Addicted to Labour?
Do you remember where you were when Peter Lilley was replaced by Francis Maude? What do you mean Peter who? It was a big moment. No really it was.
If you're still struggling to dredge it from the far reaches of your memory the year was 1998, there was a change in shadow chancellor involving two of the people who'd only just been running the country.
I test your memory in order to test myself on a question that's troubling me this morning - will the replacement of Alan with Labour's other Ed matter as much as we news boys have said it will? Or could it be that we're still addicted to reporting on Labour?
Last night we all recalled how Ed didn't get on with Ed when they worked for Gordon...and Ed (B not M that is) wasn't liked by Tony or, indeed, by Alastair who was - by chance - clashing on Question Time with "gorgeous George" before Tony gave evidence this morning.
No surnames needed and no detail explanation because, after all, we all know the plot of the nation's favourite political soap opera, don't we? But could these guys be the Messrs Lilley and Maude of today?
Perhaps but here's why - on reflection - I think we are right to be excited by this shadow cabinet reshuffle. The economy is the central issue of the day. Who is right and who is wrong about the deficit, tax and spending will not just define our political future but many people's personal futures.
The heavyweight clash between Ed Balls and George Osborne will pitch Labour's toughest, brightest, sharpest street fighter against the Tories answer to him. It will involve a clash of two dramatically different approaches to the economy - one which will be dubbed "deficit denying" and the other which will be portrayed as "growth denying". It follows an election which the Conservatives did not win and leads up to one which Labour has every chance of winning.
On this of all days when signs of "Labour addiction" are everywhere to see I'm making a note to myself to keep my eye firmly fixed on the future.
PS Sadly I cannot be at today's gripping examination of the past - the Iraq Inquiry - but my colleagues James Landale and Laura Kuenssberg are there. One thought on the opening exchanges. What is emerging before our eyes is a clash of cultures between a politician who believes governing is, in the end, about one man's judgement and the Whitehall classes who believe it should be about official papers, formal consideration of the evidence and collective decision making.