Isabel Hardman Isabel Hardman

Osborne’s handbrake turn on fuel duty

Already a subscriber? Log in

This article is for subscribers only

Subscribe today to get 3 months' delivery of the magazine, as well as online and app access, for only £3.

  • Weekly delivery of the magazine
  • Unlimited access to our website and app
  • Enjoy Spectator newsletters and podcasts
  • Explore our online archive, going back to 1828

George Osborne’s U-turn today on fuel duty seems both canny and confusing. It comes just 48 hours after a denial from Transport Secretary Justine Greening that the Government would scrap the 3p rise in August, but appears to be warding off the threat of a backbench rebellion in the Commons next week on a motion submitted by Labour to the Finance Bill. 

Ms Greening told the Sunday Telegraph: 

So more power to the backbenchers, led by Robert Halfon, whose campaign against fuel duty increases now looks to have succeeded in part, although he might want to continue to push retailers to push costs down anyway. But it is still surprising given the rebellion from Conservative MPs was not expected to reach beyond double figures. Is the Treasury really so scared of a handful of MPs that it felt another U-turn was needed? Ed Balls was in bullish form on the Today programme this morning, pushing his amendment. Surely ministers are not running in fear of the Shadow Chancellor? There is the possibility that the Chancellor was following the advice of the Institute of Directors, which put freezing fuel duty at the top of its wish-list for improving the UK’s competitiveness. Granting that wish might have seemed rather wise in the light of today’s dismal public sector borrowing figures.

This is undoubtedly good news for the constituents on whose behalf Halfon has been pushing. But it is yet another Budget U-turn that the Coalition could afford to do without when it comes to trying to persuade voters that it is forging the right course and that ministers are in command of their portfolios. Details of the Budget have been rewritten by backbenchers over the past few months, when in many cases they should never have made the final cut.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in