INSTITUTE FOR FISCAL STUDIES FALLS SHORT.

The reporting of the conclusions of a study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) seems to be a classic example of leaving things out.

In an analysis carried out at the behest of the BBC, the IFS has apparently said that people's wages are now, on average, 3% below what they were 10 years ago at the start of the financial crisis. The BBC reports that this effectively means that, on average, 'real' annual wages are £800 lower than they were. They add that for people aged between 30 and 39, the fall is even greater, at £2,100 a year or 7.2%.

No doubt many will see this as being a terrible indictment of government policy over the intervening period, presumably this being the intention of the extremely dubious reporting. However, so much information is omitted from the reporting that it's actually impossible to draw any conclusions from them.

There is no mention of the substantial increase in personal tax allowances which has occurred over the same period, nor of the rate of inflation compared with what might have been expected but for the impact of the crisis; for instance, what has been the impact of the multi-year freezing of petrol duty ? There is no mention of the impact of state benefits and other state intervention such as free nursery places and free school meals. There is no explanation as to the meaning of the various terms - are we talking about gross or net wages ?  What does 'real' annual wages mean ? Indeed, what did the study consider and how have the results been arrived at ? What assumptions have been made about wage growth, and other factors, had there not been a financial crisis ?

It is also the case that the study seems to assume that average wages should always rise and that any fall is automatically bad. What about productivity ? What about the effect of falling unemployment and how more people working on the lowest wages may have affected the figures ? Has there been an increase in people choosing to be self-employed which has had an impact on the figures ?

I have not read the report itself, but it's clear that either it's a very limited report or it's reporting by the BBC has been extremely selective and highly questionable. Either way, reports about it should be read with extreme caution and cynicism.

EU REFERENDUM : CUT IMMIGRATION & BE REBORN !

At long last, voters have been given a glimpse of a real future by one of the referendum campaigns. On the vexed subject of immigration, the 'Leave' campaign has proposed serious changes to our immigration system in the event of voters choosing separate the UK's from the EU.

At present, EU citizens are entitled to travel anywhere within the Union without limit; they can look for work wherever they like and claim benefits in whichever country they decide to reside. The UK Government has no right to restrict such migrants in any way and hundreds of thousands have arrived in the country in recent years, arguably depressing wages and adding significantly to the pressures on overstretched public services.

Immigrants from non-EU countries are treated very differently, being required to prove that they would bring much needed skills or other benefits to the UK economy through a 'points based system'. Leading names in the 'Leave' campaign are now saying that if the UK votes to leave the EU, the same system could be applied to all migrants, something which would instantly reduce the currently uncontrolled immigration into this country.

Inevitably, representatives of the 'Remain' campaign don't like this idea and say that the proposal would wreck the UK economy and could 'drive up' immigration; what they base this assessment on isn't stated, but it looks like nonsense to me. How could introducing proper immigration controls increase immigration ? Why would a universal 'points based system' wreck our economy ? To my mind, such a change would ensure that the UK is able to compete for the brightest and best from the whole world and is not ham-strung by its enforced adherence to EU rules.

Separately, Frances O'Grady, General Secretary of the TUC, has been heard this morning claiming that leaving the EU would cost UK workers something like £40 per week in lost wages; she bases this wholly unsubstantiated claim on the usual nebulous stuff about lots of economists an their forecasts, which the sane amongst us know is rubbish. Nonetheless, O'Grady rabbited on about the plight of workers in the event of a 'Brexit', quite heedless of the probable benefits to be enjoyed if hordes of low paid eastern European migrants were to be removed from the equation. She said nothing about the current economic turmoil in Greece, Spain, France, Belgium and other EU countries; why ?

The TUC has set out its stall long ago and is hell bent on remaining within the EU, basing their campaign on the same tired and highly questionable economic forecasts as other 'Remainers'. Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, Gisela Stewart and Pritti Patel and the 'Leave' campaign actually have a vision of a brighter future. Yesterday, the 'Leave' campaign drew attention to the fact that, as a member of the EU, we cannot even decide what to tax, highlighting our inability to remove the egregious VAT applied to energy bills because of EU rules; leaving would free us from such restrictive practices.

The 'Leave' campaign is confident and forward looking, not negative and stuck in the past. It sees a brighter future for the UK, while the 'Remain' campaign sees only more of the same, a continuation of what they see as the safe and comfortable world of the European womb.

We must see the light and vote for rebirth. VOTE LEAVE.