Election fact check: will there really be 20,000 new police officers?

Throughout the 2019 election campaign, the Guardian will be fact-checking claims made across the political spectrum as candidates fight for seats in the House of Commons.

In an age of growing concern over the extent of misinformation in political debate, we’ll seek to provide rapid, reliable correction to errors made in the debates and other key political discussions, as well as on claims made by candidates that make their way into wide circulation on social media. We’ll also provide in-depth analysis of the plausibility of the parties’ policies. But we’ll be careful not to simply amplify malicious falsehoods – so if an outlandish claim shows up in an obscure corner of the internet, we’ll take great care not to bring it to wider prominence through our reporting.

If you see or hear something that makes you suspicious and want to flag it to the Guardian fact check team, you can contact us at factcheck@theguardian.com, go to this page, or use the form below.

While the election campaign only formally started last week, all parties have been making policy pledges – from Brexit to law and order, from NHS spending to green initiatives – for a while. We’re starting out by looking at some announcements made before or early in the campaign that have already become points of contention – and we still have nearly five weeks to go.

Boris Johnson’s pledge to put 20,000 new police officers on the streets: technically true, but a return to former numbers at best

Claim In one of his first announcements as prime minister, Boris Johnson declared that he would be recruiting 20,000 new police officers. He said: “Getting more police on our streets is an absolute priority and I’m delighted our recruitment campaign for 20,000 new officers is now under way.” Likewise, the home secretary, Priti Patel, said: “One of the government’s first actions was to commit to putting 20,000 new police officers on our streets.”

Background The Conservatives’ claim to be the party of law and order is under threat: violent crime has been rising (violence against the person offences were up 15% year on year in most recent official figures), police numbers are lower than they were in 2010 and the proportion of crimes being solved in England and Wales is falling, from 15% in 2015 to 7.4% this year.

Reality Despite the repeated use of the word “new”, the recruitment drive should be seen more as a restoration of police numbers, which have fallen by about 20,000 since the Conservatives came to power in 2010. The total number of full-time equivalent officers in operational frontline roles stood at 103,347 at at March 2019, 20,039 lower than the 123,386 employed in 2010.

Then there’s the fact that the 20,000 new officers will be spread over three years – the Home Office said 6,000 would be recruited in the first year and a further 14,000 would be recruited in the following two years. The department has said all new hires will be in addition to officers hired to fill existing vacancies. This is significant because about 6-7% of the workforce leave each year. The most recent data shows nearly 9,000 officers left in the year to March; it will be a challenge to hit the recruitment target.

Jeremy Corbyn’s claim that drug prices in the NHS will be pushed up by a Tory trade deal with the US: not guaranteed, but reasonably reflects US aim in talks

Claim Jeremy Corbyn says that Boris Johnson is putting the NHS up for grabs and that a deal with Donald Trump would “betray our NHS”. The Labour party also claims a deal with the US could force prices of drugs up, and mean sending US companies £500m of NHS money a week.

Background The government has denied that the NHS is in any way “up for sale”, and said it “could not agree to any proposals on medicine pricing or access that would put NHS finances at risk or reduce clinician and patient choice”. Trump also dismissed Corbyn’s claims, telling Nigel Farage on LBC: “It’s not for us to have anything to do with your health service. We’re just talking about trade.”

Reality The US government, not Trump, has made very plain that it does want greater access to the NHS and other public services – which could include prisons, education and transport.

The official wish-list for US-UK trade negotiations, published in February, stated clearly that it would be looking for “non-discriminatory treatment with respect to the purchase and sale of goods and services” in the UK’s “state-owned and controlled enterprises (SOEs)”. At a Washington hearing, a representative of the US pharmaceutical industry body told the US trade representative they wanted “full market access for US products” including “competitive market-derived pricing”.

Labour’s figure of £500m a week appears to be taken from Andrew Hill, a drug pricing expert who told Channel 4’s Dispatches the NHS could end up paying £27bn more on drugs each year, or some £500m a week in a post-Brexit US trade deal.

Of course, the British government is not obliged to make an agreement with the US on these terms, so such an outcome may not transpire. The Johnson government’s objectives have not been published. But despite Trump’s protestations, American negotiators have been clear that they would seek substantially higher prices for drugs as part of any deal.

Sajid Javid’s promise of a Brexit deal dividend: lack of figures make it hard to scrutinise, but most mainstream economists disagree

Claim The chancellor, Sajid Javid, launched the Conservative pitch on the economy with a claim that passing the government’s Brexit deal would deliver a “deal dividend” that could benefit the whole nation.

Background A look at GDP figures shows a slowdown in growth over the three years since the Brexit vote.According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies and Citibank, the economy is 2.5% to 3% (£55-66bn) smaller than it would have been under remain. Javid argues that passing the Brexit deal would give companies the clarity they crave to start investing again, leading to higher economic growth that would form his “deal dividend”.

Reality Javid did not give a figure for the divided, and the government has refused to publish a thorough impact assessment of the deal, making it tougher to scrutinise the chancellor on his claim.

The chancellor is right to say that Mark Carney believes a deal would benefit the economy. But that is not the full story. The Bank of England’s governor has said the deal would lift some of the uncertainty facing businesses, and that growth would accelerate in 2020. However, the Bank expects growth in later years to be lower than under Theresa May’s deal.

Even if the government deal were passed, many economists say uncertainty would linger for many years. Over the longer-term, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research says Johnson’s deal would shave up to 4% (£70bn) from the size of the economy by the end of the 2020s, equivalent to £70bn. It also said continued uncertainty would do less damage than Johnson’s deal.

Brexit forecasts for the economy are tough to make given the range of potential outcomes. Removing some uncertainty might push up growth. But mainstream economists suggest the long-term impact could leave the economy smaller than alternative Brexit deals or Remain.

Lib Dems commit to making 26m homes more energy efficient: specialists say target is not realistic

Claim Jo Swinson’s Liberal Democrats have committed to “investing £15bn over the next parliament to retrofit 26m homes. This would save the average household £550 a year on energy bills.”

Background As part of a package of measures to tackle the climate emergency, the Lib Dems announced plans to upgrade every house in the UK to an energy performance certificate (EPC) rating of band B by 2030. Half of UK homes are rated D and the £550 figure is the potential saving if these homes are improved.

Reality Hitting the 26m figure would involve retrofitting the entire housing stock of the UK – an ambitious project (and not entirely necessary, as about 1% are already up at band A or B). But even getting 13m from band D to band B is going to be a struggle, according to people working in the field.

“I don’t think that’s ever going to happen,” said Mark Henderson of Leeds-based Brewster Bye Architects. “There are some quick fixes and I think they could achieve that on maybe 20% of homes, but then it starts getting harder.”

Jon Clayton, an architectural technologist who specialises in home renovations, says: “Some of the quick wins are adding loft insulation and upgrading the boiler. Loft insulation can be done for a few hundred pounds, but the average cost of upgrading a boiler even without going to town could easily be £2,000.”

This may be enough to raise some properties to band B, but many homes will need bigger, more disruptive and more expensive work to make a big impact. Listed building and back-to-back terraces also come with significant challenges.

“I commend the Lib Dems for setting high standards and having a sense of urgency,” said Natalie Rush, the director of insulation specialists Six Star Group. “While we’re living in Victorian properties and homes from the 1930s I really don’t think it is realistic that you can move so many to band B.”