Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which political parties have disputed the £22bn estimate and which independent analysts support their claims?
Executive summary
Labour has repeatedly said there is a £22bn “black hole” in this year’s public finances and attributes it to the previous Conservative government; the Conservatives have publicly disputed that figure, calling it a "political device" and saying the Treasury has not published supporting details [1] [2]. Independent analysts in the coverage supplied are divided: the BBC cites a National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) figure that, depending on accounting choices, would reduce the gap to about £12.5–13.5bn — showing some analysts question the full £22bn claim [3].
1. Labour’s claim: a £22bn in-year shortfall framed as a “black hole”
Labour, led in fiscal messaging by Chancellor Rachel Reeves, has characterised the immediate in-year pressures on public spending as a £22bn “black hole” that it says was left by the Conservative government; Reeves has traced the number to OBR-reported spending plans and subsequent pressures including pay awards [1] [3]. The Guardian and other outlets report the £22bn as the in-year shortfall that Labour says explains the need for further fiscal action [4].
2. Conservative pushback: calling the figure political and demanding detail
The Conservative Party has strongly disputed the £22bn framing. Then-shadow chancellor Jeremy Hunt described it as “a political device to justify tax rises,” and Conservative spokespeople have pointed to the Treasury’s refusal — at least in the reporting cited — to publish the detailed workings behind the number following an FOI from the Financial Times [2]. Conservative responses quoted around Labour’s speeches accused the party of fabricating or exaggerating a fiscal black hole to rationalise future tax decisions [1] [2].
3. Independent analysts: not a unanimous endorsement of £22bn
Independent analysts cited in the sample reporting do not unanimously endorse the £22bn figure. The BBC quotes Professor Stephen Millard of the NIESR saying the figure depends on whether certain items are counted as part of a fiscal black hole; using alternate accounting choices would leave a gap closer to £12.5–13.5bn rather than £22bn [3]. That explicit example shows at least some respected independent commentators consider the headline number sensitive to definitional and timing choices [3].
4. Why the numbers differ: counting, timing and what counts as “in-year”
Reporting points to three main reasons for divergent totals: (a) different dates and cut-offs for which spending commitments are included; (b) whether inherited plans or later changes (including pay awards) are treated as new pressures; and (c) whether certain Treasury-estimated pressures are included in the tally. The BBC notes the OBR and Treasury have produced differing component figures — for example, the Treasury gave a £9.5bn estimate for some pressures that sits well below the £22bn aggregate Labour cites [3] [2]. That explains why independent analysts reach different headline figures [3].
5. Source transparency and the political framing of numbers
A key theme in the sources is transparency: Conservatives and some commentators press for publication of the detailed breakdown, and Full Fact’s explainer highlights disputes about what is “unexpected” versus “inherited” pressures [2]. The difference between a calculated shortfall and its political presentation matters: opponents argue that framing can be used to justify tax rises or spending choices, while proponents say it reflects real near-term pressures that need addressing [2] [4].
6. What the provided sources do not cover
The supplied sources do not present a comprehensive list of other independent economists or think-tanks who explicitly “support” the full £22bn figure; nor do they give a full methodological breakdown from the Treasury or OBR in the material provided here. Available sources do not mention specific independent analysts beyond the NIESR quote that give an alternative £12.5–13.5bn estimate [3] [2].
7. Bottom line for readers
The political parties are clearly split: Labour uses a £22bn headline to describe immediate fiscal pressures [1] [4], while the Conservatives dispute that framing and demand detailed evidence [2]. Independent commentary cited in the sample — notably NIESR via the BBC — shows the result is sensitive to accounting choices and that some analysts would arrive at a materially smaller figure [3]. Given the divergence, readers should treat the £22bn as a contested, headline political figure that hinges on definitional and timing choices; the reporting above shows neither unanimous expert endorsement nor single-source transparency in the material provided [2] [3].