Peter Mandelson has now begun to reveal part of the fascinating story of the behind the scenes dealing which led to the formation of Britain's first post-war full coalition government.
I am hard at work on a documentary which aims to tell the whole story, as seen by the key players involved. Tony Blair's switch from proponent to opponent of a progressive realignment is just one example of how the story of five days in May is, in reality, the story of two decades of British politics.
The hour-long programme will air on BBC2 later this month. In the meantime, please forgive the sporadic blogging.
The botched list of schools that won't now be re-built is just the tip of a very large political iceberg.
Labour's Ed Balls can scarcely conceal his glee that Michael Gove, his successor as education secretary, has crashed the ship of state into it.
The row began as an argument about an administrative error, the anguish it caused to communities whose hopes of a new school were first raised and then dashed, and the need for the minister to apologise. However, the row did not subside when Gove - a man known for his old world courtesy - apologised not once but repeatedly. In fact it grew.
The real argument - the iceberg - is about cuts - how big they should be and where they should fall - and about educational philosophy, whether new buildings matter as much as better teaching.
Michael Gove claims that Building Schools for the Future - the scheme beloved of Ed Balls - was guilty of "massive overspends... and needless bureaucracy". He points out that Labour wwas committed to an unspecified cut of 50% in capital spending and insists that new schools will still be built and old ones repaired.
Balls replies that the government is cutting spending on local schools to fund an ideologically driven policy of creating "free schools".
Both in public and in private, Gove insists that the errors in his list are his responsibility and his alone. Others mutter, though, that the new minister has been stitched up by officials who may have forgotten that they no longer work for Balls.
The row has added piquancy since Balls is running to be Labour's next leader and Gove is one of David Cameron's closest allies.
Balls will hope that he has holed the coalition below the water line. Gove must prove that having carelessly struck the iceberg he can now get back to port; patch up the hole and set sail again.
That is how the Speaker described PMQs yesterday in a speech proposing radical change to the weekly joust between the prime minister and possible future PM.
It will be interesting to see how today matches that description and how all sides respond to John Bercow's vivid description:
"We reached the point where almost nothing was deemed beyond the personal responsibility of the Prime Minister of the day, where the party leaders were responsible for a third of all the questions asked (and often more like 50 to 60% of the total time consumed) all set against a background of noise which makes the vuvuzela trumpets of the South African World Cup appear but distant whispers by comparison. If it is scrutiny at all, then it is scrutiny by screech which is a very strange concept to my mind."