Election Live

We’ve seen several repeats today of a misleading claim that the Conservatives’ plans would lead to a £4,800 increase in the average mortgage. 

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said in a post on X (formerly Twitter) that “more Tory recklessness” will “cost families £4,800 more on their mortgages.”

Labour’s X account made the same claim, and in another post shared an image of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on a mock ‘for sale’ sign saying “Rishi’s mega mortgages” alongside “your mortgage up £4,800”. The sign is in the same style as a fake shop front set up by the party in south London, which also features the £4,800 figure.

As we’ve explained several times since it was first used by Labour earlier this month, this is a speculative figure presented as fact, and is therefore misleading.

£4,800 seems to be an estimate of the average annual extra cost of a mortgage at the end of the next parliament. It is based on several uncertain assumptions, and some of the detail of Labour’s workings remains unclear.

The UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) has warned that presenting figures without full context may “damage trust in the data and the claims these data inform.”

We’ve contacted the Labour party about their use of this figure and will update this post if we receive a response.

During the BBC debate on Wednesday night between Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer, an audience member told both men that she used to work but had had to stop due to illness. 

Following that question, Mr Starmer said “if we are going to get people back into work is we have to tackle these terrible waiting lists”. Later, Mr Sunak challenged this saying: “most of the people who we’re talking about […] aren't on an NHS waiting list.” 

We've also been asked on X about how many people are out of work and also on the NHS waiting list. 

The NHS does not publish figures for how many people on the waiting list are in employment or classed as long-term sick so it cannot prove whether the claims by Mr Sunak or Mr Starmer are correct.

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) estimated in 2022 that there were 650,000 people who were economically inactive—defined as people not in employment who have not been seeking work within the last 4 weeks and/or are unable to start work within the next 2 weeks—due to long term sickness on the NHS waiting list, which was a quarter of the long-term sick inactive population. 

An Office for National Statistics (ONS) survey conducted between 16 January and 15 February 2024, found that 49% of people who are economically inactive due to long term sickness said they were waiting for a hospital appointment, test or to start receiving medical treatment through the NHS. 

However, this is not the same as the main NHS waiting list which only covers consultant-led care. Those who said they are waiting for care could be waiting for follow-up appointments, mental health or community services, none of which are counted in the waiting list. 

However, the OBR said last year that “the rising NHS waiting list itself is unlikely to have been a significant driver of rising inactivity due to long-term sickness in recent years”. 

We’ve seen a leaflet from Labour making the claim that “since 2019 Tory chaos has cost you £5,883”.

This isn’t the first time Labour have made a claim using this figure, and there are a number of problems with it. They previously claimed “typical families” are £5,883 worse off “under Rishi Sunak”.

But the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that real household disposable income per person will fall by £166 between 2019/20 and 2024/25, from £21,767 to £21,601. This equates to just under £400 for the average household.

So where did Labour’s figure come from? The party says it’s the increase in six household costs faced by “typical families” since 2019:

• Energy price cap: £479 
• Groceries: £1,040
• Council tax: £421
• Mortgages: £2,880
• Personal tax: £874
• Motoring: £189

But there are a number of problems with this figure.

Firstly, it only considers six household outgoings, some of which will not apply to many families—such as those who don’t have a car or mortgage—and doesn’t count others like water and phone bills.

Secondly, it doesn’t take into account any changes in wages or benefits since 2019.

We first fact checked this earlier in the month and the leaflet repeating the claim has been sent out in the Earley and Woodley constituency.

While monitoring media outlets this morning we spotted that the lead article on the front page of today's Daily Telegraph (‘Sunak's plea to voters: Don't surrender Britain to Labour’) quotes Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer in last night’s BBC Prime Ministerial Debate saying: “There are tens of thousands, 15,000 people have come [across the Channel] since Rishi Sunak has been Prime Minister.” 

The Daily Express, on page four (‘Sunak rips into Starmer on immigration in TV debate’), also includes the same quote.

But we think this is an error and possibly misquotes Mr Starmer. On BBC iPlayer at 25:27 we think Mr Starmer says “50,000 people” not 15,000. At other points throughout the debate (22:15, 28:37 and 29:56) we think he also says 50,000.

Indeed, this figure tallies with reports this week that more than 50,000 migrants have arrived in the UK after crossing the Channel since Mr Sunak became Prime Minister, including over 13,000 so far this year. 

Since Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister on 25 October 2022 until yesterday (26 June 2024) 50,258 people have arrived on small boats. 

We have contacted the Labour party, as well as the Telegraph and Express for comment, and will update this post if they respond.

Junior doctors—now also called “resident doctors”—begin a five-day strike in England today. In the past we’ve seen these strikes provoke much discussion (and some confusion) about their pay.

For one thing, no junior doctors are currently paid £14 an hour. As we’ve said more than once, this figure was the basic pay (in 2022/23) for first-year doctors only (who make up about a tenth of all junior doctors). 

Most junior doctors earn substantially more than this because they are more senior, or because of extra earnings for things like unsocial hours. In any case, a pay rise last year means that even the basic pay of first-year doctors is now slightly higher, at £15.53 an hour. 

At the time of writing, we don’t yet know what the Review Body on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration will recommend for 2024/25.  

The real value of junior doctors’ pay has certainly fallen since the late 2000s, but we have seen claims that doctors received an above inflation pay rise last year. This was debatable, at least where junior doctors were concerned, because it depended which measure of inflation you used.

We’ve also seen some recent arguments about how much it would cost the government to meet junior doctors’ pay demands. The health secretary Victoria Atkins and the BMA, a union that represents many junior doctors, have disagreed about this recently.

While we haven’t checked those recent claims specifically, the Department of Health and Social Care and the BMA have disagreed about this before. In our previous fact check on the subject, we explained that the real issue on that occasion was whether you accounted for the money that doctors pay back to the government in tax.  

You’ll find these and other fact checks about junior doctors on our dedicated junior doctors page.