I do accept your point that the so-called fair fuel duty “stabiliser” will serve to provide greater economic stability. But I think the point would be lost on many people.
Indeed, by the time the Coservatives come into power the price of oil will probably have reached an unrealistic high and will be falling or if not already stable.
It offers not a crumb of comfort for those struggling to pay their bills.

a “little” cheating would be an improvement.

Young people will always rebel and react against the Govt, if given really obvious reasons to do so. The 10p fiasco, the non-election, student fees are such reasons.

Plus the fact that Brown doesn’t look like he’s ever smoked a joint, whereas Cameron needed a bit of luck to avoid being expelled for doing so. If I were a kid, I’d be much more likely to be voting tory than I am.

It’s certainly sound economicallyto smooth out tax-raising, but politically he might be making a rod for his own back.

Perhaps Osborne’s hedge-fund friends have tipped him the wink that they can manipulate the price downwards once he gets in and thereby boost the tax revenues. (politically not great, but economically sound and he’d be in by then anyway so who cares about the polls then?)

That may mean they have *more* respect for politicians than older people

In a Poll commissioned by the BMA half of people expect to pay towards some of their NHS treatment in 10 years’ time.

The idea is that if Treasury forecasts for oil price ( & related tax revenues) are exceeded in practice during the year, they don’t keep the whole windfall.

Conversely if oil price falls below their forecast and tax revenues would undershoot, then the taxpayer gives up part of their windfall.

The objective is to give some stability to fuel prices throughout each tax year whilst attempting to share the “Budget Variances” between the taxpayer & the Treasury-and stopping the arbitrary decision making on fuel duty which prevails currently.

Nothing in the policy would stop the rise of the market price of oil over time-this is something we will have to learn to live with.

The AA has welcomed the proposals, saying that it had proposed a similar system in January. The AA’s president, Edmund King, said: “The Government needs to review fuel duty as the price of a barrel of oil has doubled in just 12 months.”

Business advisers Grant Thornton said: “The basic concept of an FFS is sound in economics terms. There is a strong argument to the effect that it would help smooth out fluctuations [to the price of road fuel, to inflation, and to the public fin-ances] arising from the fact the UK is simultaneously a measurable oil producer, and an oil consumer.”

The welfare state will need dismantling in the medium to long term. There is no way we can afford it as it is forever taking a larger slice of GDP and coupled with massive increases in the cost of energy, which will never return to the $20 a barrel level, you have a recipe for a seismic shift in the political consciousness.

At the moment I think it is just the swing of the pendulum (aided and abbeted by some laughable ministerial incompetence by nulab) but the future will likely see the return of a more Victorian economic realism.

Indeed, I think it is ill-thought through and short-sighted.For what will they do if finally the price of oil does fall leading up to the next election. For example, the price of petrol fell from £1.50 a litre to £1.45 a litre. Then Labour could point to how under Tory tax plan fuel duty would have INCREASED by 5p.

Ultimately, it will lead to people seeing the Conservatives to be as bad as Labour. Indeed, it does seem to me that the Conservatives are doing no more than promising that we will permanently be paying a very high price for petrol no matter what happens with price of oil.

Personally, I had been hoping for better. And I think this could damage the Conservative as a party seen to be capable of offering something better.