Mr Peter Mandelson may be set to resume advising the British Prime Minister on Northern Ireland, Europe and the forthcoming general election, despite the reported opposition of Chancellor Gordon Brown.
The former Northern Ireland Secretary kept a low profile yesterday as speculation about his political future continued unabated after the Hammond inquiry cleared him of lying or wrongdoing in the Hinduja "cash-for-passports" affair.
However, "sources close to" Mr Mandelson inspired one newspaper report claiming Mr Blair had told colleagues the loss of one of his oldest political friends could damage the Blairite wing of the government and had left the Prime Minister "isolated in a Cabinet dominated by Chancellor Brown".
Revived speculation about tensions between the Blair and Brown camps was underlined elsewhere by evident anti-Mandelson briefings. These suggested that Mr Brown is determined to block any attempted comeback by the twice-resigned minister during the general election campaign.
However, some observers think the focus on the personality fault lines at the heart of Labour's high command may reinforce the determination of other ministers to resist Mr Mandelson's speedy rehabilitation. They would also ensure the Chancellor retains sole control of the election strategy to win Labour's second term.
Moreover, key questions left unresolved by Sir Anthony Hammond's inquiry continued to dog Mr Mandelson, the Home Secretary, Mr Jack Straw, and Mr Blair himself yesterday. Conservative MPs threatened a second inquiry - this time through the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee - into the award of citizenship to the Asian billionaire Mr Srichand Hinduja.
Downing Street had hoped to close the controversy following Sir Anthony's report on Friday clearing ministers of any improper relationship with the Hinduja brothers. However, the Tory leader, Mr William Hague, will almost certainly seek to exploit Mr Blair's continuing embarrassment during Prime Minister's question time in the Commons on Wednesday. Mr Hague has blamed the whole "bizarre" affair on Mr Blair's "judgment" in bringing Mr Mandelson back into government so soon after his first resignation over his undisclosed home loan. On the other hand, questions continue to be asked about Mr Blair's "loyalty" following the sacking of a friend and confidante, seemingly in panic, before the full facts were established.
Apart from the still-unanswered question of why Mr Mandelson was forced to resign, Mr Hague is certain to ask whether the Prime Minister was shown intelligence reports concerning the "dubious" business activities of the Hindujas. Other persistent questions include:
Why Mr Mandelson concluded a memo concerning their sponsorship of the Dome in November 1998 with the words: "Incidentally, if Mr S.P. Hinduja wishes to pursue his citizenship application he can do so without further involvement or commendation from me!"
What exactly Mr Straw meant when he asked that one of the Hinduja passport applications be dealt with "helpfully".
Why existing policy - not to grant citizenship to persons known to be the subject of criminal investigation - was not followed in this case.
The former deputy leader of the Labour Party, Lord (Roy) Hattersley, yesterday said that, despite his acquittal, Mr Mandelson "had to go, and no prime minister with an instinct for self-preservation will ever bring him back".
As Downing Street dismissed reports of "favours" for another rich man - this time a Syrian arms broker - Lord Hattersley blamed Mr Blair for failing to change Whitehall's deference to people of great wealth. Writing in the Observer, he said: "Money talks . . . and although the Prime Minister was right to act decisively in the removal of Mandelson, he must take some of the blame for not changing the Whitehall view that to those who have much, more shall be given. It is hard for him to make the Home Office change its ways with so much rich men's money swilling about Labour."