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?

Yes Rafals.

Just a little growth is a game changer. It is one of my big concerns with the Tories. Almost nothing mentioned in ten tears about growth - aside from some little programmes.

Seemingly they base their growth economics on ever-increasing house prices. Which given recent events....

The Labour Party is relying on people not quite understanding what the word "deficit" means.

The big problem they left behind, the "budgetary chasm" was not the debt, it was the deficit - they left the country with a situation where debt would certainly rocket upwards for the foreseeable future or until abated, and the big difficult job was that the Tories would have to slow that inevitable rise before they could think about stabilizing the rise itself not even stop it, then one day maybe stop it rising, then one day maybe paying some off. That's what a deficit is.

So bloody obviously debt has climbed massively since Labour created a huge deficit during times where we could easily have been running a surplus, ie during some of the biggest periods of growth you could ask for.

Until the deficit is cleared, the debt will not just rise, it will accelerate, and will do that infinitely unless someone can put a stop to it which is bound to take years (and some economic improvements but that's a different topic).

The big debt figures during the following years and those nasty curves you see are quite literally a measure of severity of the deficit they created before that point, and they know people don't understand that. It is like someone sabotaged the brakes on your car, pushed it down a hill, then called you out publicly for driving too quickly. Really the Tories should fight back on this and explain it to people because the deficit is in fact (miraculously) down significantly. I guess May is keeping her powder dry on that one.

George Osborne repeatably claimed to be able to eliminate the deficit , originally by 2015. He failed and kept on pushing the date back. He failed again. George Osborne was a Tory Chancellor.
These are facts, not statistics.

Overspending myths
further graphs

(and some economic improvements but that's a different topic)

Why is this a different topic? I mean this in essence is saying that our true belief in our country is that it will just muddle along now....bumping along the bottom....sinking slowly.

We have all the fundamental structures in place....safety, stable government/rule of law, one of the best university/research systems in the world (especially with our European partners), a good consumer base, strong borders...infrastructure...

And yet we focus on - look at your television shows and newspapers - "Ooooh that person is a chav and she doesn't really have arthritis" "Ooooh how common"...

Come on.

Proud conservative, how about the New Deal (linked above)? But there are more recent examples: the way Germany handled the Global Financial Crisis for example (www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/europe/after-the-crisis-refining-germanys-economic-model).

Your example, as i'm sure you're aware doesn't hold up unless your splurge on the shiny new BMW was actually an investment in a new company.

SomeoneStole

Where's the example of Keynesian policy working?

Our debt in 1990 compared to GDP was 25%.
IT climbed most rapidly 2008-2011. Recently (5-6 years) it hasn't increased compared to GDP very much at all.

^^ It may have not changed much in the last 5-6 years, so why didn't the Tories eliminate it, as promised?

What blerp said.
People don't seem to realise the difference in debt and deficit.

People don't seem to realise the difference in debt and deficit.

This article: www.primeeconomics.org/articles/taq30tk04ljnvpyfos059pp0w7gnpe

covers deficits figures.

An extract from the article I linked to above:

"We have looked at the period from 1956 (when the published ONS dataset begins) to 2008, and taken the average current budget deficit or surplus over this period for Conservative and Labour governments respectively. There have of course been many ups and downs, for both Labour and Conservative governments, but long-run current budget deficits/surpluses appear to us to be one reasonable indicator for assessing “fiscal conservatism”, with lower average deficits being seen as more “conservative”.

On this indicator, in fact governments of both political parties show a current budget surplus, on average, over the long-run period. This is largely due to the fact that in the more stable (Bretton Woods) era before the 1970s and financial liberalisation, all governments almost always achieved a current surplus (but with high levels of public investment), while surpluses became much rarer in the more volatile post Bretton Woods era of financial deregulation.

Conservative governments have an average annual surplus of 0.3% of GDP over the 53 year period to 2008, while Labour governments have an average annual surplus of 1.1%.

(If we extend the period to 2015, i.e. to include the financial crisis and its aftermath, the gap would widen further as the Conservative-led coalition government saw large current deficits for 5 years, following very high peak-crisis deficits for 2 years under Labour. However, we feel it is more balanced to exclude the financial crisis data at this point).

We have also looked at the position from 1971 to 2008, and find that over this period, both Conservative and Labour governments have run on average a small current budget deficit.

In the case of Conservative governments, the average annual current deficit for this period is 0.6% of GDP, while for Labour governments over the same period, the average current budget deficit is 0.3% of GDP.

Therefore, looking at this one indicator in isolation, it is fair to say that Labour governments, over many years, have been somewhat more “fiscally conservative” than Conservative governments. We make this point as a matter of fact, not necessarily as our judgment of fiscal wisdom!"

That article leaves out the economic context of all of the time periods mentioned, in ways that make one party or another look good/bad. Especially amusing is the 1970s, where a certain government took the UK to the point of bankruptcy and had to send ministers begging for crumbs from the IMF etc..

In any case, the deficit is currently on its way down, which is something VERY good that we can all heave a moderately enthusiastic sigh of relief about. Eventually we can look forward to a point in the future where the deficit has been tackled and our national debt can stop skyrocketing quite so hard.

Meanwhile Labour will continue to insult the intelligence of the electorate by putting evidence of a large deficit's effects (inevitable and unbridled subsequent rise in debt) on billboards as if it means the opposite of what it does.

austerity resounding failure

Well not really, the budget deficit is now back down to roughly the point it was at prior to the financial crisis, which has taken a great deal of belt-tightening around the country. If they keep on at this rate we may actually clear it within the next ten years, which would be handy as we have some serious financial challenges ahead of us and need to get off the nosedive into oblivion.

Have you read the full article blerp? It does talk about economic context. I didn't want to copy and paste the whole thing.

Yeah, I read it, first sentence should read "leaves out economic context" rather than "leaves out the economic context" is all, sorry.

I am not sure whether the type of long term data from 1950s indicate what will happen in the future, mainly because of globalization and the nature of the financial market, and the speed that news spread and markets move. I believe there are more external factors or risk to our economy, whether that justify more conservative approach to national debt is debatable.

I am not sure whether the type of long term data from 1950s indicate what will happen in the future, mainly because of globalization and the nature of the financial market, and the speed that news spread and markets move.

Well no but all the evidence we have does not support people saying that the Conservatives have a better historical debt OR deficit record than Labour.

People should certainly vote based on whoever they think will be the best for what they believe in for the future but it would be a shame if that were based on misinformation about the past.

I can understand arguing about whether austerity or keynesian style economics was best for the current situation but Im amazed anyone can genuinely wonder whether keynesian economics has ever worked.

At the risk of sounding old dont they teach the new deal in school any more?

Rafals the bar chart shows debt as a % of GDP so absolutely does reflect the growth as well as debt. And from my basic stats understanding, the difference in the size of the bars from year to year is indicative of the deficit?

So big gap = big deficit e.g. 2008 - 2009 = total debt % of GDP increased and deficit was huge.

Small gap 2012-2013 = total debt % of GDP increased BUT deficit much much smaller.

And we will only get the debt under control once the deficit is 0 - is that right?

Can you tell that I'm a big picture kind of person?!!!