What happened to the money Boris promised the NHS on the bus?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Vote Leave bus slogan — “We send the EU £350 million a week — let’s fund our NHS instead” — was a political claim, not a government line-item transfer; reporting and analysis show it was disputed at the time and later characterised as misleading [1] [2]. Governments since 2016 have repeatedly pointed to increases in NHS cash spending (projected rises such as a £57bn increase by 2024–25 are cited), but critics say these are “cash terms” projections and not the simple fulfillment of the bus promise [3] [4].
1. The bus claim: a campaign slogan, disputed from the start
The £350m-a-week message originated with the Vote Leave campaign and was emblazoned on its bus; Boris Johnson and others used it to argue that leaving the EU would free up that sum for the NHS [1] [2]. Broad reporting at the time and afterwards registered that the figure was challenged: BBC and other outlets noted the claim was “hotly disputed” and that Leave figures ignored money the UK received back from the EU and the complex accounting behind gross contributions versus net contributions [2] [1].
2. Did “the money” go to the NHS? Two competing ways to read government spending
Supporters have pointed to stated or projected increases in NHS budgets under Conservative governments — for example, a government document projecting a £57bn rise in NHS expenditure by 2024–25, described as “over £1 billion more per week” in cash terms compared with 2016–17 [3]. Critics and some journalists treat those numbers differently: they note the bus promise implied a direct, recurring reallocation of the full £350m weekly EU contribution to NHS budgets, a claim that many outlets and commentators have called misleading [4] [2].
3. Political framing: promise, projection, and the art of messaging
Campaign messaging used a simple causal story — leave the EU, stop sending £350m a week, spend it on the NHS — because it was rhetorically powerful. Vote Leave strategists later acknowledged the figure’s effectiveness as messaging rather than precise public accounting [1]. Journalists and watchdogs have repeatedly underscored that the bus was a political device rather than a legally binding budget commitment [1] [2].
4. What government ministers and reporting actually said afterwards
Boris Johnson and some ministers later sought to reconcile the bus promise with reality in different ways: Johnson at times described the £350m figure as an “underestimation” or suggested funds could be prioritised for health when available [5] [2]. Other ministers and commentators have argued NHS funding increases effectively reflect the bus pledge; opponents counter that the increases are not equivalent to the simple transfer implied by the slogan and that the economy-wide effects of Brexit complicate the arithmetic [3] [6].
5. The independent academic and press view: complexity and consequences
Academic work finds the “Boris Bus” functioned as an encapsulation of broader beliefs about Brexit and the NHS rather than a literal promise voters treated as a cast-iron budgetary guarantee [7]. Press analyses and opinion pieces have documented the political fallout — voters who relied on NHS promises felt misled, while others say successive governments did place more cash into health services, albeit in “cash terms” rather than a neat weekly cheque from EU savings [3] [6].
6. Bottom line for readers: where the money is — and where reporting leaves gaps
Available reporting shows the bus slogan was political shorthand, disputed by news outlets and experts, and not a direct transfer of £350m a week into NHS coffers; government spending has increased in cash terms, but sources differ on whether that amounts to fulfilling the bus promise as voters understood it [1] [3] [2]. Available sources do not mention a single, discrete pot of money labelled “bus pledge” that was routed untouched into the NHS; instead, the story is one of competing narratives — campaign rhetoric versus budgetary and economic realities [1] [3].
Limitations and why this matters: journalists and academics in the provided sources frame the issue both as a case of political messaging that materially affected voting behaviour and as a fiscal question that requires unpacking GDP, net contributions, and budget projections — areas where simple slogans obscure complex trade‑offs [7] [3].