Why a “fair fuel stabiliser” would be bad policy

The government does not receive a “windfall” from higher petrol prices.

There's a notable interview with Robert Chote, the head of the Office for Budget Responsibility, in today's Financial Times in which he repudiates the notion of a "fair fuel stabiliser".

Philip Hammond, the Transport Secretary, has promised to "look at the practicality" of this measure in time for the next Budget and the government is under significant pressure from the tabloids to limit petrol prices. But Chote warns that the fuel stabiliser is premised on the false assumption that the state receives a windfall in tax revenues when oil prices rise. In fact, higher prices rarely increase revenue because of the overall effect on economic performance.

Chote refers to a summer analysis by the OBR which concluded that the "overall effect of a temporary oil-price rise would be 'close to zero' " and that "a permanent rise would create a loss to the public finances". This is because higher pump prices "reduce the demand for fuel, lowering fuel duty receipts" and push up the indexation of tax thresholds, benefits, public-service pensions and index-linked gilts.

As the data below confirms, higher oil prices would generally lead to a fall in tax revenues.

A

This doesn't mean that a fuel stabiliser is unworkable, but it does mean that the government would need to raise taxes elsewhere if it lowered duty on petrol.

Chote's conclusion is that "a fair fuel stabiliser would be likely to make the public finances less stable rather than more stable". But will ministers put short-term political considerations first? We'll soon find out.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Who will win the Copeland by-election?

Labour face a tricky task in holding onto the seat. 

What’s the Copeland by-election about? That’s the question that will decide who wins it.

The Conservatives want it to be about the nuclear industry, which is the seat’s biggest employer, and Jeremy Corbyn’s long history of opposition to nuclear power.

Labour want it to be about the difficulties of the NHS in Cumbria in general and the future of West Cumberland Hospital in particular.

Who’s winning? Neither party is confident of victory but both sides think it will be close. That Theresa May has visited is a sign of the confidence in Conservative headquarters that, win or lose, Labour will not increase its majority from the six-point lead it held over the Conservatives in May 2015. (It’s always more instructive to talk about vote share rather than raw numbers, in by-elections in particular.)

But her visit may have been counterproductive. Yes, she is the most popular politician in Britain according to all the polls, but in visiting she has added fuel to the fire of Labour’s message that the Conservatives are keeping an anxious eye on the outcome.

Labour strategists feared that “the oxygen” would come out of the campaign if May used her visit to offer a guarantee about West Cumberland Hospital. Instead, she refused to answer, merely hyping up the issue further.

The party is nervous that opposition to Corbyn is going to supress turnout among their voters, but on the Conservative side, there is considerable irritation that May’s visit has made their task harder, too.

Voters know the difference between a by-election and a general election and my hunch is that people will get they can have a free hit on the health question without risking the future of the nuclear factory. That Corbyn has U-Turned on nuclear power only helps.

I said last week that if I knew what the local paper would look like between now and then I would be able to call the outcome. Today the West Cumbria News & Star leads with Downing Street’s refusal to answer questions about West Cumberland Hospital. All the signs favour Labour. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.