Politics Live

Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson made his first appearance [12:35] in the 2024 general election campaign last night with a little over a day to go before polling opens on Thursday. Here, we’ve fact checked some of his key claims on Brexit, a so-called “supermajority” and defence spending.

Speaking about Brexit Mr Johnson claimed “that national independence was vital when it came to approving Covid vaccines faster than any EU country”. This is a familiar claim dating back to 2020 which we have written about a number of times. This isn’t correct in terms of regulatory approval. Under European law, the UK was permitted to act independently to approve the vaccine in an emergency.

Discussing the polls ahead of the election Mr Johnson said “we are about to give Labour a supermajority.” As we’ve said a number of times, the term “supermajority” has no specific meaning in the UK parliamentary system. The Institute for Government says that in parliamentary terms the difference between an 80-seat majority (which the Conservative party won in the 2019 election) and a 200-seat majority is “not material”.

Talking about the government’s Rwanda policy, which Labour has said it would not continue, Mr Johnson said this would happen “just as it is being imitated by governments around the world”. This isn’t quite right. While other European countries have expressed an interest in processing asylum seekers in a third country, based on reports we have seen this is not the same as the UK’s Rwanda scheme.

Discussing what a Labour government might look like, Mr Johnson said they will be “whacking up taxes on pensions”. This seems to refer to a Conservative claim we’ve seen a lot over the election campaign, that retirement tax would be introduced under Labour. But this is based on forecasts showing that under current government policy, which Labour has said it would maintain, the state pension is set to rise above the personal allowance for the first time. The Conservatives have said they would re-establish a higher personal allowance for pensioners, so the state pension does not exceed the income tax threshold, a policy they’ve called the ‘Triple Lock Plus’.

Mr Johnson concluded by claiming that Labour refuses to commit to “spending 2.5% of our GDP on defence”. This isn’t quite true. The Labour party has said it is committed to increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, but it has not set out a specific timescale to meet this target, unlike the Conservative government which has said it would do so by 2030.

With less than 48 hours until the polls open, the Conservatives have accused Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer of planning to be a “part-time Prime Minister” should Labour win the election. This seems to take comments made by Mr Starmer about balancing work with his family life somewhat out of context. 

A Conservative post on X (formerly Twitter) says: “Keir Starmer has said he'd clock off work at 6pm if he became Prime Minister. You deserve better than a part-time Prime Minister,” with a supposed screenshot of a personal diary showing the hour after 6pm blocked out with the note “Go Home - If Emergency contact Angela”, a reference to deputy Labour leader Angela Rayner. 

Another post by the party shares a photo of Ms Rayner saying: “It’s after 6pm so of course Angela Rayner is back in charge”. 

Meanwhile, Conservative health minister Maria Caulfield referred on Sky News this morning to “Keir Starmer saying he was going to be doing a four day week”, which was immediately challenged by Sky’s host Matt Barbet. 

But Mr Starmer has not said he’d only work up to 6pm generally, or for four days of the week—he actually said that he’d try to finish work by 6pm specifically on Fridays.  

In a Virgin Radio interview yesterday, Mr Starmer was asked by presenter Chris Evans how he would manage balancing parental responsibilities alongside the role of prime minister if Labour is elected. 

He responded: “We’ve had a strategy in place and we’ll try to keep to it, which is to carve out really protected time for the kids. So on a Friday—I’ve been doing this for years—I will not do a work-related thing after six o’clock, pretty well come what may ... There are a few exceptions, but that’s what we do.”

He added: “I don’t believe in the theory that you’re a better decision-maker if you don’t allow yourself the space to be a dad and have fun for your kids. Actually, it helps me. It takes me away from the pressure, it relaxes me and I think actually, not only is it what I want to do as a dad, it is better.

“This politics, some people think if you fill your diary 24/7 and don’t do anything else, that makes you a much better decision-maker. I don’t agree with that.”

Mr Starmer has a son and daughter, who are in their teens. 

A spokesperson for the Labour leader has reportedly said: “Obviously he recognises things will be different if he does end up in No. 10.” And at a campaign event this morning Mr Starmer said the Conservative claims about his work pattern were “increasingly desperate stuff”. 

We’ve also seen Mr Starmer’s original comments being reported incorrectly, or in a misleading way, in the papers. 

The first line of an article in the Express says: “Rishi Sunak has mocked Sir Keir Starmer after the Labour leader pledged to clock off at 6pm every day should he win the General Election.”

And an article on the front page of the Daily Telegraph also carries the headline: “I may not work after six as PM, suggests Starmer”, although the body of the article goes on to quote his comments referring specifically to Fridays. 

We’ve contacted the Conservatives and Labour party, as well as the two newspapers mentioned, for comment, and will update this live blog if we receive a response.

Several people have shared photos on X (formerly Twitter) of Conservative campaign leaflets that suggest Labour could introduce a “National ULEZ”, among other things. 

The leaflets, which appear to have been distributed in a number of different constituencies, ask if readers want to give Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer a “blank cheque” and say Labour could “introduce a National ULEZ scheme and a Pay-Per-Mile Road Tax forcing drivers to pay, just like in Labour London”.

It comes after the Conservatives last week ran hundreds of targeted Facebook ads, which now appear to have been taken down, with the caption: “Labour’s national ULEZ: coming to a road near you this July”. 

The Ultra-Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) is a ‘clean air zone’ in London where people are charged a daily rate for driving a non-compliant vehicle—a measure intended to tackle air pollution.

As we wrote last week, these claims are misleading. Labour has never said it will introduce a ‘national ULEZ’ in July and there is no specific evidence it plans to do so in the future. 

While Labour has expressed support for clean air zones in the past, its manifesto does not include any proposals for a ‘national ULEZ’ or a pay-per-mile road tax.

We’ve contacted the Conservative party for comment.

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.