Yesterday we took a look at the Conservative "statement of principles" Built to Last. It set in train some thoughts about the title. After all, many things are built to last - but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are any use in the modern world. Look at all those medieval castles, for example. Great in their time, and still around today. But hardly Fit For Purpose. Indeed, Albert Speer invented the theory of ruin value - the idea that buildings should be desgined to provide aesthetically-pleasing ruins should the building collapse, that would last for thousands of years. Like death and taxes, that magnificent old ruin that is the Conservative Party will be around for a good while yet. Again, hardly Fit for Purose, and I'm not sure that it qualifies as aesthetically-pleasing ...

I digress.

Elsewhere, the ever-incisive, Newsnight-read and friend of Frank Luntz Millenium Elephant has picked through the bones of Built to Last. With his customary efficiency, he appears to have unearthed the first draft of the preamble:

"Our Party seeks to quash freedom, keep opportunity to ourselves and avoid responsibility. Because we don't trust people, we help government grow stronger; by taking away your autonomy, we help ourselves grow stronger. We believe that there is no such a thing as society, but we are the same thing as the state."

Even the Dead Tree Press are getting in on the act, now that they have finally woken up to the fact that "Dave's" new suit of clothes might be less than it seems. Firstly, there are the contradictions:

While there is much to welcome ... there is much else that is still ill-defined or could have the effect of contradicting these sensible objectives

Next, we learn that they've finally spotted the Cameron Conundrum: how do you square the instincts and desires of the core vote and membership of your party with an electorate who think very differently?

The key to the success or failure of Mr Cameron's project will be his ability to reconcile all these apparent contradictions. How can he square his opposition to Europe with his desire to force through radical environmental policies? How can he oppose state intervention while improving individuals' work/life balances? Much will depend upon his policy reviews ... but 18 months is a long time for any party to be without thought-through ideas - particularly one wedded to the mantra of change.

Indeed - the only way to square this circle is to talk in a content-free, platitudinous manner; promising everything and nothing, with nods and winks in all directions. Until you get found out, of course:

Mr Cameron's frequent resort to generalisations and abstractions on [yesterday's] Today Programme was another sign that all might not be well. This hesitant interview was amongst the least convincing he has given since he became party leader; his trimming of William Hague's statements on Israel did ittle to enhance his authority. For almost the first time, Mr Cameron afforded glimpses of potential weaknesses. The time between now and when his policy groups report will not be plain sailing. The honeymoon is over; the real world awaits.