It may not be Hoon though. The only link to Hoon in the story is the fact that he had a dispute with Brown in 2002, he has recently plotted against Brown and will soon be up before the Chilcot inquiry. The only link between the three events is being drawn by the Sunday Times.
What if a third party has leaked these letters? Normally if these letters came out, Brown would get blamed and then it gets forgotten about. But in this case, someone might be reminding Hoon that he now has very little to lose by telling the Chilcot inquiry all about how "Brown stopped me doing this and that". I reckon someone has seen the chance to force Hoon's hand right up Brown's arse.
I would guess that vengeance is some part of it. But most likely to my mind is that Hoon is betting that Brown will lose the next election and be dropped by the Labour Party. Labour will look to make Brown a pariah (because he has lost so many votes) and those that can retrospectively be seen to have shunned him will form part of the next shadow cabinet. Thus Hoon can't lose unless Brown is re-elected, or Labour go into complete self destruct and keep Brown after losing the election.
Still consider that Hoon's interests (and possibly Blair also), would be served well as far as the Inquiry is concerned, if Brown were giving evidence around the same timeframe.
The one immediate impact of Hoon's foray into leadership debates earlier this week, had it had the desired effect, would have been to enable Brown to give evidence to the inquiry in the same weeks as Blair and Hoon. As things currently stand, Hoon and Blair are I suspect going to do even more of a stitch-up of Brown at the QE2, thus making Brown's position pretty difficult, when his time at Number 11 is going to be blamed for every shortage and lack of equipment from March 2003 to the present.
It would certainly seem the knives are out, and one can only speculate that the pressure on all fronts is going to increase, as we progress towards an election.
Quick question in relation to the inquiry and Brown (as sitting PM) not being called to give evidence. In the event that the pollsters are wrong, and by some miracle Brown was returned to Number 10 (watch shares in Pickfords soar), would that effectively mean that Chilcott could not call Brown to give his evidence until his term in office was completed, thus delaying the inquiry?
IMHO, Hoon along with Blair realised a long time ago, that when they were called to answer direct questions in relation to TELIC, that the game would be up. Blair spending just about all of his time outside of the UK now, comes as no surprise (which speaks volumes for a country he led for ten years). Hoon's political career is now not only over, but history in the form of the next twelve months' of headlines is going to lay waste to any reputation that he had in office. Hoon along with many others, is realising fast that Gordon Brown not only provides a fall-guy (and let's face it, Gordon doesn't respond well under pressure), that could almost make Hoon appear statesmanlike.
Either way "TCH" is likely to become an acronym that passes from the hallowed pages of ARRSE to Fleet Street and beyond, pretty soon after he's confirmed his name and the office he held.