The Times editorial described British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's survival of last night's no-confidence vote as a costly victory, by a narrow margin, and signaling the scale of the rebellion against his leadership.
In its editorial, the newspaper indicated that Johnson expressed his hope that last night's vote would enable the party to put an end to recent events, but it pointed out that history suggests otherwise.
She commented that, of course, he would set himself up to break with history and get rid of this latest setback as he had done so much in his career before.
If Johnson avoids leading his party to catastrophic defeat in the next election, he will need to display a degree of control and focus that has been largely absent so far in his premiership.
Even if Johnson survives these tests, the broader question is what he intends to do to restore public confidence before the next election.
After all, the rebellion against him was not motivated solely by public anger at him or by doubts about his integrity.
As Jesse Norman, a former cabinet minister and former Johnson supporter, put it in a strongly worded letter, "Under your leadership the government seems to lack a sense of responsibility, it has a majority but no long-term plan."
If Johnson avoids leading his party to catastrophic defeat in the next election, he will need to display a degree of control and focus that has been largely absent so far in his premiership, even under his current team of advisers.
The danger, however, is that his power has been so affected that he will find it increasingly difficult to get anything done.
Instead, the temptation will be to continue to seek to bolster his position by fomenting new divisions, whether by encouraging culture wars internally or fueling new conflicts with the European Union.
She concluded that the public is unlikely to forgive such a profound lack of seriousness with the unprecedented challenges facing the country.