Some of this New Labour lot really are a bit ridiculous. And no, before they reach for the destruct button, this is not a rant against the spin meisters.
Or not at any rate, on this occasion, against those operating on behalf of Number 10.
Officially their position is that it's all got-up by the media - "Blahtastic" their word for the latest tales of monstrous egos seemingly obsessed with a battle for the succession when there is not the remotest prospect of Mr Blair declaring a vacancy.
Privately some close to the Prime Minister acknowledge the damage being inflicted on the government and pray for "a period of silence" on the part of all concerned.
They will almost certainly be disappointed. For the personality faultlines beloved by the media have been and remain a dominant characteristic of New Labour.
After nearly five years in power they have never shaken off the perception that they really don't like each other very much. In the first term we grew familiar with the "Peter hates Gordon can't forgive Tony" theme of rivalry and ambition at the heart of the Blair court. Barely six months into the second we are fed the "Gordon doesn't rate Estelle (Morris), Alan (Milburn) or Stephen (Byers) - distrusts David (Blunkett) - and is still in a foul mood with Tony" variation.
Thrown into the mix are real and important policy issues. Chancellor Brown is apparently furious with Mr Byers over the Railtrack collapse. Big spending ministers (Morris at Education, Milburn at Health) apparently share Mr Blair's preference for increased investment in schools and hospitals over the tax-credits for the low paid favoured by Mr Brown.
The Chancellor is reportedly miffed that the Prime Minister has been publicly lobbying ahead of next week's pre-Budget report. Mr Blair in turn was apparently annoyed that Mr Brown allowed his speech to the Confederation of British Industry to be "spun" as a corrective to the prime minister's Euro-enthusiastic speech to last month's Labour Party conference.
But the policy and the personal are seldom separate, or at any rate for long. According to one report Mr Blunkett is to play peacemaker between Mr Brown and Mr Blair by assuring the Chancellor he is not seeking a confrontation he would lose over the government's spending priorities - or organising support among Labour MPs for an eventual bid to succeed Mr Blair.
Given the consistency of reports that Mr Blunkett is indeed being built up by the Blairites as an eventual leadership contender, it is doubtful if the Home Secretary really is the man to reassure the brooding Chancellor. Indeed, it is hard to see how Mr Brown might ever be reassured if, underlying all of this, is his feeling that Mr Blair robbed him of his inheritance following the death of John Smith and a determination that he must in time succeed to the top job.
And, it seems, it always comes back to this - the most important relationship between the two most important members of the government which many Labour insiders openly describe as "dysfunctional".
Mo Mowlam put it more genteely last weekend. The former Northern Ireland Secretary said the relationship between Blair and Brown was "not happy", telling the BBC: "When you have two people that aren't working together and that's the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, it doesn't lead to positive, easy decision-making. You know there's a battle going on and people support, or people go to one side or the other, and I think that is just crippling for government."
That may be to overstate it. But if not crippling, it is bound to be debilitating. Moreover, it will strike many voters as particularly indulgent at a time when Mr Blair punches above-his-weight for Britain on the international stage while British service personnel risk their lives in the air and on the ground in Afghanistan.
Barely six months into its second term - on back of a highly conditional mandate, and with "delivery" of world class public services still a distant promise - it may also strike voters as absurd that anyone in the higher reaches of this government should be pre-occupied with the division of future spoils. New Labour hasn't actually won the war yet.