but as i say, first, let's hearfrom bbc verify and nick to explain those figures. let's have a look at how the conservatives reached their figures. it was this, 38 5p black hole, and they have basically claimed divided that by the number of working families in the country. —— a £38.5 billion gap. the conservatives have divided that by the number of working households and come up with their £2,000 figure. note: this is over a four—year period, so about £500 a year. the prime minister said last night this was the work of independent treasury officials. it is true that treasury did most of the the sums, but political advisors who work for the chancellor were the ones who set the terms of the calculations by making assumptions about labour's policies. this is the policy list the conservative party produced and how much
in the formal negotiations, either now or then. so what was it that you were doing? so that is correct. we are a not—for—profit, non—government organisation. we work on behalf of families at their request and at no cost to them. so what we do, the first thing that we do when we started taking the calls and understanding what is happening, we have to do a little assessment for us of something we call the theory of return. and in this case, we had very basic assumptions. one, hamas and israel cannot communicate directly. two, there are countries and entities that can influence hamas, be it qatar, egypt, iran and turkey. but none of these countries have any interest in helping israel, but at least two of them have an interest helping the us. so from that, we built a theory of return that was very simple and stands to this day, which is, we had to make this an american story very quickly,
with this figure, £2094. now, that is over a four—year period, so about £500 a year. the prime minister said last night that this was the work of independent treasury officials. it is true to say that treasury did most of the sums, but political advisors who work for the chancellor were the ones who set the terms of the calculations by making assumptions about labour's policies. now over here, we can show you, this is the policy list the conservative party produced and how much it would allegedly cost. but not all of it has been costed by the treasury. these three at the bottom that have been highlighted there, they come from other documents. for example, this one, the green prosperity plan, comes from a labour policy document, but labour insist this evening
couple of days ago that appears to show that james bowler did not sign show thatjames bowler did not sign of the show that james bowler did not sign of the overall show thatjames bowler did not sign of the overall figure being used. that is really embarrassing for the line at the conservative party were using because the tax attack is one thing, it is nothing using a certain name in that it defends and then it turns out that person is not signed up turns out that person is not signed up to it. turns out that person is not signed u- to it. ., , ., ., turns out that person is not signed u- to it. ., ., ., , up to it. two days ago, so why did sir keir starmer _ up to it. two days ago, so why did sir keir starmer not _ up to it. two days ago, so why did sir keir starmer not have - up to it. two days ago, so why did sir keir starmer not have that - sir keir starmer not have that letter in his mind when debating last nights?— last nights? that's a really good auestion last nights? that's a really good question that — last nights? that's a really good question that others _ last nights? that's a really good question that others have - last nights? that's a really good question that others have been | question that others have been posing for. i think even before we saw this letter, there was frustration that they are parts of the labour party thought sir keir starmer was not a fleet of foot enoughin starmer was not a fleet of foot enough in response to this attack from rishi sunak. he took 25 minutes to start quibbling about some of the assumptions about the treasury and
he�*s the british expert on tax rises — they�*re at the highest level for 70 years. let�*s start with that claim taxes would go up by £2,000 for every working family under labour. that is based on a dossier from the conservative party, which claims there�*s a £38 billion black hole in labour�*s spending plans over four years. but this is important — some of the assumptions behind the calculations are from politically appointed special advisers in the treasury. some of them are questionable. it assumes, for example, that it�*s always a lot less efficient for the public sector to do things than the private sector. so, with this figure, a dollop of caution. we will know more about labour�*s tax and spend plans when they publish their manifesto, but last night, after the debate, they emphasised they weren�*t going to put up income tax, national insurance, or vat. next, let�*s look at sir keir starmer�*s claim on the overall tax level.
by £2000 for each household and that comes from a figure the conservatives claim is a hole in labour's spending plans. they say there are £40 billion across the board they have not accounted for and they say if you divide it by every household in the country where one is in work you get a £2000 figure. the figure was generated by civil servants in the treasury. but it was generated by civil servants on the basis of assumptions provided by the conservative party and those assumptions, a lot of people not just labour would say are pretty out there. for example, one where you get the figure is by the conservative saying to the treasury if stuff is done by the private sector, it will be 7.5% more efficient than the public sector. even the treasury civil servants producing calculation and said we are not sure about that figure. labour say this figure is just
civil servants in the treasury but civil servants in the treasury operating under assumptions and rules, parameters set by political advisers working for the conservative party and a lot of people, including the civil servants, say those assumptions actually were designed to produce as big a figure as possible. i think some would say some parts of those figures are accurate but the overall number is too high. from a labour point of view, keir starmer eventually said late into the debate, i think the phrase he used was absolute garbage, but they will be frustrated he did not deny more vociferously. fiur be frustrated he did not deny more vociferously— vociferously. our colleagues have one vociferously. our colleagues have gone through _ vociferously. our colleagues have gone through the _ vociferously. our colleagues have gone through the figures. - vociferously. our colleagues have gone through the figures. it - vociferously. our colleagues have gone through the figures. it is - gone through the figures. it is difficult to get your head around what is being said and what is not. the bbc will host a debate between leading figures from the seven biggest political parties in great britain on friday. you can watch it from half—seven on bbc one and on the iplayer. in other news. two people have been arrested after the leader of reform
38 and have been pumping. that is because other figures have been used by the tories to get that overall total. therefore, the £2000 figure of supported rises under a future labour government, a figure which derives from the overall total cannot be attributed to the treasury. what happens if you take out the non—treasury costed elements of the tory dossier? did he verify it has calculated it is these items at the bottom, the green prosperity plan, fair pay agreement on social care and ukraine support, and they add up to £22 billion, a very large proportion of the extra labour spending claims by the conservatives. by the assumptions that into the costing of labour policies that the treasury produced was based on the sums given to them by a conservative appointed special advisers and so those assumptions are questionable. overall, we have a host of reasons to be dubious about this £2000 per household tax claim which though dominated the debate last night. let's talk now to the
keir starmer to knock it down and say it was false. then this morning a cabinet _ say it was false. then this morning a cabinet minister was doing what is known _ a cabinet minister was doing what is known as— a cabinet minister was doing what is known as the morning round, popping up known as the morning round, popping up on _ known as the morning round, popping up on various — known as the morning round, popping up on various media outlets and she is a cabinet — up on various media outlets and she is a cabinet minister but also every close _ is a cabinet minister but also every close ally— is a cabinet minister but also every close ally of — is a cabinet minister but also every close ally of rishi sunak. they worked — close ally of rishi sunak. they worked together at the treasury when he was _ worked together at the treasury when he was a _ worked together at the treasury when he was a minister and she was a special— he was a minister and she was a special adviser. and she made the same _ special adviser. and she made the same point, without much caveat in said this _ same point, without much caveat in said this number had come about via independent treasury analysis. some elements— independent treasury analysis. some elements of that number had come about— elements of that number had come about by— elements of that number had come about by political appointees, conservative advisers, asking the treasury — conservative advisers, asking the treasury civil servants to do some number— treasury civil servants to do some number crunching based on their own political— number crunching based on their own political assumptions about elements of lahours— political assumptions about elements of labour's spending. midway through this round, _ of labour's spending. midway through this round, that clear coutinho was doing. _ this round, that clear coutinho was doing, labour published a letter that they— doing, labour published a letter that they got a couple of days ago from _ that they got a couple of days ago from the — that they got a couple of days ago from the most senior civil servant in the _ from the most senior civil servant in the treasury in response to a
issue with it as someone who can spot accuracy as statistics is it is a meaningless number on its own terms because it is assuming every household pays the same amount of tax, and any changes would be applied equally to every single household, so from a basic arithmetic point of view, it is not accurate to the world. even if you have no issue with any of the mathematics, it is times to buy for because it is talking about over a four—year period. because it is talking about over a four-year period.— because it is talking about over a four-year period. most people, to the extent — four-year period. most people, to the extent to _ four-year period. most people, to the extent to which _ four-year period. most people, to the extent to which we _ four-year period. most people, to the extent to which we think- four-year period. most people, to| the extent to which we think about tax bills, _ the extent to which we think about tax bills, are likely to think of them — tax bills, are likely to think of them on _ tax bills, are likely to think of them on an annual basis. gr tax bills, are likely to think of them on an annual basis. or even monthl . them on an annual basis. or even monthly- and _ them on an annual basis. or even monthly. and then _ them on an annual basis. or even monthly. and then there - them on an annual basis. or even monthly. and then there is - them on an annual basis. or even monthly. and then there is the i them on an annual basis. or even i monthly. and then there is the issue about the role _ monthly. and then there is the issue about the role of— monthly. and then there is the issue about the role of the _ monthly. and then there is the issue about the role of the treasury, i about the role of the treasury, secondly — about the role of the treasury, secondly making clear the fact that the treasury does the numbers and there _ the treasury does the numbers and there is— the treasury does the numbers and there is a _ the treasury does the numbers and there is a convention here, in previous— there is a convention here, in previous governments of various colours — previous governments of various colours have done it. they run the numbers _ colours have done it. they run the numbers based on the assumptions handed _ numbers based on the assumptions handed to _ numbers based on the assumptions handed to them by the political advisers — handed to them by the political advisers. there is an element in the