Whisper it but a Labour think tank finally had an answer to White Van Gate yesterday.
The party came under heavy fire last week when a frontbencher tweeted a photograph of a house flying three England flags and with said vehicle parked outside.
The politician herself lost her job amid accusations of snobbery and sneering.
Later, Ed Miliband was ridiculed when asked what he thought when he saw a white van, for answering: "Respect."
It may have taken almost six days but Labour's Jamie Reed finally came up with a stinging riposte to Tory crowing on the issue at Prime Minister's Questions.
The MP for Cumbria said he knew exactly what his first thought was when he saw a white van.
"Whether or not it's my father or my brother driving it," he said, and then he stared at David Cameron for the longest time.
The Labour benches loved it. But, perhaps surprisingly, Tory MPs loved it too.
As Mr Reed continued to look directly at Mr Cameron, Tory backbenchers hooted at what they saw as a criticism that could apply equally to the Labour leadership.
Mr Cameron, for his part, appeared taken aback by the unspoken challenge from Mr Reed to rustle up some long-lost relative who drives a white van.
He rather weakly claimed that if Labour supported people who worked hard and wanted to get on he should cross the floor to the Conservatives.
Earlier, one of his own backbenchers had given a much more rousing defence of white van man.
An impassioned speech by Nadim Zahawi, the MP for Stratford-on-Avon, told the Commons: "When I see a white van I think of the small business owner who works long hours to put food on the family table.
"When I see the cross of St George, I think of the words of my constituent William Shakespeare - 'This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England!"
Eagle-eyed readers will have noticed the words "my constituent."
Does Mr Zahawi know something we don't?
And has anyone asked The Bard what he thinks when he sees a white van?
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article