How big is the deficit, and the debt?
“…the deficit is…not high by either historical or contemporary standards”
Len McCluskey elected head of Unite, The Guardian, December 19, 2010.
“Of course there’s a deficit – we’re not deficit deniers.… the figures you’ve got are clearly not the figures that I’ve got”
Len McCluskey, Radio 4’s Today programme, January 11, 2011.
The background
It’s the deficit debate that won’t go away: just how big is it exactly? Union boss Len McCluskey claims it’s not that big, by historical standards. Although on the radio this morning he said he was more interested in national debt than deficit. Radio 4 presenter, Evan Davies challenged his use of figures – saying “that’s the thing FactCheck can check.”
Well, how could we resist such a request from our favourite breakfast broadcaster? There are two issues here: how big is the deficit, compared to previous years, and how big is the national debt.
The analysis
Mr McCluskey’s claim in the Guardian doesn’t stack up.
Last year the deficit hit 11 per cent of GDP – that’s £156 billion – which is the difference between what the government spends and what it earns each year. That was the largest deficit since 1945. The previous peak was in the early 1990s – when it was 8 per cent of GDP.
This morning, Mr McCluskey insisted “we are not deficit deniers” – and then claimed he’d meant debt all along.
So, where do we currently stand on national debt, comparatively?
Debt means the net accumulated borrowing by the government. And as a share of GDP it’s currently around 60 per cent. Our friends at the Institute for Fiscal Studies provided the context – telling us it’s currently at the highest level since the late 1960s. In the 1980s it reached just above 50 per cent of GDP.
But if we go back a bit further, debt in the late 1940s jumped to 250 per cent of GDP. And during the 1920s and 30s, it held well above the 100 per cent mark. It’s worth remembering that much of that 20th Century debt was to fund two world wars, so there was a different context from our current economic downturn.
Over the last hundred years Len is right – debt has been higher – but in recent history it hasn’t.
We asked Unite where their figures came from – who pointed us to their press release which says “The UK deficit is not high by historical or international standards. Germany, France and Japan have all got higher net debt than the UK.”
Again there is confusion between the deficit and the debt, and between historical and international comparisons.
The verdict
There are a lot of claims being flung around about the deficit – partly as the Labour party and the unions try to get back on the front foot about the economy. But on this one Len McCluskey got it wrong. The deficit is the highest for nearly 70 years, and the national debt is the higher than for 50 years.
By Emma Thelwell



There are 12 comments on this post
All of this is academic and none of it addresses the issue of an austerity solution – which this short film does quite clearly
http://falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/video-a-brilliant-demolition-of-osbornes-austerity-economics
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Only one point I would like to pick you up on, if I may…
“It’s worth remembering that much of that 20th Century debt was to fund two world wars, so there was a different context from our current economic downturn.”
We have been in Iraq and Afghanistan for how long now? And it’s cost us how much?
I know socially we feel less “at war” than they did in WWI and II, but we are still spending an awful lot of money on “defence” (an ironic term for our aggressive military strategy of the last decade or so).
Like or Dislike:
0
0
While you are right to be concerned about the amount of money that has been spent on ‘defence’ and on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – you really cannot compare them to the World Wars in ANY context – not the amount we experience them or the amount we spend on them. That is just ludicrous. These were total wars on a global scale and our entire economy had to be mobilised to fight them. The wars we have been in the middle east take a small amount of our GDP.
Len McClusky is an idiot who cannot tell the difference between debt and a deficit. If you don’t even understand these simple economic terms then you shouldn’t be talking to the national media about the economy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data#zoomed-picture
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Can we have a fact check on costs of debt repayment which may be a bit lower now than the late 90′s when interest rates were higher. Goby seems to think that it is the repayments that matter if you are a student not the rate at which debt accumulates (ie the deficit) or total debt.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Cathy,
So the attacks, invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have cost a total of how much to Britain? And who pays for it all? And where does the money come from? And how does it compare to “public debt”?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
@Evan: I don’t know what we’re currently paying in debt interest, but back in 2007-8 it was apparently £30bn – a comparatively small slice of the pie:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm
(News article linked to from another FactCheck). Somewhat surprisingly, in 2008-2009 it was only £1bn higher, but that’s just debt interest – we’d also given significiant quantities to the Financial Services Industry…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/government-spending-department-2009-10#
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The Iraq / Afghanistan war hasn’t cost that much in the bigger picture.
http://www.debtbombshell.com/public-spending.htm
While £38billion sounds like a lot, that’s not much more than we’re paying on interest alone. No way near the cost of health, education, pentions, & benefits. We’re nowhere near the percentage costs of WWII.
I’m sure the government is responsible for wasting money on a lot more rubbish than the war lately! For the past 10 years they’ve been handing out benefits and pointless grants like there’s no tomorrow. They should’ve got that total national debt down a few years ago when the economy was supposedly booming.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
This debt narrative is both silly and tedious.
Two start points:
1. Because inflation is much lower than in the mid-1980s when Thatcher’s ‘monetary’ policy was at its height, the cost of servicing all our personal, company and government debts is much lower.
2. By 1997 one pound in every eight of our taxes was needed just to pay interest on the massive Tory deficit. Because the following government made it a priority to get both government debt and inflation down, the financing cost, even now, is less than one pound in thirty.
Moreover, in comparison with the productive government assets we own such as roads, railways, hospitals, schools and much else, our debts are very much less than a prudent investment trust would describe as cautious.
Government deficits have always risen and fallen with the level of economic activity, and the corporation taxes those activities generates. Until last October, the UK economy was recovering rapidly with tax revenues rising quickly: which was forecast in 2009. Now that the Clegg – Cameron ‘tax re-balancing’ is being implemented, growth is stalled and tax revenues are stagnant. These are the biggest peacetime policy blunders since…
Like or Dislike:
0
0
er, we had a 6billion deficit in 1997. Brown stated that he would continue with Ken Clarkes fiscal policy for the 1st term of parliament. It proved to be the only years that Labour ran a surplus. 2002 on we ran a deficit (and ramped up our balance of trade deficit massively). By 2005 the deficit was structural. everyone knows the rest…
The UK economy was not rapidly recovering last year. We were simply seeing the effects of stimulus in our GDP figures. Economic productivity hadn’t grown at all.
GDP figures for the past 10yrs have been largely thanks to house price inflation. Why do you think Brown decoupled house prices from inflation? If he hadn’t done inflation would have tempered the boom.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Prices of existing buildings – which are the overwhelming majority of such sales – have never been included in GDP. UK home-building is exceptionally low because of severe planning restrictions. Had we built a similar proportion to, say Germany, our GDP growth would have been noticeably higher.
Productivity growth in the UK since 1994 was genuine and had been well above previous trends.
Like or Dislike:
0
0