The Labour Party is selling election leaflets to its supporters that include an inaccurate claim about the cost of living crisis. It is also running a number of adverts on Facebook making the same claim.
One of the leaflets, which at the time of writing are listed as “in stock” by the Labour Party’s online shop at a cost of £15 per 500 units, says: “The Conservative Government’s cost of living crisis means families are £2,620 worse off.” (The party sells leaflets to its supporters so they can distribute them to voters ahead of the upcoming local elections on 5 May.)
.jpg)
One of the Facebook adverts says: “Under the Conservatives families are £2,620 worse off”.
This is not correct, as Full Fact has explained in detail before.
Although the average household is expected to experience a large fall in its living standards in the current financial year, official sources suggest that it will be more like £700.
Labour reached its figure of £2,620 by adding together several estimates for different cost rises, some of which are unexplained or unreliable. Crucially, it also did not offset these costs against rises in benefits or wages.
We have asked Labour how many leaflets have been sold, or distributed to voters, but have not received a response at the time of publication.
Where did this number come from?
After our first fact check was published earlier this month, Labour confirmed that the total was reached by adding together estimates for rising costs from tax (£1,060), energy prices (£690), petrol (£300), food (£275) and mortgages (£295).
This total therefore doesn’t appear to include any changes to wages or benefits at all—and the cash value of both wages and benefits is rising for some people, including wages of people employed by the government.
Labour has not shared the full details of how its estimates were calculated, but some also appear to be unreliable, based on details reported when they were first announced.
For example, the Guardian reported that Labour calculated the mortgage figure based on “the impact of interest rate rises on the cost of servicing a £100,000, 20-year variable rate mortgage”.
But only about 30% of households have a mortgage, at least in England in 2019/20, according to the latest English Housing Survey. What is more, about three quarters of those with mortgages have a fixed-rate mortgage, which means their payments won’t immediately rise in response to interest rate rises, unless their fixed-rate period runs out this year.
Labour’s estimated tax rise is also not reliable if it is based, as the Guardian reported, on a rise in the estimated overall tax burden when shared between the total number of households. This is because some taxes, such as business taxes, are not paid by households.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has specifically estimated the change in living standards over the next year. It said: “Real household disposable incomes per person fall by 2.2 per cent in 2022-23, the largest fall in a single financial year since ONS records began in 1956-57.”
Using estimates from the Office for National Statistics for median household disposable income in 2020/21, this would equate to a fall of about £700 per household.
Labour has not corrected this
We have asked Labour to correct the record on these claims, but at the time of writing it has not done so. When we first looked at this figure, we asked Labour four times for details of how the figure of £2,620 was calculated, but it did not respond. After our original check was published, it did then share some details with us, but these did not substantiate its claim or address the criticism of it, and we have not had a response to further questions.
Since our original fact check was published, the Shadow Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson has repeated the claim on Facebook.
At the time of writing, Labour has published at least four active Facebook adverts that make the claim, all of which are listed as having launched after we had told the party that it wasn’t correct.
We asked the Labour Party if it plans to withdraw the leaflets and adverts. We have also asked Ms Phillipson if she agrees that the claim is not correct. Neither had replied at the time of publication.