2001.

So there was a considerable swing away from Labour, mainly towards the Liberal Democrats, and significantly, not towards the Conservatives. However, the Conservatives were the main beneficiaries of this swing because many marginal Labour-held seats that saw an increase in the Liberal Democrat vote fell to the Tories. The swing in such constituencies was not enough to elect a Liberal Democrat, but was enough to unseat the sitting Labour MP and to give the Conservative candidate the relative majority of the vote, which under Britain's "winner take all" single district electoral system is all that is needed to send an MP to the House of Commons.

The election has given Mr Blair an overall parliamentary majority of 64 - nowhere near the huge majorities he has enjoyed so far, but still comfortable enough to govern without any major problems during this legislature. A slashed majority was expected - after all, a third landslide would have been both abnormal and very unusual, especially when one considers just how must damage the Iraq war and the debate about public services caused the Labour government. However, I don't think this is a bad result for Mr Blair - after all how many European political parties can boast of three consecutive electoral victories?

While the Conservatives increased their parliamentary strength, their share of the vote increased only marginally, which is not good news for them. In fact the Conservatives' popular support nationally has remained almost unchanged in the last three general elections. It is not surprising, therefore, that party leader Michael Howard, who took over 18 months ago, announced his intention to resign. Voter disillusionment with the Labour government was not translated into increased support for the Conservatives. Instead, many Labour voters either voted for the Liberal Democrats or for independents.

The Liberal Democrats, on the other hand, have reason to celebrate as their share of the vote increased considerably. However, they are often seen as a protest party and Iraq created a huge protest vote that the Liberal Democrats - as the only party to oppose the Iraq war - naturally exploited. It is doubtful, however, whether the war in Iraq will still be an issue at the next election.

The issues in this election were clearly domestic - health, education, crime, public services, immigration, a stable economy - as well as the Iraqi war and Mr Blair's case for taking Britain to war. Upon his re-election Mr Blair said Labour had to "respond sensibly and wisely" to its reduced parliamentary majority and would take into consideration people's concerns expressed during the campaign.

He said he believed the British people wanted to move forward on Iraq and that he would continue to invest in public services, support a strong economy, work for a fairer immigration system and fight crime and anti-social behaviour.

Mr Blair must now also come to terms with the fact that Britain is to hold a referendum on the European Constitution next year, which although did not feature at all in the electoral campaign, could well destroy him politically if not approved by the electorate.

Furthermore, sooner or later Mr Blair will have to take a decision on withdrawing British troops from Iraq - but this will depend on the Iraqi government's ability to take charge of the security situation.

He will also have to honour his promise of increased funding for and an improvement in public services. Finally, he will have to decide just when to hand power over to his successor, presumably Gordon Brown - but in politics nothing can be taken for granted.