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 experts or think tanks have publicly evaluated Labour's £22bn shortfall claim and what did they conclude?
Executive summary
Multiple independent analysts and think‑tanks publicly evaluated Labour’s claim of a £22bn shortfall. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) and the Resolution Foundation said much of the shortfall was foreseeable and persistent without policy changes, while the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) reported a smaller February‑dated gap (£9.5bn) but agreed to a breakdown; Full Fact and BBC coverage set out how different judgments and definitions produce figures between about £9.5bn and £22bn [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Who did the crunching — and why their views differ
The headline actors in public commentary were the OBR, IFS, Resolution Foundation and independent fact‑checker Full Fact, with BBC reporting expert comment from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR). Differences come down to scope: the OBR’s February assessment identified a £9.5bn shortfall in information it had been given, while Labour’s Treasury later aggregated additional pressures and post‑Budget changes to reach £22bn — a choice of accounting boundary that produces the divergence noted by Full Fact and the BBC [3] [4] [5].
2. The OBR: smaller headline but pledged clarity
The OBR’s formal published assessment that was public by February quantified a roughly £9.5bn shortfall based on the information available to it; that prompted political dispute and led the OBR to promise a more detailed breakdown to be published on Budget day to explain differences between the £9.5bn and Labour’s £22bn figure [3] [5]. Media reporting records that former chancellor Jeremy Hunt questioned the timing and motive of the OBR review, illustrating how timing and politics shaped interpretation [6].
3. IFS: “obvious” and partly the government’s own policy choices
The Institute for Fiscal Studies publicly argued that many of the pressures that underlie the shortfall were predictable and that Labour had accepted commitments (notably higher public‑sector pay) that contributed to the gap; the IFS commentary framed the £22bn as evident to analysts and questioned the political framing that linked the shortfall solely to its predecessors [1] [7]. In short, the IFS accepts there is a genuine fiscal challenge but emphasises that some elements were foreseeable and partly the new government’s choices [1] [7].
4. Resolution Foundation: focus on persistence and policy choices
The Resolution Foundation warned that much of the £22bn problem would remain for years without explicit action on taxes or spending, estimating that up to about £19bn could persist into 2029‑30 unless the chancellor took steps to close it [2]. That analysis frames the issue as not just a one‑off accounting hole but a multi‑year fiscal pressure requiring choices — a different emphasis from narrow technical debates about the exact number [2].
5. Full Fact and BBC: walking readers through the arithmetic
Full Fact and BBC articles laid out the arithmetic showing how the OBR’s February £9.5bn, an additional roughly £7bn of pressures identified before the March Budget, and a further £5.6bn by late July (including post‑election pay awards) add up to the £22bn claimed by Labour — while noting experts such as Prof Stephen Millard (NIESR) say counting choices matter and alternative totals of around £12.5–13.5bn are defensible depending on what you include [4] [3]. These explanations highlight that the disagreement is often definitional rather than purely numerical error [4] [3].
6. Where political framing and accountability collide
Commentary shows the dispute is as much political as technical. Labour described the £22bn as a “covered up” hole left by the Conservatives; critics pointed to pre‑existing spending estimates and to Labour’s decision to accept above‑inflation pay awards as reasons why the tally is less straightforward [8] [9] [1]. The civil service chief publicly backed the government’s figures, underscoring that official accounting judgments and political messaging are entangled [9].
7. What this means for readers trying to judge accuracy
If you treat only what the OBR had been given in February as the benchmark, the shortfall is the order of £9.5bn; if you include subsequent departmental revelations, policy choices and pay awards up to July, you get to the £22bn Labour publicised — and independent analysts (IFS, Resolution Foundation, NIESR commentators) have each emphasised different parts of that chain [3] [1] [2] [4]. The most important takeaway is that the size of the “hole” depends on defined boundaries and timing, not only arithmetic mistakes [4] [3].
8. Limitations and remaining questions
Available sources document assessments from the OBR, IFS, Resolution Foundation, NIESR commentators, Full Fact and mainstream outlets, but do not provide a single, definitive reconciliation of every line item that shifts the figure from £9.5bn to £22bn; the OBR’s promised detailed breakdown was presented as the forum for that reconciliation [5] [3]. For any remaining unresolved line‑by‑line questions, current reporting does not supply a full public forensic ledger tying each item to the two headline totals — readers should expect detailed official annexes or OBR material to be the authoritative next step [5] [3].