Complaint
During an item about events at 10 Downing Street the day before Liz Truss resigned, the presenter stated the then Prime Minister had been βforced to make another promise, this time on pensions.β A viewer questioned the accuracy of this statement and asked what factual evidence the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ had to support the claim.
Outcome
On the day before the broadcast, the Prime Ministerβs spokesman had appeared to signal that the state pension triple lock was up for negotiation and that Liz Truss would no longer be publicly committed to defending the partyβs pledge on the matter. This led to questions being put to her at Prime Ministerβs Questions in Parliament and a subsequent statement by Ms Truss to the effect that the triple lock would remain unchanged. This statement was understood by many at the time to have been necessitated by the earlier contradictory guidance, and the unwillingness of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the weekend to guarantee the existing arrangement. In the ECUβs view this is what was intended by a reference to the Prime Minister being βforcedβ to make a promise, and how viewers would have understood the presenterβs words.
Not Upheld