The predictions of doom came from media pundits, Labour party activists and their political opponents too. All seemed to agree that Labour risked a dismal result in the Oldham bye-election, ranging from losing altogether, to losing half of its support, to defeating nearest rivals UKIP by a mere couple of thousand votes.

Whatever the outome, we were told, voters would take the chance to deliver the first electoral verdict on new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, and that verdict would not be positive.

So the first thing to be said is that the result is a handsome boost for the under-fire Labour leader. He does not appear to be the dose of electoral poison which critics on all sides have tried to make out.

That verdict comes with caveats, however. It is possible that voters admire his principled stand over air strikes on Syria- despite the fact that his own shadow foreign secretary Hillary Benn spoke in opposition to that stand, in what was widely acknowledged as the best speech of this week's House of Commons debate. It is possible too that the electorate appreciate the new politics touted by the Corbyn camp - an honesty about internal debates culiminating in Mr Corbyn's decision to allow his MPs a free vote. It could be, as Mr Corbyn himself argues, that his forthright anti-austerity message is finding a ready audience, as similar arguments have done to an extent for the SNP in Scotland, and for anti-cuts parties in countries across Europe.

But caution is necessary. Bye-elections are not a good predictor of long term electoral performance, indeed, winning parties are often the beneficiaries of protest votes. Some fear, Labour is now more credible as a protest vote than a party of government, and this result leaves that question open.

There is reason to support the view that Labour might struggle to deliver such results at a more important election. Mr Corbyn's discipline problem at cabinet level, his own rhetorical weakness, the extreme positions expressed by some of his close colleagues, all of these could prove fatal to his leadership. In particular, history tells us that a divided party cannot win major elections.

Meanwhile the result will have left UKIP stinging. It has long nurtured hopes of a breakthrough in Labour's northern strongholds, but the party's divisive message made little progress with Oldham's electors.

Perhaps it is this that lies behind Nigel Farage's intemperate comments about alleged electoral fraud and a broken ballot process. If Mr Farage has evidence to back up his claims, he must present it to police. If not, he must cease such damaging slurs on the democratic process. In short the UKIP leader should put up or shut up.

But it was plain that Mr Corbyn's critics would have had a field day if the result for Labour had been poor.

Those critics, including those within his party, may have to revise their opinions. Some held his leadership would be over by Christmas, but this story may have longer to run than many of us thought.