To think this stat about the UK debt is spin and ask someone for a longer term graph??

[FusionChefGeoff]

Assuming these figures are real (we have to start somewhere, right!) and judging by the Conservative's position on austerity / debt / deficit etc. I am therefore concluding that there's an alternative infographic out there which would show the level of debt in 2016 as it would have been if Labour's spending / borrowing had continued at the same levels??

And that that figure is significantly higher than the 2106 debt figure quoted in this infographic?

Anyone give me an alternative view on it?

As far as I can understand, the Tories reduced the annual deficit compared to Labour hence slowed down the ballooning of the national debt.

The debt would be much more than it is now if it was allowed to carry on increasing at the rate it did in the last years of the Labour government.

Not quite what you're looking for, but I think THIS may help.

Conservatives have increased the national debt.

Now, I've sort of found what I was looking for but it's not "smash you round the face obvious" what I'm explaining.

I mean, if you look at the rate of growth of the debt in 2008, 2009 and 2010 it is MASSIVE jumps and if we had continued at that rate, it would have exceeded 100% by now.

However, the rate of growth reduces significantly from 2010 and is very very small 2012 - 2013.

So of course the overall level of debt is going to be higher - it can't go from those levels of growth to decreasing without significant long term change.

But what the Conservatives have achieved is to start that reduction in growth - with a view to eventually reducing the total - yes?

I'm not here to debate the morals / ethics / policies about how they have achieved that and what it means long term, I just want to make sure I am clear on these facts first.

But that's not very punchy - I'm hoping for something that's easier to digest on social media!

Yes e1y1, I'm not arguing that the debt hasn't gone up - absolutely agree that it has.

But if you look at the chart I've found, you can see that the rate of growth was slowed when the coalition came into power and that it is believable to imagine the 'curve' of this graph pretty soon taking the turn into decreasing the overall debt.

That would never have happened if Labour stayed in power and is very likely to reverse if they follow through on the promises in their manifesto..

That rate of debt growth would not have continued, because the banks only needed to be bailed out once.

Nationalising the banks cost a fortune but it literally prevented the cash machines from grinding to a halt.

Get what you're saying, got to admit don't know all that much about it, but the graph always seems to go higher more when a conservatives are in (1990-1997 and then 2010-2016).

I understand what the cons say about not being able to have what we cannot afford, but like I saw mentioned the other day - they found something like £850 billion to bail out the banks. I'd rather that be spent on NHS or scrapping Uni fees - what's more important, peoples lives and education, or another bank?

The financial crisis was the greatest national emergency this country has faced since the Second World War.

Rescuing the banks was not some luxury designed to keep financiers wealthy. Had the banks collapsed the social and economic consequences would have been appalling.

www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2415003/ALISTAIR-DARLING-INTERVIEW-Britain-hours-away-total-social-collapse--Former-Chancellor-crisis-erupted-FIVE-years-ago-week.html

I have a feeling the growth in debt after 2008 may have something to do with the banking crisis and the subsequent global recession. It's what you'd expect to happen and there was a fair amount of leeway given the national debt as % of GDP was low.

It probably wouldn't have looked much different if the conservatives had been in power. Given that austerity hasn't exactly been a resounding success it could well have been worse.

The economy was not in great shape after the financial crisis, we had a period of real recession and was living in the shadow of a double dip recession. Greece was in financial crisis from 2012 and for a few years the market was paying a lot of attention on whether governments can pay back their debt. You can say that the country has suffered from Tory austerity domestically, but they did steer the country through some turbulent years.

Very simply put, austerity is an easy sell but a very expensive long-term strategy: there are less outgoings because the state is reducing that but by doing that incomes fall, because if that profits fall, and taxation falls as well. The state will then have to borrow more money to make up the shortfall.
A country's finances are emphatically not like that of a household (only spend what you earn); it needs to invest in consumer confidence, jobs and education.
A famous example is Franklin D Roosevelt's New Deal (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal).
The way the last two Consertave Governments have handled the financial crisis has contributed to Britain's very slow recovery from the Global Finacial Crisis (especially compared with other European countries): www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/04/george-osborne-s-cunning-plan-how-chancellors-austerity-narrative-has-harmed

What nick said. And that's why you can't really draw a chart of what the debt would have been under Labour spending plans - you can predict what the rise in government spending would have been but you can't predict what would have happened to tax receipts. When the Tories announced their spending plans in 2010, there was a whole spate of letters to the papers from groups of economists saying don't cut, or at least don't cut right now. I don't think there was consensus but there was probably a majority of economists who thought debt would fall faster if the cuts didn't follow on directly after the financial crisis. And that was just about debt, nothing about the human impact of cutting services and benefits and wages at a point where unemployment and underemployment were likely to rise.

Really interesting thread. Know very little about this, am ashamed to say. Reading with great interest.

But that's not very punchy - I'm hoping for something that's easier to digest on social media!

How about:

Hard-working families, put your money in the mattress! Nanna did.

Or:

Nanna understood austerity won the War, and the world cup.

Here's another:

Snowflakes spend all their money on fancy gadgets.

Have a read:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25944653

It explains the terms well and why/how seemingly massively conflicting statements can both be technically true.

How can bare facts be spin? There is no emotive language or imagery in that graphic.

jellyfrizz

Are you joking? I had to do a fairly basic stats module in my first year of my undergrad and the most interesting part of that was learning just how stats can be twisted to mean anything you want.

It's interesting even looking at cutting the deficit which the Tories have done and which was entirely necessary but that this isn't as straightforward as you'd imagine either as it's calculated as a percentage of GDP which of course fluctuates too.

Of course, lies, damned lies and statistics.

But the stat itself has not been spun as Op suggests in the title of the thread.

Even the richest countries have debt so I dont really see the issue tbh. No way can we be debt free so does the level matter?

Thanks everyone, I'm definitely learning a lot on this thread which was the point

That rate of debt growth would not have continued, because the banks only needed to be bailed out once.

But that was just once, it went up in big jumps for 3 years on the trot?

As far as I am aware, Labour didn't have any big 'austerity' plans in their manifesto in 2010 so HOW exactly would they have slowed the increase?

Given that austerity hasn't exactly been a resounding success
I agree that it's had some horrible effects on some of the benefits that people are entitled to and left some people in absolute poverty. But from a fiscal point of view, looking at that chart, it did what it set out to do in reducing the growth of debt?

And this is what I really struggle with - on an individual level, austerity is fucking shit and has some horrific stories of people's lives being absolutely ruined. On the other hand, how do we become a 'sustainable' country in terms of debt?? We have to do something but I'm not sure Labour's 'everything for everyone' policy is good / believable in the long term.

AFAIU, the more we borrow, the more interest we have to pay to service the debt, so there is a difference. Also how cheaply a country can borrow depends partly on how much confidence the market has in it to repay the money when necessary. The more we borrow, the more risky we would be seen as a borrower. If the economy is growing and everything is hunky dory then maybe nothing will happen we will carry on. However if there is another crisis or if the debt keeps mounting one day someone will notice and we might lost the ability to borrow money cheaply and we will not be able to sustain our spending and we risk Austerity Super.

See Keynes:

When you cut fiscal spending in a sluggish economy you strangle growth. Low growth means low tax receipts. Thus continued sluggishness/debt.

Or - you gotta speculate to accumulate.

@makeourfuture

Can you give an example of when Keynesian policy has worked?

Can I spend myself out of depression? I'm feeling sad and have you seen the new BMW M4 in white. Engine's a little small but it's not what you've got, it's what you do with it that counts).

I think you are struggling because your seeing how much debt there is as being the issue. It isn't because a country's economy isn't the same as a family budget. The % GDP figure is also important.

A large national debt that's a small proportion of GDP puts the country in a better position than a smaller debt that's a smaller proportion of GDP.

And that's why austerity wasn't a success. Not just because it affected people individually but because it prevented the economy from recovering so while the level of debt slowed down it became a much bigger proprtion of GDP leaving us in a much more precarious position. The UK has had a much slower recovery than those countries that chose not to use austerity and most of that happened after they u-turned slightly and went for austerity light.

If that 89% figure is correct then the decision to hold a refurendum on leaving the EU just to save your party looks monumentally stupid.