Could a liberated third-term Tony Blair finally rid himself of his troublesome chancellor but risk Gordon Brown stirring rebellion on the backbenches, asks Frank Millar, London.Editor
The always-interesting Diane Abbott MP calls it "a dance of death" and by any conventional standards, readers might think it would eventually prove to be so for Britain's ruling Labour Party.
With all sides in an advanced state of preparation for the general election expected in May, the dysfunctional state of the relationship between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown is laid bare.
The charge in Downing Street is treachery and it reverberates around Numbers 10 and 11 following a sensational new book confirming the chancellor's impatience to replace Mr Blair as prime minister - and his sense of betrayal that the younger man reneged on an apparent promise to stand down last autumn.
"There is nothing that you could ever say to me now that I could ever believe," the chancellor reportedly tells Mr Blair on a routine basis.
"You wouldn't work with me," is said to be Mr Blair's habitual response.
In the Commons on Wednesday, Mr Blair told Conservative leader Michael Howard the chancellor had never said it and that the central, most explosive charge in Robert Peston's book Brown's Britain was simply wrong.
Mr Blair only acted, however, having watched his brooding chancellor decline a succession of media opportunities over four days to disown or disavow the damaging quote.
Blair aides subsequently confirmed that the tactical decision to deny it for him was taken in anticipation of the inevitable Howard assault during Prime Minister's Questions - and in the knowledge that Mr Brown could hardly think to contradict the prime minister and remain in government.
Even then, Mr Brown's "corroboration" was less than precise.
Questioned during his Africa tour about the prime minister's assertion, Mr Brown suggested he had already "dismissed" this "gossip".
He had indeed affirmed, "of course", that he trusted the prime minister on Tuesday afternoon at a press event to launch the government's Baby Bonds scheme.
That was after Tuesday's earlier "show of unity", however, which obliged the Chancellor to appear at a poster launch with Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott and Alan Milburn - the man appointed to replace him as Labour's chief election planner.
Some commentators compared his appearance alongside rival Milburn to that of a Chinese professor paraded for humiliation in the cultural revolution.
But as the New Statesman observes: "If the Chinese are indeed inscrutable, Mr Brown is anything but. Nobody else conveys so much through the slightest angling of eyebrows, the merest twitch of face muscles, the faintest curl of lip, the millimetre-perfect positioning of shoulders."
Indeed, given the opportunity there to disown the damning quote, Mr Brown interpreted the question as being about the readiness of the British people to "trust" Labour (for which read the chancellor himself) with the management of the economy.
When pressed that the sum of the chancellor's various denials or dismissals added up to rather less than that given by the prime minister on his behalf, one Blair aide assented, suggesting that Mr Brown faced an obvious difficulty in satisfying the demands of angry Labour MPs while trying not to provoke the author of the book.
The respected Mr Peston, Sunday Telegraph city editor, after all had enjoyed the full co- operation of the Brown camp.
Mr Blair and Mr Brown having decided to step back from the path of mutual destruction, the official Labour line was that the government would not be diverted from its grand mission by stuff got up for "books."
Most of what we know about the deep personality faultlines in this government, however, has come from books to which the principals and their disciples have contributed mightily. David Blunkett's unhelpful comments about senior cabinet colleagues helped seal his fate just before Christmas.
Moreover, even as they smiled their rictus smiles through this week's peace process, the warfare continued. When Health Secretary Dr John Reid (one of the loyalists said to have persuaded Mr Blair to stay on last summer) told the BBC he was "no psychologist", former Brown spin doctor Charlie Whelan was not alone in divining a reference to an earlier Downing Street-sourced suggestion that the chancellor was psychologically flawed.
The language this week has been marginally more restrained. When asked why the chancellor had co- operated with such a damaging book, one government insider replied "it's become an obsession with him" - before offering the cheerful assessment that Mr Brown had been damaged by the fallout.
There is probably some truth in this, although the damage may prove as shortlived as the imminent election campaign.
Both men apparently received "a gold-plated bollocking" at Monday night's meeting of the parliamentary Labour Party.
There are plenty of MPs, however, who would have supported an all-out Brownite campaign to force Blair's resignation last year and who, while anxious about the renewal of hostilities so close to the election, would certainly oppose any Blairite attempt to force Brown from the Treasury once the election is won.
There, of course, is the rub for Mr Howard. The voters notoriously dislike divided parties, and the breakdown in the relationship between the two most important members of the government would seem to present the Conservatives with a glorious opportunity. "If the chancellor can't believe a word the prime minister tells him, why on earth should the British people?" as the party's co-chairman Dr Liam Fox demanded this week.
The problem for Dr Fox and Mr Howard is that the British people simply aren't listening. Indeed even among Conservative voters, nearly twice as many think Labour will win a historic third term. Thus among the commentariat the biggest interest is in the size of Labour's expected majority and what impact that has on the Blair/ Brown struggle for power.
On Mr Peston's account, this now has the potential to become infused with doctrinal battles which would remove the possibility of Brown emerging naturally as a recognisably "Blairite" successor. This too can be over-cooked, however.
There are differences between the two men which are of significance in a Labour context, most particularly over the involvement of the private sector in the provision of public services.
It is certainly true that a Brown premiership focused on social justice and more openly redistributionist would allow Labour MPs to feel more comfortable about themselves and their government.
That said, the price Mr Blair paid for Mr Brown's support to succeed the late John Smith was the unprecedented power exercised by the chancellor across the Whitehall board. If Mr Brown thinks somewhat contemptuously that Mr Blair stakes his claim to a third term on his (Mr Brown's) achievements, that merely underlines the point that the chancellor has been every bit as much the architect of New Labour's project.
According to one Brown enthusiast, what matters is less any dispute over policy than the Chancellor's belief that "they had a deal" and that Mr Blair reneged.
If true, could a liberated third- term Blair finally rid himself of his troublesome chancellor and prepare the way for some other successor? Or will he calculate rather that he is unlikely to secure his place in the history books - for example by winning a referendum on the European constitution - with Brown stirring rebellion on the backbenches?
The love died a long time ago, but it seems likely this dysfunctional but dependent relationship will continue a while longer.