See eg here. Strategists knew the limit was popular. And this could be linked to other messages they wanted to promote.

He’s ended up doing the right thing, but there’s no indication in the Substack of the change of course, any explanation of or regret for it.

www.theguardian.com/politics/202...

The link with the 2 child limit was how it was reported at the time.

You know more than I do about the internal party politics. But certainly the impression given at the time (which I find hard to believe wasn’t deliberate from No10) was a show of toughness.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/poli...

My hunch is that these sentiments are closer to what he really thinks than the earlier attempts to defend the limit. But who knows any more, including possibly him.

So Australia probably would've won the Ashes in that alternative universe, because in all likelihood they'd have had McGrath, one the best ever bowlers, throughout the series, but nothing to do with that ball, which wouldn't ever have happened.

In fact, in the alternative universe, Kasprowicz wouldn't have been playing at all, because he replaced Glenn McGrath, who'd had a freak injury.

Cricket seems especially prone to these erroneous counterfactuals.

In 2005, it was: if there'd been DRS, Australia would've won the Ashes, because Kasprowicz wouldn't have been out, & they'd have been 2-0 up, rather than 1-1.

But if there'd been DRS, that ball wouldn't ever have been bowled.

Lula's Brazil.

It looks to be following this part of Leveson. Currently various ways of appealing mags convictions. It would be ending the "automatic" appeal route of a rehearing, & aligning such appeals with Crown Court convictions. Rarely taken up I think because of the danger of getting a harsher sentence.

Not looking all that correct so far.

bsky.app/profile/youg...

bsky.app/profile/publ...

"So what would it have been like, growing up working class back then?"

"Well I found this."

"Yeah, that'll do."

If this concerns whether juries are more likely to make mistakes than judges, then I think you can't compare because juries don't give reasons. Appeal courts only quash jury convictions on this basis extremely rarely: if so, usually because of inconsistent verdicts; hardly ever otherwise.

Presumably the calculation here is that enough voters won't notice that the manifesto commitment has already been breached, & is being breached again, provided it's not done so too blatantly.

Is that correct? If trust has gone anyway, you wonder if they might as well do the thing properly.

In a moment of rare candour about this, the Chancellor referred to the keeping of manifesto promises as "political expediency", claiming at the time that she'd put the national interest ahead of such considerations.
www.ft.com/content/75c6...

In briefing extensively & quite openly that the Govt was prepared to break the promise in such a way that they couldn't wriggle out of it - by increasing IT rates - they made plain that only electoral considerations prevented them.