Is it time for a Grand Remonstrance yet?

If it wasn't about something serious - you know, that whole running the country thing - the latest machinations of the 'Labour Party civil war' (well, if the publication of a book is a 'Lib Dem civil war' according to some people then this must reach the - rather low - target for declaring it a war) would just be fun to watch:

Yesterday, some of those who want Mr Brown to succeed were speculating that Labour’s ruling National Executive Committee could hold a leadership ballot as early as next summer, allowing the party to anoint an official heir to inherit Mr Blair’s position whenever he did come to leave Downing Street.

By holding a leadership election early, Mr Brown’s supporters would hope to set in stone his status as favourite to succeed Mr Blair. The alternative, leaving the leadership contest until the end of the next parliament, would bring the risk that Mr Brown’s popularity may be eclipsed by another candidate.

"If you announce that you are stepping down five years in advance, you can decide who the successor is in advance as well," one Brownite insisted last night.

And as the truce between the two sides disappears faster than a pledge not introduce top up fees, people start braking the vows of omerta:

Yet, courtesy of the Brown camp, a few salient facts began to emerge.

Mr Blair had, in November 2003, told both the Chancellor and Mr Prescott that he would quit before this autumn.

This was, in a way, a second "pact" - it certainly led to a period of unprecedented harmony between the two.

And when Mr Blair was tempted to "pre-announce" his departure date, Mr Brown talked him out of the announcement, though not the intention of resigning. The Chancellor did not want the Labour Party to be put on notice of a leadership campaign in the far-distant future; he was concerned about the in-fighting that such a move could provoke.

In the event, Mr Blair rallied - and decided to fight the coming election campaign. The understanding was that he would quit after fighting, and presumably losing, a referendum campaign over the proposed European constitution.

And all this appearing in The Scotsman is probably nothing to do with a certain friend of Gordon's spending a lot of time north of the border nowdays, I'm sure.