The case against a “fair fuel stabiliser”

This costly measure would mean major tax rises or spending cuts elsewhere.

The only time that William Hague led Tony Blair in the polls was during the fuel protests of 2000. Mindful of the damage that high petrol prices can inflict on a government and of Labour's increasingly sharp attack on the "cost of living", the coalition is assembling what has been described as a "rescue package" for motorists.

Today's Times (£) reports that a "fair fuel stabiliser", a measure first promised in 2008 but since quietly dropped, is being "actively looked at" ahead of the Budget on 23 March. With this in mind, it's worth restating the practical case against the policy. Many supporters of a fuel stabiliser make the false assumption that the state receives a windfall in tax revenues when oil prices rise.

George Osborne, for instance, once claimed: "Currently, when oil prices rise, the government receives a windfall increase in tax revenues, mainly due to taxes on North Sea oil production. And when oil prices fall, the government suffers an unexpected shortfall in revenues for the same reason."

In fact, as I've noted before, higher prices rarely increase revenue because of the overall effect on economic performance. A summer analysis by the Office for Budget Responsibility 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 shows, higher oil prices generally lead to a fall in tax revenues.

A

In other words, the government would need to raise taxes or cut spending elsewhere if it lowered duty on petrol. Even those who should be natural supporters of the measure, such as the chairman of the Retail Motor Industry Federation, Brian Madderson, aren't convinced. In a recent letter to George Osborne, Madderson wrote: "Whilst the idea undoubtedly has popular appeal, the reality is that any such mechanism would require detailed investigation, involvement of industry and be both complex and costly to manage."

The Chancellor should hold his nerve and face down the motorists' lobby.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The murder of fearless journalist Pavel Sheremet must be solved - but Ukraine needs more

Sheremet was blown up as he drove to host a morning radio programme

On 20th of July Kiev was shaken by the news of the assassination of the respected Belarusian journalist Pavel Sheremet. Outside the ex-Soviet republics he was hardly known. Yet the murder is one that the West should reflect on, as it could do much to aggravate the Ukrainian-Russian conflict. 

Sheremet was one of the most significant and high profile investigative journalists of his generation. His career as an archetypal  examiner of the post-Soviet regimes in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia bought him fame and notoriety in the region. From 1997 onwards Sheremet became a name for fearless and non-partisan interrogation, both in print and as also as TV presenter. He paid the price early on when he was incarcerated by the Belarus government, then stripped of his Belarusian nationality and deported. Such is the way of things in the region.

Taking up residence in Kiev, Sheremet became immersed in interrogating the political life of Ukraine. He wrote for the Ukrayinska Pravda publication and also helped to develop a journalism school. Under these auspices he was a participant of a congress, "The dialogue between Ukraine and Russia", in April 2014. He reported on beginnings of the Euromaidan uprising. He warned of the rise of the concept  of "Novorossia" and suggested that Ukraine needed to reset its current status and stand up to Russian pressure. After the Russian occupation of Crimea his blame for the Ukrainian government was ferocious. He alleged that that they "left their soldiers face to face the [Russian] aggressor and had given up the Crimean peninsula with no attempt to defend it." These, he said "are going to be the most disgraceful pages of Ukrainian history."

Sheremet was blown up at 7.45am on 20 July as he drove to host a morning radio programme.

Ukraine is a dangerous place for journalists. Fifty of them have been murdered since Ukraine achieved independence. However, this murder is different from the others. Firstly, both the Ukrainian President and the Interior minister immediately sought assistance from FBI and EU investigators. For once it seems that the Ukrainian government is serious about solving this crime. Secondly, this IED type assassination had all the trappings of a professional operation. To blow a car up in rush hour Kiev needs a surveillance team and sophisticated explosive expertise. 

Where to lay the blame? Pavel Sheremet had plenty of enemies, including those in power in Belarus, Russia and the militias in Ukraine (his last blog warned of a possible coup by the militias). But Ukraine needs assistance beyond investigators from the FBI and the EU. It needs more financial help to support credible investigative journalism.   

The murder of Pavel Sheremet was an attack on the already fragile Ukrainian civil society, a country on the doorstep of the EU. The fear is that the latest murder might well be the beginning of worse to come.

Mohammad Zahoor is the publisher of Ukrainian newspaper The Kyiv Post.