25 lies that Prime Minister Kier Starmer told at PM Questions in just 30 minutes
Keir Starmer is one of the lost accomplished liars I have ever come across. The lies just ooze from his mouth like cream oozing from a cream éclair as you bite into it. They say the former PM Boris Johnson can lie but Starmer takes the art of lying to record levels.
So on the 18 March 2025 it would have been just another normal day to Starmer after all who would notice the lies?
Step forward Nick Timothy MP who did notice and afterwards decided to list every lie Starmer told, which in effect misleads Parliament
These are the lies he told in that half hour
“What did the Conservatives leave? Interest rates were at 11%”
IN FACT the base rate was below 1% for 12 of the 14 Conservative years in power, and the peak was less than half what Starmer claimed — 5.25%.
4. “The OBR will present its numbers and there will be a spring statement [not an emergency budget] next week.”
IN FACT Reeves promised one budget a year, but having broken her fiscal rules is expected to announce new fiscal policies next week.
5.“ [Kemi] talks about national insurance. We had to fill the £22 billion black hole.”
IN FACT the NICs hike raises £25bn and total tax rises £40bn — more than the fictional black hole and more than the £8.5bn of tax rises Labour promised
6. “We are proud of the fact that our Employment Rights Bill is tackling the cost of insecure work…”
IN FACT the Bill imposes £5 billion of costs onto business, and firms — including 67% of small businesses — say it will stop them hiring new staff.
IN FACT the OBR says increased public investment will “crowd out” private investment. Transport capital spend is cut. “Green investment” is the driver, and as the IFS says, this “isn’t growth enhancing.” https://ifs.org.uk/collections/autumn-budget-2024
10. “Wages are going up faster than prices… That is in only eight months, after 14 years of absolute failure.”
11. “We have invested in the NHS, schools and public services.”
IN FACT school capital spending was cut to fund pay rises, and NHS spending increases — exaggerated anyway by Treasury changing the baseline figures — are partly consumed by staff pay rises.
16. “We put record amounts of money into our NHS.”
IN FACT the Treasury changed the baseline figures and the new spending is eaten up by pay rises. Even still, this is not a record increase — it’s far less than under Tony Blair.
IN FACT the “investment” comes from existing HO budgets, the Govt admits the numbers include reassigned officers, and police forces say they have to cut numbers.
20. “We’re… speeding up new infrastructure projects, slashing red tape and getting Britain building.”
IN FACT he has created 27 quangos, added £5bn a year in new regulation, cut transport capital spend, and cut housing targets in cities including London.
21. “We’re providing access to specialist mental health professionals in every school.”
22. “They didn’t need to consult [on welfare]; they just had to get on with it.”
IN FACT the courts blocked welfare savings because of limited consultation. The Tories reformed welfare with Universal Credit, which Starmer promised his party he’d scrap.
23. “We remain committed to … the [infected blood] inquiry and acting on its recommendations.”
24. “The current [welfare] system is broken… I do see it as a moral issue.”
IN FACT when the Tories reformed welfare Starmer said he would abolish the “Universal Credit and the cruel sanctions regime”, which he now says he supports.
25. “We’ve announced the largest [defence] increase since the cold war to 2.5% by 2027 and 3% in the next Parliament”
IN FACT he resisted increasing spending and didn’t do so in the Budget. He has confirmed only £6bn of funding towards a £13bn promise.
Now the question is why is no doing something about it. Its ok recording the lies like Nick Timothy has done but what the PM is doing is blatantly misleading Parliament which is not allowed.
The misleading of parliament is the knowing presentation of false information to parliament, a very serious charge in Westminster system parliamentary assemblies. By convention, government ministers who are found to have misled parliament will generally lose their ministerial portfolio. Or do they?
In 1994 the UK Parliament Treasury & Civil Service Committee noted that “the knowledge that ministers and civil servants may evade questions and put the best gloss on the facts but will not lie or knowingly mislead the House of Commons is one of the most powerful tools MPs have in holding the executive to account” have in holding the executive to account”. The committee argued that any minister who was discovered to have knowingly lied to parliament should resign. Intentionally misleading parliament could result in being held in contempt of Parliament.
We can see with proof that he has misled Parliament 25 times in just thirty minuets, so what can be done about it?
Imagine my surprise when researching this topic that I found not much at all can be done.
This cropped up when Johnson was PM
The leaders of six opposition parties in the House of Commons have accused Boris Johnson of displaying “a consistent failure to be honest” — an allegation the Prime Minister has always denied, presumably with the same level of honesty they’re questioning.
In a joint letter addressed to the Speaker of the House of Commons, the leaders of the Greens, SNP, Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, SDLP, and Alliance parties cited two key codes of conduct that govern UK politicians: the Nolan Principles and the Ministerial Code. Both emphasize the necessity of truthfulness in public office — a standard that, judging by this letter, they believe Boris Johnson treats like a speed limit: more of a suggestion than a rule.
The letter stated: “We believe the Prime Minister consistently fails to meet this standard. This is not a matter of occasional inaccuracies or the selective use of figures; it reflects a persistent failure to present facts truthfully or to promptly correct false information when inaccuracies are identified. In our view, this constitutes contempt of the House.” Or, as one might put it less formally, “He’s making Pinocchio look like an amateur.”
In response, a Downing Street spokesperson said: “The Prime Minister adheres to the Ministerial Code and Nolan Principles in his conduct of public life.” Which, given the context, might be the most British way of saying, “Nothing to see here, folks!”
There’s a lot to unpack here: the Speaker’s role (basically parliament’s referee, but without the whistle), the Ministerial Code (politicians’ version of a rulebook, which they sometimes seem to skim), the Nolan Principles (a fancy checklist for behaving like decent humans), and the concept of contempt of parliament (the parliamentary equivalent of giving someone the side-eye). What do these terms really mean, and can they actually keep politicians from bending the truth like it’s yoga class?
The Commons Speaker
People frustrated with debates in the House of Commons often criticise the Speaker for failing to hold politicians to account over allegedly dishonest remarks.
But the MPs who have held this office have been clear over the years that it’s not their job to police the accuracy of debates.
The current speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, issued a strongly worded call last month for MPs to correct the record voluntarily if they make inaccurate statements in the Commons.
He emphasized that it’s not his job to play truth detective, stating: “The Speaker cannot be dragged into squabbles over who’s fibbing and who’s not. That’s strictly a sport for political gladiators — grab your popcorn!”
Erskine May, the “Bible” of UK parliamentary procedure, states that: “The Speaker’s responsibility for questions is limited to their compliance with the rules of the House. Responsibility in other respects rests with the Member who proposes to ask the question, and responsibility for answers rests with Ministers.”
Ministers regularly do correct the record in parliament, if they have inadvertently said something inaccurate, but it’s not compulsory and the Speaker cannot force them to do it or punish those who refuse.
In fact, the Speaker has much stronger powers to sanction MPs who accuse others of lying in the chamber than those who actually lie: he can order someone guilty of using unparliamentary language to withdraw the remark or leave the chamber.
What about the Ministerial Code?
In his statement, Lindsay Hoyle referred to another piece of official guidance on how Westminster politicians should conduct themselves: the Ministerial Code. Like the rules that govern debate in the Commons, this is also available online.
It states that “holders of public office should be truthful” and that: “It is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister.”
But the Ministerial Code is not law, and it is ultimately up to the Prime Minister to decide how to interpret and enforce it.
The convention used to be that ministers offered their resignation if they broke the code. In 2018, Amber Rudd resigned as Home Secretary after “inadvertently” misleading a select committee.
But this convention is not always followed now. In November last year, an inquiry into accusations of bullying against the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, found that she had broken the Ministerial Code.
Ms Patel apologised but did not offer her resignation and Boris Johnson took no further action. As he alone is responsible for enforcing the code, the Home Secretary kept her job.
And here is the rub that gets Starmer off the hook.
ONLY A PRIME MINISTER can order an investigation into whether the code has been breached in the first place, creating an obvious difficulty if it is the head of the government who is accused of breaking it.
The verdict
It’s easier to get booted out of the House of Commons for calling someone a liar than for actually lying. It’s like a bizarre game of “Don’t Say the L-Word,” where you can bend the truth all you want — just don’t point it out! Despite the collective eye-rolls from frustrated onlookers, the Speaker of the House is more like a referee without a whistle when it comes to enforcing honesty.
Other lofty-sounding rules, like the Nolan Principles and the Ministerial Code, are about as binding as a New Year’s resolution to eat fewer biscuits — nice in theory, but totally optional in practice. The British political system seems to run on the honor code, assuming politicians will behave with integrity. Spoiler alert: this doesn’t always pan out, and the consequences for breaking these “gentlemen’s agreements” are, well, pretty gentle.
Dr. Alice Lilley from the Institute for Government points out the absurdity: “Misleading Parliament is a serious issue. Ministers who mislead Parliament are traditionally expected to resign, as outlined in the Ministerial Code. But let’s be honest, enforcing this is about as straightforward as assembling flat-pack furniture without the instructions.”
She continues, “At the end of the day, it’s the prime minister who decides whether a minister gets the boot for breaking the Code. Parliament itself has all the muscle of a damp tea towel when it comes to holding ministers accountable for dishonesty. Sure, the Commons Speaker might throw some shade with a pointed remark, but determining the truthfulness of statements — or handing out penalties for fibbing — isn’t exactly in their job description.”
So there you have it the PM and his Ministers can lie mislead Parliament to their hearts content and there is nothing to stop them doing it. I would say it has to change and one of the first things a new government must do is bring in binding rules that sees all MPs sanctioned heavily for lying and misleading not only Parliament but the country in general.
Sign up to discover human stories that deepen your understanding of the world.
Free
Distraction-free reading. No ads.
Organize your knowledge with lists and highlights.
