Fact check: Unemployment figures row and NHS appointments error
This roundup of claims has been compiled by Full Fact, the UK's largest fact checking charity working to find, expose and counter the harms of bad information.
Unemployment figures row
At Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, we heard conflicting claims about how unemployment figures have changed since Labour came into government.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch claimed that 'unemployment is up 10% since the election', but was later challenged by Labour MP Jake Richards, who raised a point of order and claimed that this figure was 'completely and utterly incorrect'.
There are several different sources of unemployment data, and the exact change in unemployment figures since the election depends on the source and precise time period considered.
According to a Conservative Party post on X (formerly Twitter), Mrs Badenoch's claim that unemployment is up 10% was based on data from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) on the number of people who are unemployed.
In the period April-June 2024 (the last full period before the general election on 4 July 2024) an estimated 1,467,000 people were unemployed, according to the survey. As of January-March 2025 (the latest data available) this figure stood at 1,614,000, a 10% increase.
However the headline unemployment rate (the number of unemployed people divided by the economically active population) increased over this period from 4.2% to 4.5%, an increase of around 7%, or 0.3 percentage points. Mr Richards confirmed to Full Fact it was the unemployment rate which he was referring to in his point of order, when he described Mrs Badenoch's claim as 'incorrect', he told us that he believed unemployment relative to employment was 'the only useful metric'.
It's worth noting that both sets of statistics are published as three-month averages, and the picture they give of how unemployment has changed varies significantly depending on the exact starting point used.
When we asked the Office for National Statistics (ONS) about this, it told us that if a particular month is of interest, it would usually choose a period where that month is the midpoint. Comparing June-August 2024 (the midpoint of which is July 2024, when the general election was held) with the most recent data, for instance, shows a 12% increase in the number of unemployed people and a 10% increase in the unemployment rate.
Comparing July-September 2024 with the most recent data, as some have suggested, shows a 7% increase in the number of unemployed people and a 5% increase in the unemployment rate, though Labour was already in office for the vast majority of this baseline period.
Importantly, all comparisons based on LFS data over this period come with a health warning. The ONS currently says that due to increased volatility in LFS data, 'estimates of change should be treated with additional caution'.
The ONS advises that people 'make use of a wide range of data sources to inform their views on the labour market, balancing the information provided across survey and administrative data sources as well as data on relevant concepts like earnings and vacancies'.
An alternative measure of unemployment to LFS-based data, also published by the ONS, is the claimant count, which measures the number of people receiving benefits for the principal reason of being unemployed.
The provisional claimant count in April 2025 was 1.726 million. This is roughly 5% up on June 2024 (the last full month of the Conservative government), but about 2% down on July 2024 (when Labour took office).
NHS appointments error
NHS England has corrected a mistake in its calculation of the number of extra hospital appointments delivered so far by the Labour government, after Full Fact challenged the error.
NHS England initially claimed the new data, which is an official statistic, showed a 3.3 million rise in the appointments counted towards the government's manifesto commitment, when it was first published on Thursday morning. The figure was used in an NHS England press release, and cited in a comment by the health secretary, Wes Streeting, that was quoted in the media.
But this figure comes from data that has been standardised to take account of the different number of working days in the periods being compared. And NHS England's calculation mistakenly assumed there were 20 working days in February 2024. In fact, 2024 was a leap year, and there were no public holidays that February, so that month had 21 working days.
As a result, the correct figure for the increase in appointments seen between July 2024 and February 2025, compared to the same period the previous year, is about 3.6 million. NHS England republished the data to include this figure after we told it about the problem, and released a correction to its statement.
The new statement said: 'There was a calculation error in the file covering the number of additional appointments delivered since July. This has been updated from 3.3 million to 3.6 million.'
However at the time of writing the incorrect figure continues to appear in some news reports.
Before the 2024 general election, Labour promised to deliver an extra two million hospital appointments each year, although the party was not clear exactly what this meant.
Then in February, NHS England began to publish data on the specific types of appointments being counted towards the pledge. At the same time, the Government announced that it had been achieved. We have been monitoring this pledge on our Government Tracker.
And finally… this week Full Fact published its annual report reviewing how the UK handles misinformation – and the verdict is not good. We've taken a deep-dive into some of the fact checking themes we've seen this year and have concluded that almost every dimension of misinformation policy needs urgent action, from legislation through to online platform policies.
Our analysis of cases, including claims from the UK summer riots, footage from conflict zones and examples of health misinformation, as well as our recommendations for getting to grips with this out-of-control landscape, are available to read here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
14 minutes ago
- BBC News
Public toilet restoration approved by Chichester District Council
Eight public toilets in the Chichester district will be refurbished after getting council plans follow the demolition and rebuilding of the old toilet block in Tower new Tower Street toilet, which opened earlier this month, cost more than £200,000 and has been said to be inspiring "envy" in other areas after receiving positive Google reviews. The cost of the latest scheme has not yet been revealed but will be made up of money from the Asset Replacement Fund and from reserves. Chichester District Council does not legally have to provide public toilets, but leader Adrian Moss said they were important to residents, adding that the Tower Street project had been "a triumph".Councillor John Cross added: "There is a bit of toilet envy going on with other district councils because our Tower Street toilets have been given a five-star rating on Google and other district councils want the same!"The toilets set for improvement are in Bracklesham Bay in Bracklesham, Pound Road car park in Petworth, Lifeboat Way in Selsey, Northgate car park in Chichester, Avenue de Chartres car park in Chichester, Hillfield Road in Selsey, Kingfisher Parade in East Wittering and Marine Drive in West council will now look for a contractor to carry out the work, which will be a phased approach over the next two years, said the Local Democracy Reporting Service.
The Herald Scotland
16 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
UN urges UK to negotiate new Chagos deal that allows islanders to return
But a panel of experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council said retaining the base and continuing to bar Chagossians from Diego Garcia 'appears to be at variance with the Chagossians' right to return'. The Chagossians were expelled from the islands between 1965 and 1973 to make way for the joint UK-US base and have not been allowed to return. Although the UK-Mauritius deal includes a £40 million trust fund for the benefit of the Chagossians, the UN experts expressed concern that this would not provide an 'effective remedy' for the islanders. They also criticised an apparent lack of consultation of the islanders prior to the deal, saying: 'We are gravely concerned about the lack of meaningful participation of Chagossians in processes that have led to the agreement.' The experts added: 'In light of these significant concerns, we call for the ratification of the agreement to be suspended and for a new agreement to be negotiated that fully guarantees the rights of the Chagossian people to return to all islands of the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia.' Conservative shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel urged the Government to 'do the right thing (and) stop this'. She said: 'We have been warning from the start that this deal is bad for British taxpayers and bad for the Chagossian people. 'Now even the United Nations is saying the very same. 'Labour has completely ignored this community from the get-go, and failed to consult with them at every step of the way. 'It is why I have introduced a Bill in Parliament that would block the (agreement) and force the Government to speak to the people at the heart of their surrender plans.' The deal follows a 2019 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice saying the islands should be handed over to Mauritius. As well as the fund for Chagossians, the UK has agreed to pay at least £120 million a year for 99 years in order to lease back the Diego Garcia base – a total cost of at least £13 billion in cash terms. The deal also includes provisions preventing development on the rest of the archipelago without the UK's consent, which the Government has argued will prevent countries such as China setting up their own facilities. The agreement has also been backed by the United States. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has been contacted for comment.
The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
This vision for Britain's nuclear future is to be warmly welcomed
A politician with such a long and mixed track record as energy secretary Ed Miliband should perhaps have been more wary of declaring that nuclear power will 'deliver a golden age of clean energy abundance', and that it is 'the only way to protect family finances, take back control of our energy, and tackle the climate crisis'. Such things may yet prove to be so – and indeed investment in a new generation of nuclear power may well be inevitable. However, it is equally the case that the history of nuclear power in Britain, spanning some seven decades, has been far from an unalloyed success. At home and – sadly, more dramatically – abroad, scientists and engineers overconfident in their abilities and seized by the promise of the future have found themselves all too often watching the consequences of their complacency played out with devastating effect, most infamously at Fukushima, Chernobyl and Six Mile Island, but also at many other locations. Previous visions of a golden age melted down as rapidly as the faulty reactors. If the early post-war hopes for the peaceful use of nuclear power had been well founded, just as was claimed in the 1950s, the abundant electrical power generated by nuclear fission would have been so cheap it would have been pointless to meter and charge for it, fossil fuels would have been rendered redundant, and, as it happens, the pace of climate change greatly retarded. But it was not to be. Therefore, the public is right to be sceptical now about why, in the old and dangerous phrase, 'this time it's different'. With those heavy caveats, Mr Miliband's announcements about Britain's nuclear future are to be welcomed, and his reasoning endorsed. He is right, above all, to seek a great variety and plurality in sources of the UK's long-term energy supply. As the Germans discovered when the Nord Stream pipelines and gas supplies from Vladimir Putin's Russia were cut, it is extremely unwise to become so heavily dependent on any single source of energy. Mr Miliband declares himself an enthusiast for offshore wind, onshore wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, and even fossil fuel sources where effective carbon capture can be achieved. In the nuclear sphere, he's also correct to adopt the previous government's plans for small, 'modular' reactors, which could speed up the transition from carbon and reduce costs. The only disappointment in that area is that time has already been lost, and Rolls-Royce and other private interests are not yet in a position to make any deployment pump meaningful wattage into the National Grid before the early to mid-2030s, as Mr Miliband told the House of Commons. The £14.2bn investment in the Sizewell C plant is a more traditional kind of project, and carries the familiar risks. Mr Miliband will need to be much more specific about private sector involvement, and who will bear the financial risks for such a costly programme over such a long and uncertain timeframe. Disposal of waste and decommissioning costs will also have to be fully transparent to carry public opinion, especially for the people of Suffolk, who will be hosting this latest iteration of a long-standing lodger. Of course, it all would have been better if successive governments hadn't slowed the nuclear programme in the aftermath of successive accidents, and had found the money to invest in previous decades. In fact, the Sizewell C plant is set to become Britain's first new nuclear power station since 1995. The French have long prioritised nuclear power and weathered the recent energy crisis better than the British or the Germans, more tied as they were to foreign gas and soaring world prices. The aim now is to ensure that the new generation of nuclear power doesn't turn into a costly disaster, and can indeed help the transition to renewables and lower energy bills. Cheap, plentiful power and net zero on track? Mr Miliband may yet leave a legacy more permanent than any of his colleagues. Golden, indeed.
