Human rights and wrongs
"We're not planning that."
So said the Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude on the BBC News channel about the idea - a Conservative manifesto promise, you may recall - to "replace the Human Rights Act with a UK Bill of Rights".
Mr Maude was quick to say that this was not really a matter for him but his words will lead many to wonder if this will be another Tory promise to fall victim to the formation of the new coalition?
On the day the alleged leader of an al-Qaeda plot to bomb targets in north-west England won his appeal against deportation will it be another excuse for the Daily Mail to warn of betrayal?
The promise to repeal the Human Rights Act not only divides the Tories and the Lib Dems. It also divides the prime minister from the man he's just made justice secretary.
Back in 2006 Ken Clarke branded David Cameron's proposals for a British Bill of Rights "xenophobic" and "anti-foreigner".
He was reacting to a speech in which Mr Cameron said the Human Rights Act was "practically an invitation for terrorists and would-be terrorists to come to Britain" and declared that "I believe it is wrong to undermine public safety, and indeed public confidence in the concept of human rights, by allowing highly dangerous criminals and terrorists to trump the rights of the people of Britain to live in security and peace."
Perhaps the easy solution will be for the Tories to stick with the reality of their position pre-election? For months now I've been told privately that whatever their manifesto might say they've not actually found any way to carry out their promise.
I await the publication of the coalition's joint programme later this week with interest.
Update, 17:01: The issue of human rights and terror suspects is even more complex than I thought.
Even if Britain replaced the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights we would, I'm told, still be subject to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).
Article three of the ECHR states that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" and we cannot derogate from it unless we're at war.
That's why the Conservative document "A Resilient Nation" published in February promised to "review jurisprudence relating to ECHR to permit deportation of foreign nationals".
The man who expected to be justice secretary - but is now attorney general - Dominic Grieve gave a speech condemning those who said that the answer was to withdraw from the ECHR:
"Although some have argued, and increasingly vociferously, that the solution for the UK in view of these problems is to withdraw from the Convention altogether on the grounds that it is an undesirable and unnecessary fetter of national sovereignty in decision making, I entirely disagree, as does the Conservative Party. Such a withdrawal would send a very damaging signal about how the UK viewed the place and promotion of human rights and liberties and would be an encouragement to every tin pot dictator such as Robert Mugabe, who violates them."
Pending the review the Tories promised terror suspects, like those who were the focus of today's case, will, almost certainly, be the subject of control orders.
The Liberal Democrats described them as "an affront to British justice" which should be scrapped. The new Conservative Home Secretary is about to make use of them. Her party only promised to "review" the system.
Aren't coalitions fun?
Update, 17:22: I understand that the government is about to announce the creation of a commission to look into the workings of the Human Rights Act.
An ideal way, perhaps, to paper over divisions within the government over the future of the HRA.