On August 2 the gleefully revealed Labour pollster Philip (now Lord) Gould's pre-coronation bullet point strategy for Brown.
Amid lots of stuff about 'strong leadership' it recommends a strategy under the rather unfortunate appellation "shock and awe", not a part of Labour's recent history one would imagine Brown welcomes being reminded of.
Included in this is the desirability of an early General Election, to lock in Brown's current poll gains (anticipated by Gould, so a brownie point to him) before the Tories have time to recover and "events" occur, as they do.
This has got Westminster humming, with some people still thinking an autumn election remains a possibility; although numerous Labour sources have pointed out that the party is still broke.
An election by the spring looks a certainty however, and not the least benefit to Brown, will be the fact that our contending tabloids will probably still be on his side.
This will leave the Tories remarkably friendless in the meejah (the Lib Dems always are, of course).
It's interesting that the sage Gould (who I remember as an agency planner in the 80s, accustomed, as his ilk was, to being beaten around the head by account men and creatives alternately) predicts that "security" will be the big issue in any forthcoming election, not the NHS or the economy.
This just might have something to do with Gordon's surprise recent announcement that he wants to revisit the detention-before-charge issue, suggesting (although not directly) that 56 days would be better than 28 (you can tell he's a former chancellor, he can multiply by two).
This has alarmed his supporters even in the Labour Party. He's tried to dress it up by saying he will seek a political "consensus" although there doesn't seem to be much chance of that, unless David Cameron really panics.
Could this be a piece of blatant electioneering, based on Gould's prognosis?
If it's read that way, it won't do Brown's newly-won statesman reputation a lot of good. Or make the Mirror, for revealing it, very popular with the Brownites.
So what's Brown to do?
The sensible thing to do would be to backtrack gracefully on the 56 day issue if the aforementioned consensus does not emerge.
The opposing parties are highly unlikely to make gleeful capital out of this (being security and all that) and he could always say "I told you so" later if a bomb goes off.
His impressive line-up of media allies is divided on the subject; the Sun being keen to lock up as many people as possible, the Mail doubtful and the Mirror, one assumes, against.
The Guardian and the Indy (rather reluctant allies one assumes) are against it; who knows which way The Times and Telegraph will jump?
But he's put down his marker on security, so that will please Lord Gould.
In the meantime one of his main priorities will be to keep the hounds of Fleet Street fed and watered long enough to boost his chances in the next election.
Which means an early one.
Politics of media is a regular series of opinion pieces for Brand Republic about the way media shapes politics and vice-versa. Stephen Foster is a partner at The Editorial Partnership and can be contacted at: steve-edco@blueyonder.co.uk.