The headline is that David Cameron realised he couldn't get both Lords reform and gay marriage through Parliament at the same time, so he's ditched the second of these. Is that strange? Hardly anyone cares about Lords reform passionately except for Westminster-types, but backing away from full marriage rights for same-sex couples is likely to upset a small but vocal minority of gay people.
On the other hand, introducing gay marriage would have upset a larger and even more vocal minority of religious traditionalists, and Cameron's clearly decided to focus on the art of the practical.
Detoxifying the Tory brand matters to Cameron, that much was obvious when he pledged to introduce gay marriage at last year's party conference. But the calculation clearly is that the benefits of appealing to gay people are outweighed by the risk of upsetting lots of core Tory voters.
Of course Cameron won't ever say that, he's more likely to remind people that Lords reform was in the coalition agreement and gay marriage wasn't.
We don't know the final text of the Lords Reform Bill yet - we should get that by the end of the month, with any luck. Crucially we don't know if Cameron and Clegg have backed down on whether there should be a referendum. But even if as expected the coalition waters them down to appease MPs' concerns about the powers of the Commons, that won't stop those peers from doing everything they can to delay the passing of the reforms into law.
It is going to take ages to get these reforms through Parliament, and Cameron's obviously decided he can't deal with two highly controversial Bills which upset Tory heartlands at the same time.
Tories will be keen to see exactly what's in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill - it promises to cut red tape, make it easier to hire and, one assumes, fire people. What will that involve? This remains to be seen. Tories will also want to see whether separate plans to make paternal leave more flexible will just add to regulation even as they're cutting it elsewhere.
How supermarkets will view the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill will be one to watch - they're about to be put under the watch of an ombudsman to majke sure they don't bully or rip off food suppliers. It sounds like more red tape, not less. But remember how powerful Tesco was when dealing with the government's work experience scheme earlier this year? They clearly have the power to effect u-turns by ministers, maybe they'll secure concessions further down the line.
The reaction from civil liberties watchdogs like Shami Chakrabati to the Justice and Security Bill will also be interesting. The plans would see evidence gathered from the security services made available to the courts - but only if they meet in private.
It's something successive governments have toyed with doing for years, because at the moment a lot of evidence gathered using the "dark arts" isn't admissable. The security services have always been reluctant to reveal those dark arts in court. How it'll work exactly remains to be seen, but on the face of it, this is a major change.
Later on MPs will debate the Queen's speech. Labour will say there's not enough in it to help bolster growth, and that the PM is distracted by tinkering with the constitution at the expense of an economic plan to get us out of recession. The coalition will say it's a plan for growth, but really that should have come in the Budget.
Most people will see the Queen's Speech as a lot of reform of obscure bodies with nothing really to grab their attention as a sign of real change. On the face of it, though, there's not enough here to resonate enough with voters for this to be seen as a relaunch.