Tory Myth 1- Labour Crashed the Economy and it’s only safe in our hands

One of the most successful political myths ever is that the previous Labour government's incompetence caused our economy to crash in 2008 . Typical Labour just couldn’t help themselves. They just spent and borrowed too much so that they “maxed out the credit card", leading to the credit crunch. This is what millions still believe. However, it’s simply untrue. A lie is a lie no matter how many people genuinely believe it. It was excessive private debt not public debt which caused the crash. As Sir Nicholas Macpherson, the chief civil servant in the Treasury said in 2015, Labour spending and borrowing had nothing to do with the cause of the crash. Instead “The 2008 crisis was a banking crisis pure and simple. Excessive risk had built up in the system; the regulators had failed to appreciate the scale of the risk or address it.”


This article examines the actual evidence behind the economic reputations of Labour and Conservatives in government. This evidence would shock many, because the truth is so far from what most of us have been led to believe. For those without the time to read the whole article, I'll sum up here what the actual evidence shows:

• The economic crisis was caused by excessive risk-taking by (mainly) US banks. It had nothing at all to do with the Labour’s government borrowing.                              
• The last Labour government might be criticised forfailing to regulate our banks more. However, at the time the Tories were calling for our banks to be regulated less!
• Labour did what had to be done to rescue our banks and save the country from economic disaster.
• This inevitably increased our national debt (but still well below the debt spikes seen in the world wars).
• The country has always had a national debt since 1692 and it always will.
• However, the last Labour government, like all Labour government before it, borrowed less than Conservative ones, ran up fewer and smaller annual budget deficits and produced more surpluses.
•  Just before the crash in 2007 our national debt was at only 36% of our national income- less than the 40% national debt Labour inherited from the Tories in 1997 and below average debt levels of the last 300 years. The annual deficit was then at a tiny 0.6% of income and falling.
• Labour governments on average, including the last one, have brought about more economic growth and better employment levels than conservative ones.
• Seven years of Conservative-led government have seen our national income per head/productivity and wage growth all falling badly compared to most of our competitors.
• The current Conservative manifesto in contrast to the Labour gives no costings for their spending plans and tax cuts and has no real economic plan to revitalize our stagnating economy. 
• The Conservatives current plans only confirms that as per their record in government that the Tories are actually the ones who cannot be trusted to manage the nation’s money and economy.

The Economic Crash was caused by excessive risk-taking by US banks. It had nothing at all to do with UK government borrowing

If you want to understand what actually led to the economic crash, the banker’s bail out and the recession and austerity that followed I recommend watching the excellent film “The Big Short”. 

The origins of the crash weren’t even in this country, but in the USA. It was all caused by casino-esque risk taking by bankers in the sub-prime mortgage fiasco. They lent too much mortgage money to individuals without the means to pay back. They then commoditising those transactions into bundles of loans which were bought and sold. Of course, given the international nature of financial services our own bankers got caught up in the risk. As we had the second largest financial services industry after the USA our banks were more exposed than most. Gordon Brown’s government had to act decisively to prevent our whole financial system falling apart and the untold suffering that would cause to millions of savers and borrowers. They had no option but to bail out the banks- an extremely costly endeavour. It was a huge financial disaster resulting from the banks’ excessive risk-taking that very few had detected and predicted, even within the banking industry (as the film illustrates). If there was any failure of government it was the failure to monitor and regulate more tightly financial services. That was primarily a failure of US government where the problem originated- and note that was a right wing Republican government under George Bush! How far Britain could have insulated itself by tighter regulation is debatable. However, what is not debatable is that the Conservatives would not have done any better. We know that because in 2007 at the very time when the crisis was about to hit rather than suggesting tighter regulation of our financial services they were demanding less regulation! Effectively they were calling for petrol to be poured on the flames of the fire! In a 2007 Conservative party report, endorsed by David Cameron- “Freeing Britain to compete"  said:

“We recommend deregulating venture capital fund raising, and investment for professional investors………A Conservative government should relax banking regulation, allowing a new breed of venture/micro-credit institutions…………….

We see no need to continue to regulate the provision of mortgage finance, as it is the lending institutions rather than the client taking the risk……”

The last Labour government (and the ones before it) borrowed less than Conservative one

And so what about that Labour spending and borrowing? As hard as it may be to believe, the evidence from Treasury figures show that as a proportion of GDP, i.e. national income, during its 13 years the last Labour governments spent and borrowed less than Conservative governments in the previous 18 years. They also ran up fewer current account deficits and more surpluses. And this fiscal prudence wasn’t just unique to New Labour. Overall all Labour governments since the war on average have always borrowed less than Conservative governments and have always repaid debt more often than the Conservative ones. The picture is more mixed when it comes to public spending. Sometimes Conservative governments have spent a greater percentage of GDP and sometimes Labour governments have. However, overall Conservative governments have actually spent slightly more of our income. I know all of this is contrary to what most of us have grown up to believe, but any objective analysis of the facts shows this to be true.

The National Debt

Some people get very worried over the size of our national debt. They really shouldn’t! Above is a graph of the UK’s national debt since 1692. Do you notice anything? Over the past 300 years the country has always been in debt to the tune of at least 20% of our annual income- even when Britain was at the height of its empire. In fact, the empire was built on a funding of national debt. Mostly our national debt has been at or above 50% of our annual income. At real crisis times that debt has shot up to 150, 200 or even 250% of income- like during the Napoleonic wars (the first major peak above), the first and second world wars (the second and third big peaks). After those crisis peaks the debt has then gradually been brought down again, as can be more clearly seen from the graph below.

When people compare our national debt to a credit card it’s a completely false analogy. The best

domestic analogy is a mortgage, but a mortgage to an immortal man. Even now our national debt is less than a year’s worth of our national income- at 89% or 0.9 times our annual income. Few of us would have concerns over paying a mortgage of a lot more than 0.9 x our annual income.Banks commonly lend up to 3 or 4 x a person’s annual income, i.e. 300 or 400%. The thing with a mortgage is that since individually we won’t live forever we do have to pay it off after 25 years. But countries aren’t people so they’re not expected to die. Therefore, it isn’t a problem that as a country we continue to carry a debt, as long as we can keep paying up the interest on the debt. The reality is that in modern times we have always had a national debt and we always will. No one has any intention to ever pay it off. It just isn’t the sort of thing you pay off. It’s public debt that keeps economies moving. It always has and it always will. (In fact the UK is not just a debtor it’s a global creditor to others and is actually owed rather more than it owes.).Of course, if we let the debt get too big that’s not a good thing as this will increase the interest payments on the debt and can cause a loss of confidence in the country’s ability to pay. However, we are a long way from that point. Many developed countries carry a rather higher national debt than we do. Currently Japan’s national debt is at 250% of GDP and the USA’s at 104%. In fact some of the countries with the lowest national debts are some of the poorest eg Afghanistan at 6.6% and Equitorial Guineau at 6.4%.

 In 2007 before the Global Financial Crisis our national debt was at a very moderate 36%- actually below its historic average of the last 300 years, and less than the 40% the Labour had inherited from the Tories. It is therefore simply untrue that Labour had built up an excessive debt before the crisis. And, as we’ve seen, that crisis had nothing to do with our national debt anyway. Of course, once the crisis happened the Labour government had no alternative but to pump into many billions to a rescue fund for our banks to prevent our economy sinking. That is why our national debt surged after the crisis, but it still reached nothing like the peaks following the world wars. Under Labour its post crisis peak in 2010 was about 60%. Under the Coalition/Tory governments however the debt has continued to rise and now stands at 89%. Unfortunately their ham-fisted austerity policies have proved to be self-defeating. It has put a break on economic growth and therefore held back our national income which should have helped us get the debt under control sooner.

The annual deficit

The Tories also got us all very worried about “the deficit” and how Labour can’t be trusted with that either. In 2010 they pledged to eliminate the deficit by 2015, which they failed to. They then moved their goalposts and planned to get rid of it by 2020.. They’ve now admitted they will also fail to do that and have moved their goal posts a second time to 2025! So what is “the deficit”? The current bu dget deficit is the annual difference between the government’s day to day spending and its income (principally from tax receipts). This covers things like running our NHS, police, schools and paying pensions & benefits. It excludes investment in capital projects, e.g. new roads and new schools built. In 2017 the current budget deficit stands at approx. £14 billion. That is just under 1% of GDP and so in itself not a significant problem when the interest rates we must pay on any increase in debt are so low. George Osborne really shouldn’t have got so stressed about it!  Overall it is better to keep the annual current deficit low or in a slight surplus, to avoid unnecessarily adding to the national debt . But can Labour be trusted to manage our deficit? What is their actual record in government like compared to the Tories? Well, have a look at the chart below.

We can see that for 30 years after the war all governments- Labour and Conservative- ran current surpluses as they both strove to bring down the high national debt built up in war. It was the Labour governments of Attlee and Wilson who achieved highest surpluses at 6.3% (1950) and 7.6% (1970). The lowest surplus of 0.9% was under the MacMillan conservative government (1961)

Then for 15 years (1975 to 1989) successive Labour and (mostly) Conservative governments ran fairly small deficits, the highest being at 2.2% under Mrs Thatcher’s Conservative government in 1981. Then in 1989 under Mrs Thatcher we briefly went into surplus again (at 1.9% of GDP). However, under John Major’s conservative governments we soon went into deficit again, particularly after the ERM crisis/recession. Under him the deficit peaked at 5.7% in 1994 before gradually declining. It was then the New Labour government that brought it into surplus in the late 90s/early 00s, maxing out at a 2.3% surplus in 2001. Labour then ran small deficits but at historically fairly low levels of less than 2%. By 2007 they had brought this down to about £10 billion- 0.6% of GDP (lower than currently at just under 1%).

Following the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 and the unavoidable bankers’ bailout the deficit temporarily ballooned again in 2009. In 2010 it peaking at 6.9% (£50 billion). Since then it has been gradually reduced to £14 billion/just under 1% of GDP. However, it is still higher than it was under New Labour before the Crisis.

So can Labour be trusted to manage the nation’s money?Based on their record-yes!

Yes absolutely- based on the historic record. The overall record shows that, contrary to public misperception, Labour governments, including the last Labour governments, have actually borrowed less and run lower current account deficits and more surpluses than Conservative governments. Furthermore, before the bankers caused the GFC and recession public debt was at historically relatively low figures and we had an unremarkably modest and declining small current account deficit. The Labour party would actually have a very strong case for libel for being falsely accused of having been financially reckless so as to have caused or contributed to the crash. It is so very far from the truth that you have to say it’s not merely misleading spin but a bare-faced lie.

The more important economic issues are employment and economic activity. Here too Labour have a better record

Whilst Labour’s record on managing the nation’s debt is actually better than the Conservative, there are in fact rather more important indications of economic performance. As the great economist Maynard Keynes said, it’s the state of employment and the growth or decline in national income (economic growth) that really matter. Look after employment and improve national income and the budget should look after itself.

During the last labour governments up to the Crisis the UK enjoyed a period of 10 years of steady economic growth- the longest uninterrupted period of growth in 200 years. The UK’s growth of GDP per capita – 1.42% a year between 1997 and 2010 – was better than in any of the other “G6” countries: Germany (1.26%), the US (1.22%), France (1.04%), Japan (0.52%) and Italy (0.22%).  Under New Labour UK’s strong productivity performance relative to other countries was a continuation of the trends during the period of Conservative governments from 1979. By 2007, the UK still lagged behind the US , but the gap had closed to 33%. In fact, the UK had a faster catch-up of GDP per head with the US under Labour than under the Conservatives.

Since 2010 our GDP per head (the only way to sensibly measure real income) has flatlined or fallen below most of our competitors and relative to them. Our economic productivity has plummeted, well below the likes of France and Germany. In terms of their economic output average French and German workers do more in four days than we do in five. Incredibly, despite her anti-immigration rhetoric, the only thing that stops our gross GDP from looking too bad is our net immigration. Immigrant workers have usually been more productive and their numbers have increased the population so that our gross total income has increased even as our income per head has fallen in real terms. Their numbers make the fact that our economic growth has flatlined and productivity fallen (see eg Angry Voice “How The Tories used mass migration to fake a recovery”)

In depth research by the likes of the London School of Economics has found that many of the last Labour governments’ policies were beneficial for economic growth, and that this growth was not all an unsustainable ‘bubble’, (as some suggest) but was based on some real productivity increases fed by growth in new skills and technology. Where they did fall down is where the Tories (according to their own stated policies) would have done even worse- financial regulation.

As for unemployment, since 1970, the best average annual unemployment rate was achieved by the Heath Conservative government of 1970/4 with 3.4%, and by far the worst under the 1979/97 Conservative governments, with an average annual rate of 9.3%, and exceeding 10% for 6 full years.  The 1974/9 Labour government had an average rate of 4.9%, and the 1997-2010 government 5.6%.  The 2010-15 Coalition government’s average rate was 7.6%. Overall, therefore Labour governments have had a better record on employment than Conservative governments.

However, when considering the state of employment today we need to look not just at the number of unemployed/employed but the nature of that employment and what it pays. Since 2010 especially we are now in an age of casualised, fragmented and often partial employment. Of course earnings took a a hammering following the crash, but under Conservative led governments since 2010 in real terms they have continued to fall.  We have seen real wages decline by about 8% in real terms since the crisis, briefly mending and now in fact declining again. This contrasts with most of our competitors who have actually turned things around to produce real wage growth. Between 2007 and 2015 our UK wage growth declined by 10% in real terms, putting us right at the bottom of the league for pay growth of developed nations, equal with Greece. On average OECD countries experienced wage growth of 6.7%, with Germany 14% and France at 11%.

The Future- an economic plan to revitalize the economy- Labour have one. The Tories don’t

Interest rates are currently at a historic low point. Meanwhile the country’s infrastructure is crying out for investment and our economic growth is flatling. At such a time it makes far more economic sense to increase the debt to invest The economic growth resulting from such investment potentially should earn us a lot more than the extra interest we will pay. (This after all was how Britain grew its empire). This is why most economists welcome Labour’s £250 billion national transformation fund. And if we get the bad Brexit deal many fear such an economic shot in the arm will be essential to prevent a severe economic recession. The Conservatives present no such plan in their own manifesto.

Conclusion- it’s the Tories not Labour who can’t be trusted with our economy

The myth is that Labour are financially reckless, overspent beyond our means which led to the 2008 crash and the austerity and low wage economy we are all suffering from. Meanwhile only the Conservatives know how to manage prudently the nations’ finances to bring about the economic growth that will benefit us all. The truth is very different. As the above analysis shows, Labour governments, including the New Labour governments, have actually more carefully managed the nation’s finances than Conservative governments, borrowing less than them. Recent labour governments have also overall achieved better real economic growth and employment rates than recent Conservative governments. The Global Financial Crisis which led to recession and increased national debt was not in any way caused by the Labour government’s management of the nations’ money. If there was any fault by them it was in failing to more tightly regulate our banks. However, the Conservatives would only have regulated them less!

The austerity economics of the recent Conservative governments have been largely self-defeating and have not helped prevent our national debt rising further. They have led to the Conservatives twice failing their own targets for wiping out the annual budget deficit. Their approach initially took the economy into recession and then led to only weak growth and the longest period of decline in real wages for over 50 years.

The reality is the Conservatives’ reputation for economic competence is completely unjustified. And their current manifesto certainly does nothing to change that:

•       Unlike Labour they give no detailed costings to explain how they would pay for any of their manifesto spending and tax cutting commitment. This of course is just what you’d expect from a Conservative party which has always been less careful with our money than Labour
•       Most economists agree that their stated approach to Brexit if followed would be economically disastrous as there will be no free trade deal without accepting freedom of movement which they have made their red line.
•       Most economists also agree that their stated approach to immigration to bring it down to 10,000s would be similarly economically disastrous as national demographics mean we need net migration of at least 200,000 for the foreseeable future.
•       Unlike Labour they have no plan to reinvest and revitalize our economy which it will badly need after Brexit.

For further details of the research behind the above analysis see e.g. LSE’s “Labour’s Social Policy Record: Policy, Spending and Outcomes 1997-2010”, Tax Research UK website e.g. the article “The Conservatives Have been the biggest borrowers after the last 70 years” and www.ukpublicspending.co.uk, Global Future Report on UK immigration needs Feb 2017 and "Angry Voice". 

Unmasking The Myths- The 3 Big Tory Myths- Labour Crashed the Economy, Stopping the Scroungers and The Right to Buy

You could be forgiven for thinking that the Conservative party were not taking part in this election. Just as the recent French election spawned Emmanuel Macron' s En Marche, our election has witnessed the birth of Theresa and her team who seem to have replaced the  Conservatives. But, of course, beneath the clever marketing spin it is the same Conservative party following the same type of policies and values of the last 40 years. (A very different animal to the one that preceded it for 30 years before that.).

There are many good and intelligent people who habitually vote Conservative, many of whom also share my Christian faith. Some of them, just like many habitual Labour voters, won’t have given much thought to this political allegiance. For some it's an almost tribal thing, something inherited  from your family perhaps; a bit like which football team you support. You're either a red or a blue (unless you're one of those odd ball  yellows, greens or purples!). However, for those who have given it any thought I would suggest that the reason why they are a habitual Conservative voter is probably that they have bought into one or more of three key big ideas:

• that only the Conservatives are economically competent to run the country and Labour are financially reckless (“Labour crashed the economy")

• the merits of free enterprise and self-reliance with the minimum of state interference (“the right to buy”);
• the need to stop the freeloaders and benefit cheats trying to get something for nothing and who are ripping us all off (“stopping the scroungers")

I will suggest that an examination of the evidence of the last nearly 40 years shows there is very little basis in fact for these ideas. They are basically  myths. Many of these myths are now so embedded in popular thinking that they are very difficult to dislodge. However, myths are still myths no matter how many people may believe them. And these myths need unmasking so that the truth is exposed.

I will expose each of these three myths in turn in my next blogs.

There are other big ideas/myths like the Conservatives being the true defenders of the realm, bringing law and order or sticking up for traditional “Christian” moral values. However, I believe these ideas generally hold rather less sway. (Their supposed reputation for controlling immigration is subsumed within the Brexit issues addressed in my previous article). 

Unmasking the Myths - The Three Big Brexit Myths- Immigration,Controlling our Laws & Better Off Alone

If you believe our Prime Minister Brexit is what this election is all about: to give the country the strongest possible leader with the strongest possible backing so that they can secure the best possible Brexit deal for the country.Theresa May had been a lifelong supporter of the EU. Like her mentor Margaret Thatcher she was a strong advocate of the economic benefits of being part of the Eu’s single market. However, all that changed a year ago. Immediately following the referendum, she appears to have had a dramatic conversion to become a born again Brexiteer. Since that epiphany, the cornerstone of Theresa May’s Brexit vision has not been the economic benefits of free trade with Europe but to ensure “we” have complete control over immigration and over our laws. Sure, she wants the best trade deal she can get with Europe but if the price of control means the loss of free trade that’s a price she is happy to pay; whatever economic damage it causes, apparently. Yet the clear implication of her message is that wrapped in her union jack under her “strong and stable leadership” her “red white and blue” Brexit will deliver it all. Not only will she bring us full control over our borders and laws but we can have a great trade deal with the EU too without having to be shackled to the single market. It’s Boris Johnson’s “we can have our cake and eat it.”            

In this article I will explain why, I’m afraid, the vision of Brexit she paints is one huge deception, designed simply to get her elected with the biggest possible majority. It is a deception built on three big myths. Each of those myths plays very directly to the gallery of popular opinion and prejudice:

•         The need to reduce net immigration below 100,000 a year
•       The need to take back control of most of our laws from the EU
•       That we will be economically better off alone

However, as I will explain, all the evidence points to very different results for Theresa May’s proposed path to Brexit:

•         Only a modest reduction in net immigration
•       A likely reduction in democratic control of our laws
•       No free trade with the EU and resulting serious economic damage (which cannot be offset by free trade deals elsewhere).

This will be rather more like Boris Johnson’s “Titanic success” of a Brexit.

Anyone who knows anything about how the EU works will tell you that Boris Johnson’s “we can have our cake and eat it” Brexit is just a deluded fantasy. (Just ask the Greeks!). This has just been spelt out to us by the leaders of the EU itself  and the leader of the two most powerful leaders of European nations- Germany and France.

 In basic terms, there are really only two types of Brexit on the menu. There's hard boiled; outside the EU single free trade market and customs union but with complete control of EU immigration and our own laws. Then there’s soft boiled; still in the single free trade market and the customs union (or a deal that amounts to about the same thing) but accepting free movement to/from EU and EU laws governing the market. Though they may try to dress it up a bit differently the government is basically going for the hard Brexit and Labour the soft Brexit. (And the Lib Dems would like no Brexit at all).

A large swathe of “working class voters” in the North and Midlands, traditionally more typical Labour supporters, voted Leave in the Referendum. They did so because they were deceived by one or more of the big Brexit myths. Those same voters are now overwhelmingly intending to vote Tory because they believe only the Tories’ born again Brexiteer leader Theresa May can be trusted to deliver the proper Brexit they voted for i.e. a pure, hard Brexit. Therefore, the same myths that deceived them into voting Leave are now alive and well in this election. As the Prime Minister knows only too well it is those Brexit myths coupled with the “strong and stable” leader myth that will potentially deliver her the keys to no. 10.

If you want to understand why I am convinced the reasons for Theresa May’s Brexit plans are just myths then please read on. Note, like all myths there is a superficial basis of truth to them, but scratch beneath the surface and you’ll find there’s no substance to them.

Brexit Myth 1- Controlling our Borders- The Evils of Immigration

This is a classic case of adding 2 and 2 and making 5. People see more migrants and at the same time see serious economic and social problems of failing public services, unaffordable housing and low wages (while the “rich” just get even richer).  They assume there must be link between their problems and the increased immigration.

Brendan Cox, the widower of the tragically murdered MP Jo Cox said this government's migration policy is "a masterclass in how to get the crisis wrong; set an unrealistic target [keep immigration below 100,000], miss it, report on it quarterly and in doing so show a complete lack of control heightening concern and fanning the flames of resentment." At the same time government policies of austerity and underfunding of public services have exacerbated the problems that caused the concerns over immigration in the first place.

The alleged cost and burden of immigration on the face of it is a strong argument for leaving the single market. In 2015 net immigration into the UK was 1/3^rd of a million. 20 years ago it was well below 100,000 a year. It is argued that the current high levels of immigration place a huge demand on our already overstretched NHS, education system and housing stock. It is also argued that such high numbers of immigrants competing with us for jobs creates unemployment and depresses wages, particularly for the poorest. Because of the EU’s free movement rules the government has had no control whatsoever over immigration from the EU and therefore effectively cannot control immigration overall or plan for its demands.

But is EU immigration actually a burden on the UK?

EU immigrants through their taxes actually put more into the UK government coffers than they take out in terms of benefits they receive or services they use- by £2.5 billion a year. This is because most EU migrants are younger and fitter than the average UK citizen and nearly all just come here to work. Most also come to the UK already trained and geared up for work. This saves the UK billions in education and training, especially in specialist fields like medicine, science and engineering. At the lower end, EU migrants also come prepared to do essential jobs that UK citizens are often reluctant to do, such as care workers or farm labourers.

EU immigrants actually place less demand on NHS and social services than the rest of us because they are younger and fitter than the average UK citizen. You are far more likely to find EU immigrants caring for you or your family in hospitals and care homes than being cared for. Although they make up 4.7% of the UK population they account for 5% or our nurses, 10% of our doctors (already trained of course) and about 13% of our care workers. 

 EU immigrants do increase the burdens are in our schools and housing (although they actually take up 3% less social housing per person than the average UK citizen). However, the question must be asked since the government is £2.5 billion a year better off from the taxes of EU immigrants why is it not re-investing that revenue to increase expenditure on schools and public housing in areas bearing the immigration burden?

EU immigration does not create unemployment or reduce wages

In 2003, just before the start of significant EU immigration our unemployment rate was 5% and the numbers in work 28 million. In 2015, our unemployment rate was still at 5% and numbers in work had increased to 31.5 million.  EU immigration has very slightly depressed wages for the lower paid but only by the equivalent of 1p per hour! 

Leaving the EU single market is unlikely to stop high immigration levels

Leaving the EU’s free movement zone would probably reduce net immigration, but probably not by very much. Immigration to the UK would still almost certainly remain relatively high because:

1.     Even now, most of our immigration comes from outside the EU. We could control and reduce this in theory but the government chooses not to, mainly because these immigrants are needed to do jobs here. The pledge to reduce net immigration to below 100,000 which Theresa May has repeated for a third election in a row is therefore just pure populist propaganda. Don’t forget that until she became Prime Minister Theresa May was Home Secretary for six years - the senior Minister responsible for immigration. She couldn’t have done much about EU immigration, but she had plenty of power to reduce immigration from elsewhere, i.e. most of it, but chose not to. This exposes her immigration pledge as a bare faced lie, yet for a third election in a row many people are falling for it.

2.     We have an ageing native population and a reducing native workforce to sustain them. We need a significant supply of labour from overseas to help care for our elderly and do other jobs which not enough of the natural population want to do (e.g. farm labourers or care workers) or have enough right skills to do (eg certain scientific/engineering jobs). If we have less immigrants coming from the EU we will probably only end up replacing them with immigrants from elsewhere.

3.     The end of free movement would be a two-way street. 1.2 million Britons currently live in the EU. Our exit from the EU single market potentially means many of them returning here if they lose their own benefits of free movement and equal benefits. Many are going to be economically quite inactive and likely to be heavier consumers of health and care services.

4.     There is likely to be a significant increase in illegal immigration. The new French President Macron has already warned us that once we leave the EU and its single market France are very unlikely to maintain our policed border in Calais. Instead we will likely end up with refugee camps in Dover.

EU immigration levels are likely to fall even if we remain in the single market. Overall net annual immigration has already fallen by 60,000 between 2015 and 2016. Immigration from the original Eastern members spiked after they initially joined joined but then levelled out. The same is likely to be true of the more recent joiners.

If we leave the single market immigration from countries outside Europe will inevitably  increase. It may even offset reduced immigration from within Europe. There are two obvious reasons for this. First, if we lose free trade access to the EU the aim is to do lots of ambitious trade deals outside Europe with countries like India. These countries have already told us that the price of freer trade will be freer movement of their citizens to the UK (Does that sound familiar at all?) Second, there will be an economic need to recruit immigrants from somewhere to do jobs that UK citizens can’t or won’t do. This is why in their more honest moments even hard Brexit ministers like our Foreign Secretary have admitted that immigration is unlikely to fall significantly when we leave the single market.

Brexit Myth 2- taking back democratic control of our own laws

It is argued that if we remained in the single market un-elected officials of the EU would still undemocratically impose oppressive laws on the UK, tying us up in its sticky red tape. How can we ensure our laws are just and appropriate for us when 75% of our laws are imposed by the EU? But these arguments do not stand up to the evidence.

●       Even as a full EU member the vast majority of our laws are made here in the UK and not by the EU. About 15 to 50% of our laws have been partly influenced by EU law, but only about 13% of our laws are substantively European in origin. However, not all laws are equal in their impact on our everyday lives. Much of the EU’s laws are very specific in regulating terms of trade in a myriad of different industries and have no real impact on the wider public.

●      Of those EU laws that have a wider impact many of them are actually beneficial and make life better and fairer, often protecting ordinary folk from injustice and exploitation by the rich and powerful. Indeed, our Supreme Court have just forced our government to comply with EU law by taking action to reduce our air pollution which annually causes about 40,000 deaths.  (Note by the way decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, eg over prisoner’s voting rights, have nothing at all to do with the EU).

●       Virtually all the unjust laws imposed on us in reality come not from the EU but our own UK government. The EU has no or virtually no power over most areas of law making that effect our everyday lives (as long as we treat EU nationals equally). And once we are outside the EU it will have even less power even if we remained in the single market. Our health service. Our education system. Our welfare state. Our housing policy. Our taxation policy (save for VAT). Our armed forces and when and whether we go to war. When I think of all the unjust laws and government decisions that have made me most angry in recent years I cannot find any that came from the EU. The bedroom tax, the illegal invasion of Iraq, reducing welfare benefits for the working (and non-working) poor, the selling off of control of our public services to private companies, reducing taxes on the rich and increasing them on the poor, reductions in access to justice. These laws were all made here in the UK.

●      In employment law the EU provide foundational underpinnings which our own government cannot remove even if it wanted to. These include minimum paid holiday and maternity/paternity leave, rights of agency workers and maximum working hours.

●      If we left the single market those trading with the EU are likely to be tied up in more not less red tape because there are more not less hoops and hurdles for anyone importing or exporting from outside the single market.

●      Shut out from the free trading single market the government would be desperate to do whatever free trade treaties it can with non-European countries. A hard Brexit is likely to mean opening up our public services like the NHS even more open to foreign companies taking over our public services. (This is potentially what would have happened with the TITP US/EU deal until European opposition killed it off). It will be impossible for our government to say no without breaching the treaty and the resulting damage to our trade.

●      Add to this the Great Reform Bill about to go through Parliament. This will give government ministers Henry VIII type powers to decide which bits of European law to keep or throw away without any Parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever. This can only lead to a net loss rather than gain to our democracy.

Brexit Myth 3- Better Off On Our Own

Cost of contribution to the EU

The true cost of our contribution to the EU is not the “£350 million a week” claimed on those red buses last year. It’s about £100 million a week. That’s still a significant sum. However, it is tiny compared to other annual items of government expenditure; about 0.3%. If we remained within the single market when we left the EU we would probably pay something close to this (as do countries like Norway pro rata).The real question is whether we would get value for money for our annual fee? I would suggest if we leave the single market we will likely lose a lot more than we save in membership fees.

Cost/benefit from international trade in or out of the single market

The EU gives us free access without trade tariffs to the biggest single market in the world of over 500 million people. It is the only market right on our doorstep and 44% of our current trade is with the EU. 3 million UK jobs are directly linked to it and many more jobs are indirectly supported by those jobs. Money coming into the UK through trade with the EU circulates around the economy like oxygen carried in our blood. Car manufacturers from outside of the EU single market typically pay tariffs of at least 10% to export to the EU. The profit margins on cars made in the UK are also currently about 10%. Therefore, exiting the single market is likely to make selling our cars to Europe unprofitable overnight. That’s even before we consider the huge problems for car manufacturers if we leave the Customs Union, because of how cars are made these days in Europe; by multiple quick seamless transfers of parts between different countries. This cannot happen if we leave the Customs Union. An exit from both the single market and customs union would therefore likely mean the virtual end of the British car industry and the loss of many thousands of jobs. Hence the apparently surprising support of Jeremy Clarkson for remaining in the EU!

Membership of this single market also affects the price we pay for goods and services we buy from Europe. Every single serious economic organisation who has looked into has advised that if we leave the single market and customs union the negative effects on international trade would make our government and most of us significantly worse off than if we remained. The list of the organisations giving these warnings is lengthy and impressive including; the London School of Economics, the National Institute for Economic and Social Research, the Bank of England, the Institute of Fiscal Studies, the OECD and the International Monetary Fund. 

90% of economists who have analysed the data and projected the likely outcomes have come to the same conclusion. The outcome of a hard Brexit will be either fairly or very bad for our national and individual incomes. This is expected to result in an eventual overall fall in the income the UK generates each (Gross Domestic Product) of £26 to £55 billion a year due to a combination of factors resulting from leaving the EU single market; increased costs of imports, big reductions in foreign direct investment, reduced productivity and reduced exports. 

As a knock-on effect the IFS also estimates that the UK government itself will lose tax revenues of £20 to £40 billion every year, likely to mean serious spending cuts, tax rises or both. 

Some might say this is just doom mongering. Just like George Osborne's threatened post-referendum economic crisis and budget which never happened. However, this misses the point. We haven’t left the EU or the single market yet so our economy has yet to experience the harsh reality of the trade barriers we would face outside the single market.

An additional loss, which may be even harder to quantify is the expected damage to our scientific research, because of the loss of substantial direct EU investment in science and the reduction in invaluable knowledge collaboration with leading scientists throughout Europe. It is not surprising therefore that 83% of research scientists opposed Brexit and similar arguments apply to a hard Brexit.

But won’t the costs just be borne by the elite? Won’t most of the country, especially the poorest, be better off?

No. The economic consensus is that the economic cost of a hard Brexit would not be just born by the rich. The pain would be evenly shared across the income distribution – every income group, including the poorest, would lose out by similar proportions. The average Treasury forecast is that the average household by 2030 would be about £4,300 a year worse off than if we had remained in the single market. The Bank of England, the IMF and many economists are concerned that a hard Brexit could well lead to another recession. Recent experience tells us in a recession the poorest always suffer most.

But don’t the EU need us more than we need them? So surely the EU will just do a trade deal with us, won't they?

No. 44% of our exports go to the EU. No other EU country exports more than about 10% of their exports to us.  And the remaining EU countries will know that any loss of exports to us will be partially offset by exporting more to their EU neighbours to take up the gap in the market left by us. We have far more to lose than any of the other individual countries that make up the EU. There is not a single country in (or outside) Europe that has secured a free trade deal with the EU that has not had to accept free movement of people within the single market. Just ask Switzerland and Norway.  If we want to do a free trade deal we would have to accept this. All senior European leaders have told us; the leaders of the EU itself Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Junker as well as the leaders of the two most powerful national leaders Angela Merkel and the newly elected Emmanuel Macron. This is not just negotiating bluff. The EU inevitably feels there have to be consequences to leaving the biggest trade club in the world. Otherwise what’s the point of being a member of the club? They will be determined to halt a domino effect of other countries following suit and the whole union falling apart. 

And then we come to the EU divorce bill for our share of future EU obligations we had already committed to. Hopefully it won’t be quite as much as 100 billion euros but most serious commentators  believe it will be 10s of billions. If we remained in the single market the cost would likely be a fraction of that as we would still be contributing to the club annually even though we were no longer a full member.

But who cares about trade with Europe anyway as we can just do our own trade deals with the rest of the world, can’t we?

We should care because the European single market is the only market right on our doorstep. If we leave the single market undoubtedly Theresa May will be desperate to deal whatever deals she can with other countries. However, we will be starting two goals down with other countries. First, the EU already has trade deals with 50 other countries we will lose rights to. Second, we will only be speaking for a market of 65 million rather than 500 million, so we are unlikely to get as good a deal or as quickly as the EU. Even President Trump recently had a change of heart and admitted that doing a deal with the EU would be prioritised above a deal with the UK.

Theresa May’s Brexit vision is nothing more than a dangerous illusion dreamed up to capture votes (as the German Chancellor and others have warned us). It does not stand up to any critical analysis of the hard evidence. The inescapable conclusions are that her “pure” hard Brexit would leave us all significantly poorer not richer, will make negligible difference to immigration levels and if anything will make Britain less not more democratic. Frankly if (as I fear) Theresa May wins the election our best hope is that Theresa May is actually lying to us (just as she did over the 100,000 net migration target); that despite what she says, if she cannot get a good trade deal she will sacrifice greater control of our borders and laws for the economic benefits of the single market. However, if she does that she'd better be prepared for a huge backlash from the millions who'd believed that  wrapped in her union jackshe would bring us the "have your cake and eat it" Brexit- complete control of our borders and laws as well as a good trade deal. I'm afraid that just ain't gonna happen.

Unmasking the myths- false Christian political values

This blog is written for Christians and anyone of other faiths or none who shares the essential core Christian values seen in the bible and the life of Jesus Christ.

In my previous blog I suggested seven key biblical Christian values we should focus on when deciding how to vote:

1. Looking after the poor and marginalised

2. Caring for the sick

3. Ensuring justice for all

4. Ensuring everyone has a fair share

5. Looking after the planet

6. Keeping peace and order

7. Allowing freedom of speech and belief

I now look at some worldly political values that we sometimes seem to treat as if they were equally divine.  Some of these "false values" certainly contain elements of truth but at best they are only part of the means of achieving true Christian values. Where they conflict with the key Christian values those values should take precedence. Others of these "false" values are directly opposed to biblical Christian values.

We all need to check whether we are basing our political views and votes more on these false worldly values than key Christian values: “...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they come from God…” (1 John 4;1)

Freedom to do what we want with our wealth, property or business/Ensuring maximum prosperity

"For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil." (1 Timothy 6:10)

Pursuit of personal prosperity is a major heresy of one strand of American Evangelicalism. Aiming for maximum prosperity is a good thing when applied universally. However too often it is as an excuse for selfish gain and allowing the rich to get richer. There are examples in the bible of God rewarding men with earthly wealth- most notably Solomon. However Solomon was only rewarded with wealth because he wasn't seeking it (2 Chronicles 1). The bible is very clear that we are not to pursue earthly riches as ends in themselves. This is a sin mentioned far more often than e.g. various sexual sins that Christians sometimes get very exercised about. Jesus warns "Woe to the rich" (Luke 6:24) and that "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19:24).

The biblical view is that everything any of us have is ultimately God's and not our own (Psalm 24:1) and that we have a responsibility to use what we have to care for others. Part of that will be through charitable giving which the bible encourages. However even in the much simpler society of early Israel God laid down clear rules which did not allow people to simply do with their land and wealth as they choose. Landowners were told not to harvest their whole fields but leave some for poor (Leviticus 23:22), people were required to tithe and give away a portion of what they received to help those in need (Leviticus 27:30-33/Deuteronomy 26:12-13) and to cancel debts in the jubilee years ie  every seven years (Deuternomy 15:1). The Jews were encouraged to freely give in addition to these obligations (Deuteronomy 15:7).

God's concern, writ large throughout the bible, is that the poor and needy should be provided for . In contrast nowhere does he express any concern that the rich should be free to choose what they do with their wealth. 

Working towards total financial equality/ The abolition of private property

We see in the way the original (imperfect) kingdom of Israel was set up that everyone was to have their own stake in the land (Numbers 26). As a result, the Lord says, there should been no need for there to be any poor among them (Deuteronomy 15:4). However nowhere does the bible suggest that God aims that all humans should enjoy exact arithmetical equality. Even in his ultimate heavenly kingdom there are different rewards depending on how well his followers have served him eg see the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30). It would therefore be contrary to the biblical principle for the state to take away literally everything an individual owned or earned. (And I know of no mainstream party in the UK that advocates anything close to this).
  Some might  argue that Acts 4 give us the ultimate pattern for how God wants us to live as a society- the very first Christians in Jerusalem owning everything in common. But fantastic though they were. this pattern of complete common ownership seems to have been a one off special work of the Holy Spirit. The rest of the New Testament certainly testifies to how the early Christians loved and cared for each other with their money. They effectively had their own welfare state to provide for those in the church in need. However nowhere are Christians called to own everything in common. Likewise whilst Jesus did occasionally call particular individuals to give away all their possessions (eg Luke 10:17-27), he does not make this a general command. Indeed he commends the repentant tax collector Zacchaeus for giving away half of what he owed to the poor (Luke 19:10)

Keeping taxes to the lowest level possible

There is simply no biblical support for this position. All the bible says about taxes is pay them and it acknowledges that they are a good thing needed to allow authorities to govern for the common good:

"For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good... Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.  This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue..."

(Romans 13:4-7).

Maintaining the strongest possible armed forces

In this fallen world the state does need armed forces and a police service to maintain peace and order.  "For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."(Romans 13:4). However the main thrust of the Jesus's message  is to bring peace and we are encouraged to be peacemakers. Ultimately all our swords will be turned into ploughshares (Micah 4:3). That cannot happen until Jesus returns. However, if we believe in a God of peace surely we should want a government whose focus is on making peace with its neighbours rather than preparing for war.  Jesus bemoans that the Jewish nation will be destroyed by the Romans because they do not understand what makes the peace. He also promises blessings on the peacemakers (Matthew 5:9).There is no reason why that blessing cannot apply to governments and nations as much as individuals. 

Stopping the benefits scroungers

/Promoting self-reliance

It is true that Paul says those church members who refuse to work when they can shouldn't be fed by the church (2 Thessalanions 3:10). However the whole emphasis of bible is compassionate care for the poor and it suggests we should even accept being taken advantage of- e.g. Jesus in the Sermon in the Mount tells us we should lend to those who ask of us- even those we don't expect to pay us back. (Luke 6:33-35). We should also look to Jesus's own example. On two occasions he miraculously provided food for a crowd of thousands who were in apparent need of feeding. He did not instruct his disciples to first do a bag check of each person in the crowd in case there were a few who were hiding their own food .

If our priority is not to be taken advantage of rather than providing for need there is a real danger that we don;t look after poor, because we put in so many barriers to stop fraud that we also restrict help to those who need it. And as for structuring welfare to encouage self-dependency nowhere is that identified as a key biblical Kingdom value. In fact Jesus's message is that we are to be interdependent on each other and take care of each other as, for ecample, is illustrated in the parables of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) and the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-34). His message is the very opposite of every man for himself. Actually it’s a message of one man for everyone! (1 Corinthinas 15:22)

Restricting immigration

Some restrictions on immigration may (or may not) be a good thing to manage the economy and help achieve some of the other things that are key values. However, certainly the bible does not support restricting immigration as an end in itself. In fact the bible promotes a positive and caring attitude towards immigrants; “The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt.” (Leviticus 19:34) It is even alluded to in Jesus’s key teaching in Matthew 25; “When I was a stranger, you welcomed me...” Remember Jesus himself was a foreign refugee in Egypt (Matthew 2:14).

Ensuring our country has as much control as possible over its laws

The only special earthly kingdom recognised by the bible is the original (pre-Jesus) kingdom of Israel. This kingdom will be fully realized when Jesus returns and is crowned king of a world-wide Israel/Jerusalem, which will welcome all nations. The bible recognises authorities are there for a purpose and it recognises that purpose can be served by supra-national authorities like the Roman empire as much as governments of an individual nation. (Romans 13). Outside of Israel, the bible does not suggest there is anything inherently better about being ruled exclusively by a country’s own government or a supra national government or a local council or a mix of all of them. The vision of  Micah 4:5, Isaiah 2:4 and of John’s Revelation (Revelation 7:9 and 22:2) is of people from all nations coming together in peace under Jesus. This can never be achieved until Jesus returns, but it does suggest that nations seeking to work together in partnership rather than  just going it alone is a godly principle to work towards.

Stricter law and punishment

The bible does acknowledge the need for criminal law and punishment to ensure peace and order (see Romans 13). However, we must be very careful as Christians that we do not apply a strict Old Testament approach to law and order. Jesus is God’s ultimate revelation who fulfils the Old Testmanent laws and goes above andf beyond them with his law of love. Ultimately he took the punishment that we all deserve for our sin. Jesus's approach to law and punishment is gracious and makes clear that there should be room for mercy rather than the  strictest application of law and punishment. We see this in how he stopped the stoning of the adulteress (John 8;7) and in Matthew 25 visiting prisoners is the sort of thing he expects his followers to be doing. So those advocating stricter law enforcement and punishment risk being on the wrong side of the debate to Jesus. Biblically it cannot be considered a key political value.

Even sticking to the key Christain values it can still be difficult working out what will best achieve them

Of course, even when we focus on the core Christian values there will still be difficulties sometimes in working out what policies will best achieve those values. For example, with Brexit- will a “hard” or “soft” Brexit or no Brexit at all better help the poor and marginalised, better care for the sick and better promote peace and security? The answers to that are not immediately obvious. However, if we take the time and trouble to unmask the myths and get to the actual facts it becomes much easier to assess what's most likely to achieve those ends.

A Footnote about some false American political values

The following “false”, supposedly Christian, values are major party political issues in the USA. Sadly, they were instrumental in putting into the White House a man who I believe to be the most unsuitable and unchristian President of all time. I hope one day that the Evangelical church leaders who encourged Christians to vote for this man because of some of these false values  will one day have the wisdom and humility to apologise. I mention them here because  they could be a factor in how some may exercise the vote for an individual candidate.

The rights of the unborn

I have changed my own position on this recently. I still believe that abortion generally is wrong. However, that does not make it the right thing to criminalize it. (Any more than we should say criminalize say adultery). The notion that abortion (certainly before the third trimester) is the equivalent of murder is simply not supported by the bible. There are  lots of offences against person listed in the Old Testament laws but abortion is nowhere mentioned among them even though it certainly happened in Old Testament times. (You can check for yourself in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. In fact Numbers even hints at a divinely delivered form of abortion). It seems clear to me  that for whatever reason God does not equate the destruction of the unborn with murder. His word actually allows the freedom to choose. (That is not saying that it is right). I think we can allow God to take care of the unborn child who dies in the mother’s womb and welcome then into heaven. Even if I am wrong on this ,the lack of any direct reference to abortion in the bible means a tightening of abortion laws cannot be considered a key biblical Christian value.

The right to bear arms

Whilst this may be seen as right under the US constitution a personal right to fire arms it  is directly contrary to biblical values. This is evident from Jesus’s call to us to be “peacemakers” and to “turn the other cheek” and his warning to Peter when he used a weapon to try to prevent Jesus’ arrest that“those who live by the sword die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52).

Preventing/discouraging inappropriate sexual behaviour

This is a more tricky one. There are all sorts of inappropriate sexual behaviours which are clearly contrary to biblical values. But where should we draw the line at criminalizing them? As for the very particular issue of homosexual relationships and gay marriage note thankfully this is not a party political issue in the UK. As a bible believing Christian who was once very strongly opposed to gay marriage and now supports it what I acknowledge that there are genuine differences over interpretation of scripture there. However I would point out that whatever view one takes this is not highlighted in the bible as a key issue. There are no more seven references to homosexual relationships in the whole of the bible (and even where mentioned I would say it is not talking about monogamousfaithful homosexual relationships). It is not once mentioned by Jesus himself. Contrast this with issues like poverty and justice and the sins of greed and love of money which are mentioned many, many times.

Capital punishment

The Old Testament laws did prescribe capital punishment for more serious offences- not just murder but also adultery. I wonder how many advocates of capital punishment would be happy to see the electric chair or hanging brought back for adultery? (And bear in mind here that Jesus says he who looks at a woman lustfully is guilty of adultery in his heart!) Fortunately for us all Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of the Old Testament laws who took the punishment we all deserve for our sins. His approach to sin and punishment as we've seen is gracious and merciful , illustrated by his saving the adulteress from stoning with the words, "He who is without sin cast the first stone." I would suggest following Jesus's own  example is simply not consistent with capital punishment for any crimes.