Why is Cameron lying about Labour councils?

By Mark Ferguson / @markfergusonuk

In a speech today David Cameron has attacked several Labour councils over cuts, as he tries to push the lie that councils can cut without damaging frontline services. Speaking in Darlington, Cameron said:

“Or what about Labour-run Islington, which is slashing frontline jobs and children’s services, but hasn’t put a finger on the Chief Executive’s salary of £220,000.”

Except this is completely untrue. Islington have cut their Chief Executive’s salary to £160,000. The Evening Standard reported that Islington will have the lowest paid Chief Executive in London (lower, therefore, than several Tory councils).

Is Cameron telling lies on purpose as he campaigns for the local elections, or is he just badly briefed? Either way he should apologise, and soon.

Update: Islington Council leader Catherine West has called Cameron hit back at Cameron over his lie this afternoon, and called form him to apologise to the people of Islington.

“What David Cameron has said is a lie; we have cut £50,000 from our Chief Executive’s salary. As a PR man by trade Mr Cameron should understand the importance of getting his facts right.”

“Unlike Conservative controlled Bromley Council, Islington is not closing a single Children’s Centre, even though our percentage cut is more than twice the size of theirs.”

“We have found over £25 million of back office efficiency savings, but the truth is that the Government has cut areas of great need, like Islington, by more than twice the national average.”

“What David Cameron said is simply wrong and he should apologise to Islington for misleading its residents.”

Update: We’re hearing this afternoon that David Cameron is “seething” at being accused of lying by Islington council. It seems pretty clear though that he has been caught out telling a blatant untruth. Tom Marshall of the Islington Gazette managed to get a number ten spokesperson to defend the PM, saying that:

“the facts were not wrong because the wage cut only comes in with the new chief executive – and argued this did not amount to “putting a finger” on the salary.”

How Islington were meant to cut the chief executive’s salary before their February budget (where the cut was agreed) – when the cuts were only fianlised in January – was not made clear by number ten.