Today's clown is..

[Tubby Isaacs]

Non-entity member of government won't be resigning after all.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7353273.stm

"It is true I have concerns over tax changes and these have been discussed with senior government figures.

"I am reassured that my concerns are understood and that the government remains committed to its anti-poverty agenda. Resignation of my post is therefore not envisaged."

An anti-poverty agenda that includes making poor people worse off, evidently. Still, probably their own fault for not having kids and therefore not counting as a "hard working family". I expect that this group (on less than £18,500) will still not count as poor under that indicator that's always wheeled out. Fuck em, eh? They can pay for the redistribution.

"Discussed with senior government figures"? You're in the sodding government (at least enough to stop you ever being independent-minded on any issue). How big of them to discuss it with you. Did this include Brown saying "Everyone knows I'm a social democrat really"? Was Polly Toynbee there?

I know the media are to blame but might we not have had a better discussion of this dreadful policy without the antics of this fool?

[Tubby Isaacs]

Today's clown is..

He said while writing primarily about a personality and not a policy.

[Alderman Barnes]

Today's clown is..

"Resignation of my post is therefore not envisaged."

Why is it that these people even talk like fucking robots?

[Anton Gramscescu]

Today's clown is..

Can someone explain this whole thing to me? You eliminate the lowest rate of tax but allegedly some people won`t be made worse off?

Wha? how is that possible?

Are there some massive tax credits being introduced to offset what would appear to be a whopping increase in marginal taxation for the poorest?

And, given that Brown's record on fighting poverty - such as it is - seems to rely on precisely such a manipulation of tax rates and tax credits, why in Christ's name would you fuck around with this by introducing a measure which at least on the face of it would seem to effectively repeal all the good those credits have done? I mean even if it's true that not many will be made worse off, surely they will all *think* they will be worse off (which, electorally, is 100% of the battle...)

[Tubby Isaacs]

Today's clown is..

I think there are credits for people with kids, AG. The indicator I referred to above is about children in households in poverty, defined in terms of some fraction of the median (half). I expect this has been calculated because it will push quite a few above the line. It of course beggars belief that this should be paid for by taxing poor childless people more. And also that the government doesn't connect this sort of thing with another of its targets, reducing the very high numbers of young people Not in Employment, Education or training (NEETs).

[G-Man]

Today's clown is..

Such japes don't even come near in clownishness to Thabo Mbeki and his fellation of Robert Mugabe from inside the tyrant's pocket.

[Disco Child Ballads]

Today's clown is..

I don't quite understand why all these Labour MPs are kicking up a fuss about this now. They've known about it since last year's budget.

[Gangster Octopus]

Today's clown is..

It's another year nearer to a general election...

[Bill Poster]

Today's clown is..

...in which it suddenly looks like some more of them will be looking for employment thereafter.

[E10 Rifle]

Today's clown is..

It's a measure of how out of touch they are that it's taken them almost two months to realise that this was actually going to be unpopular. Too busy spouting meaningless toss about "unlocking everyone's potential" and competing with Chinese robots to even have a fucking clue who they're talking to and who they're supposed to be representing.