Fiddler on the hoof

We're used to the Bottler's, the Ditherer's the Fiddler's, that's the word for the day, we are used to the Fiddler's budgetary tricks unravelling fast, but the speed of crumpling under scrutiny of the deal he struck only yesterday with Frank Field is still astonishing.

Here are all the hallmarks of something scrawled down by a desperate man in a desperate hurry on the back of the nearest fag packet (he'll have some chain-smoking aides right now), then on his cuff, then on an old envelope, then on anything that came to hand whilst running around in ever-more erratic confusion.

On The World at One just now there was total uncertainty: will payments be "offset" or "back-dated" and what on earth's the difference; when's it going to happen (cash flow is of some importance for low-income families - telling them they will get some back-dated payment in November or whenever won't help them with bills and debts and interest now); what about the impact of the minimum wage on employers? (somebody helpfully pointed out that the government had decided within the last few months not to increase the minimum wage for people under 25; is this another U turn?); what do "average" losses mean? (surely a concession that there will still be some losers able to show the Fiddler their wage slips). That's even before we get to new forms of tax credit and "using" the winter fuel allowance mechanism.

The best thing is that because he is so incapable of admitting fault, his hapless crew are having to present this deranged complexity as being a more effective way of addressing poverty. Of course! This back-dated Gordian knot is just what people on low incomes have been calling for.

This is the true Brown, unspun and now completely unwound and unravelled. A fiddler on the hoof. For some reason Frank Field blinked yesterday. I bet he's having second thoughts now.

Update at 4.00: Oh, and the Low Wage Commission needs to be persuaded to change the rules on the minimum wage, and it appears the government has no idea how much this is going to cost, or how many people are affected. I would like to think this might mean the end of nonsense about "Conservative unfunded tax cuts", but of course it doesn't.

Comments

[Deborah]

On the radio this morning, Frank Field was asserting that yesterday's deal was an agreement with the House of Commons and the House will make sure that the deal is kept.
If Gordon is trying to wriggle out, he may regret it.

[David Belchamber]

David Gauke's article yesterday was splendid because it noted in great detail the exact occasions when Gordon Brown denied that there would be any losers.

As Simon so rightly points out, any adverse impact on a low earner's cash flow is a present, not a future, disaster (exacerbated by the huge rise in the REAL cost of living), which cannot be adequately met by a patchwork quilt of measures that might - or might not - happen some months in the future.

This fiasco raises other points: Who will still miss out? How much will it cost? Will more post offices, A & E and maternity units have to close to pay for this ghastly mistake? Will the person who made the mistake be sacked? What will happen next year to prevent a repeat performance?

[Deborah]

The playpolitical Yvette Cooper clip says it all.
They haven't worked it any of these details

[Paul Wakeford]

Gord ("help us") has managed to skewer some of the lowest paid and hardest working people in the country. He then let them think he has "sorted it" - and in his arrogance assumes they won't find out the truth. Well they will - and his funny jaw action will drop ever lower as he tries to get his hapless minions to dig him out of the next self induced man trap.

This guy is in a complete mess of his own making - if he weren't hurting the least well off it would be poetical and really very, very funny.

As it is, it is beneath contempt.