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

The big problem for the NHS? Local government cuts

Even a U-Turn on planned cuts to the service itself will still leave the NHS under heavy pressure. 

38Degrees has uncovered a series of grisly plans for the NHS over the coming years. Among the highlights: severe cuts to frontline services at the Midland Metropolitan Hospital, including but limited to the closure of its Accident and Emergency department. Elsewhere, one of three hospitals in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland are to be shuttered, while there will be cuts to acute services in Suffolk and North East Essex.

These cuts come despite an additional £8bn annual cash injection into the NHS, characterised as the bare minimum needed by Simon Stevens, the head of NHS England.

The cuts are outlined in draft sustainability and transformation plans (STP) that will be approved in October before kicking off a period of wider consultation.

The problem for the NHS is twofold: although its funding remains ringfenced, healthcare inflation means that in reality, the health service requires above-inflation increases to stand still. But the second, bigger problem aren’t cuts to the NHS but to the rest of government spending, particularly local government cuts.

That has seen more pressure on hospital beds as outpatients who require further non-emergency care have nowhere to go, increasing lifestyle problems as cash-strapped councils either close or increase prices at subsidised local authority gyms, build on green space to make the best out of Britain’s booming property market, and cut other corners to manage the growing backlog of devolved cuts.

All of which means even a bigger supply of cash for the NHS than the £8bn promised at the last election – even the bonanza pledged by Vote Leave in the referendum, in fact – will still find itself disappearing down the cracks left by cuts elsewhere. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. He usually writes about politics.