This afternoon, there will, essentially, be a confidence vote in the culture secretary, and the Lib Dem half of the coalition are going to sit back and let it happen.
It’s not every day some of the serving cabinet ministers refuse to back a cabinet colleague. But this is no ordinary government and these are no ordinary times.
The abstention will be only the second time the party has exercised a party, not government, whip this Parliament, which in itself should demonstrate just how unhappy the Lib Dems are.
Referring ministers to the independent adviser on ministerial interests is something solely in the power of the prime minister. Even if the motion today passes, it will only be symbolic. Parliament can't force the PM's hand.
But Clegg and his cohorts have been fighting a running battle over the recess to change the prime minister's mind without success.
In any other case, either the minister would have referred themselves or the prime minister would do so to ensure his ministers were beyond reproach.
By enabling a vote, it becomes a Tory failure to regulate their own ministers or else shut the issue down; it is the Tories who need to justify that failure.
There is more than enough evidence to warrant an investigation into a possible breach of the ministerial code or a potential misleading of Parliament and, if it was enough to refer Warsi for investigation on the mere whisper of a scandal, then after the wave of texts, emails, phonecalls and the resignation of a special adviser whose conduct he was responsible for, surely Hunt, too, should have been referred?
After all, it was the private bias made public following a Telegraph sting operation that apparently made Vince Cable unfit to judge the BSkyB bid. Hunt’s private bias was known to the prime minister and he had lobbied ministers on the bid before the decision was even given to him. It was bound to come out.
The real question, however, is Cameron’s judgement over the whole, sorry, BSkyB saga.
First, we had Andy Coulson, then we had Cameron's Christmas dinners with Rebekah Brooks, now we have the question of Hunt's bias and Cameron's alleged complicity in refusing to have it investigated. The Lib Dems aren’t about to go down because of Cameron’s Notting Hill set.
And why an abstention? The intention is to wound Cameron, not kill the coalition.
The Liberal Democrats are not collectively responsible for Cameron's judgement or Red and Blue poodle-ing to the Murdoch press over the years. But the party is responsible for ensuring we see an economic recovery and that the coalition programme is carried out.
Backing Labours motion wouldn't see Hunt referred, but would rally the Tory backbenchers unhappy with how Warsi was treated to Cameron’s side. Abstaining will put the spotlight on the prime minister and give valuable air time, separate from Labour, for the Lib Dems to make plain their displeasure.
And, of course, Parliament can’t force a referral to the independent adviser on ministerial interests.
But misleading Parliament is a different matter altogether. Should an MP table an amendment to investigate a misleading of Parliament, things could change very quickly.
It’s a Westminster bubble pursuit, but the game is afoot.