Well, for starters, it's definitely not a "fight-back". Nor should this week's stream of policy announcements be described as a "re-launch".
Those concepts characterised the last days of the dying Major administration - a government beset by allegations of sleaze, ultimately rendered impotent by powerful personal and political enmities and divisions.
Sound a bit to you like New Labour? Not at all - such perceptions are proof only of the pervasive influence of a press rooted in the trivial preoccupations of "the Westminster village". We have the word of the Downing Street spin doctors for that, and, as you know, New Labour's media machine is in a class of its own.
Sure, you thought you saw and heard John Prescott two nights before Christmas exultant at Peter Mandelson's enforced resignation. Recalling that he once likened the departed Trade Secretary to an exotic crab, you might be tempted to give some credence to yesterday's report that "Two Jags" Prescott really had led a cabinet revolt against Mr Mandelson's early restoration. But hey - don't be taken in by appearances.
The Deputy Prime Minister would have shared in Mr Blair's grief if only because he understands the severe personal blow Mr Mandelson's departure has inflicted on his boss. The loyal deputy was only stating the obvious when he insisted government was bigger than any individual. And he did sort of acknowledge that Mr Blair's own departure was perhaps the only one which might make a difference.
Forget, too, all that talk about Mr Prescott and Mr Brown ganging up behind an "Old Labour" agenda of interventionism and state spending.
The Chancellor, as much as Mr Mandelson, wrote the New Labour script. It was he, after all, who opted to tie the new government in the first two years to the Tory spending limits. Far from cultivating his own power base, those parties at Number 11 for constituency and trade union folk are just part of the continuing plot to keep the rank and file on message.
It surely wasn't necessary for Mr Blair to order the Brown/Mandelson peace summit last week, nor should anybody be exercised about the motive behind its subsequent disclosure to the press. Look, in true comradely spirit, Peter and Gordon even took time out to help Robin in his moment of difficulty.
The general consensus (well, the line anyway) is that Mrs Cook has damaged her own dignity rather more than that of the Foreign Secretary. Indeed, the Sun has found amazing numbers of women who would apparently like to sleep with him. So, you see, you can disregard too all that guff about New Labour as a triumph of style over substance.
An admittedly diminished Mr Cook will continue in office because he is, according to Mr Blair, a quite superb Foreign Secretary. Mr Brown's big speech on Monday was a hymn of praise unto the leader.
And Mr Blair has come as close as he might to describing the Chancellor's position as unassailable. So that's all right then.
AS for the idea that Mr Mandelson is sitting in his Bayswater home (apparently it isn't quite Notting Hill) plotting revenge, clearly nothing could be further from the truth. A naturally humble fellow, he will see all too clearly that a long penitential period on the back-benches is the surest way to fulfil Tony's dream and have the Labour Party learn to love him.
And if, after the next election, Mr Blair gives him the recall his heart desires, Peter will doubtless be happy to serve in whatever capacity the Prime Minister decides. Sure, the press is in a lather about Peter's alleged plot to kill off Gordon and Robin and establish himself as Tony's anointed successor. But after the torment and humiliation of recent weeks, he clearly couldn't be that stupid.
And anyway, two essential points here. First, Mr Hague is just mixing it and has got it deliberately wrong - these guys really don't hate each other. Second, given their unquestioned loyalty to Tony and their gratitude for his deliverance at the last election, none of them are even thinking about the succession.
Or are they? Ken Livingstone doesn't always spring to mind as a Blair loyalist. But earlier this week the left-wing MP warned Number 10 against any such complacency. An assumption had developed, he told Jonathan Dimbleby on LWT, that Mr Blair might retire after the next election and make way for someone else. People would inevitably start building up their camps if they anticipated a vacancy five or six years down the line. So, Mr Livingstone ventured, Mr Blair's best response might be to make it clear "that he intends to serve through about 20 years like Clem Atlee did, because that would put this issue to bed".
It's such a splendid idea, one wonders why Number 10 didn't think of it first. Peter, Gordon, Robin and John would presumably be delighted. So much so, indeed, they and Tony might think to make the party truly inclusive and reward Ken by allowing him to run for London mayor.