But will it really be a happy one?

It has been a slow bank-holiday weekend, and John Prescott has suffered more calls for him to go, most notably from Labour MPs. But these MPs are small in number, and most constitute the "usual suspects". Since his affair, Prescott has done nothing particularly catastrophic; he is not negligent in any obvious way, and it is hard to conceive of a David Blunkett-style situation in which new headlines snowball into a torrent, augmenting pressure until number 10 can resist no longer. Playing croquet was not a wise move for a man who claims to be Old Labour's voice within New Labour, but it is hardly a resigning issue.

Michael Crick on Newsnight last night recalled George Brown in 1968, who resigned from cabinet and as foreign secretary, but stayed on as the deputy leader for another two years, sitting on the backbenches. But as the debate following Skipper's analysis has established, rule 4b 2e of the party's constitution seems to specify that the deputy leader be a member of the cabinet.

Lance Price cites an "arch-conspiracy" theory: that Blairite aides are conniving against John Prescott in order to make room for someone such as Alan Johnson, who, in 18 months or so, could establish himself sufficiently in order to mount a serious challenge to Gordon Brown. Alan Johnson is a former trade-union man, and thus may seem adequate replacement for working-class Prescott. But this, as suggested, is highly conspiratorial, and the more likely scenario is that Blair fears that a deputy leadership election would encourage an anti-Blair/pro-Brown candidate and, in succession, trigger more calls for his resignation. Moreover, it would be politically embarrassing for Blair to demote the deputy prime minister, just one month after the most significant cabinet reshuffle of his nine-year tenure. The reshuffle included Prescott himself, after all.