Campaign 2
Make the Numbers Add Up
Hold the Treasury accountable for whether Britain's public finances are genuinely becoming more sustainable.
Every government makes choices about taxation, spending, borrowing and investment.
Those choices affect the services we receive today, the economy we build for tomorrow and the bills future generations inherit.
But debates about the public finances quickly disappear into a fog of fiscal rules, forecasts and competing definitions of debt.
Britain on Purpose wants to make the central question much clearer: are Britain's public finances getting stronger or weaker?
The campaign in 30 seconds
The problem
Britain carries a high level of public debt, while servicing that debt already costs more than £100 billion a year.
Government policy
The Government operates fiscal rules intended to balance day-to-day spending with revenues and put its chosen measure of public-sector financial liabilities on a falling path.
Our approach
Track the Treasury against a simple, consistent public-finance scorecard.
Success looks like
Sustainable borrowing, resilient debt, productive investment and stronger economic growth.
Where we are now
At the end of July 2026, headline public sector net debt was provisionally estimated at 94.1% of GDP. The OBR's March forecast expects headline debt to remain around 95% of GDP in the early 2030s rather than fall substantially. (ONS / OBR)
The OBR forecasts borrowing falling from 4.3% of GDP in 2025/26 to 1.6% in 2030/31. That would represent substantial progress if delivered. But the OBR also notes that plans to reduce borrowing have repeatedly appeared in forecasts since the pandemic without fully materialising in subsequent outturn data. (ONS / OBR)
That distinction matters. Forecasts are promises about tomorrow. We also need to see what actually happened.
The Treasury Scorecard
We want citizens to be able to follow:
Headline debt
Is public sector net debt actually falling relative to the economy?
Government's fiscal debt measure
Is public sector net financial liabilities moving in the direction required by the Government's fiscal rule?
Borrowing
Is annual borrowing falling as forecast?
Current budget
Is government increasingly funding day-to-day spending from revenues?
Debt interest
How much public money is being spent servicing existing debt?
Economic growth
Is the economy growing sufficiently to make the debt burden easier to carry?
Fiscal headroom
How much room remains against the Government's own rules?
Different measures. One honest explanation.
The Government's investment rule uses public sector net financial liabilities, or PSNFL.
The headline figure most people hear described as the national debt is public sector net debt.
These measures are different for legitimate accounting reasons. But when government says that debt is falling, it should always be clear which measure it means.
Borrowing is not automatically bad
Governments sometimes need to borrow. Borrowing to create productive assets can leave future generations with both a liability and something valuable in return. Borrowing indefinitely to fund existing consumption presents a different question.
Our test is:
- What did we borrow?
- What was it spent on?
- What did we get in return?
- What does it cost to service?
- Is the overall position becoming more resilient?
What we are asking government to do
Publish a simple Treasury public-finance scorecard alongside every major fiscal event:
Baseline → Forecast → Latest Result → Fiscal Rule → Status → Explanation → Next Update
Previous forecasts should remain visible so citizens can compare what was predicted with what actually happened.
What we are not proposing
We are not campaigning for arbitrary spending cuts.
We are not arguing that government debt should be zero.
We are not pretending that managing a national economy is the same as balancing a household budget.
We are asking something simpler: show us whether the plan is working.
What would change our mind?
We would change our assessment if the evidence showed that debt and borrowing were becoming sustainably manageable, productive investment was generating sufficient long-term value and government retained credible capacity to respond to future shocks.
Likewise, we would oppose fiscal measures where evidence showed that the long-term economic or social damage outweighed the benefit.
Evidence before ideology.
Policy in Practice
Fiscal policy is particularly prone to the gap between forecast and outturn. A government may announce a credible plan to reduce borrowing that is then revised, delayed or abandoned as economic conditions change. This section sets out how to apply the campaign's proposals in practice.
What we are tracking
Questions the government should answer
- What is the structural deficit, and by when will it be eliminated?
- Which spending commitments are unfunded, and what is the plan?
- What unintended consequences have previous fiscal rules created?
Countries with independent fiscal councils — such as Sweden and the Netherlands — have consistently outperformed peers on deficit reduction while maintaining public services.
What the parties are proposing
We apply the same test to every party: is the proposal costed, independently verified, and does it define how success will be measured?
Current Government
Headline public sector net debt stood at 94.1% of GDP in July 2026. The OBR expects borrowing to fall over the forecast period, but headline debt to remain broadly around 95% of GDP into the early 2030s. The Government's strategy rests on the Stability Rule (day-to-day spending funded from revenues), the Investment Rule (public sector net financial liabilities falling relative to GDP), Spending Review 2025 (£120 billion additional capital investment with 5% departmental savings), Get Britain Working and Connect to Work (supporting ~300,000 people into employment by 2030 at a cost of £1.2 billion), the National Wealth Fund (£27.8 billion to mobilise private investment), and a Defence Investment Plan (£15 billion additional spending 2026/27–2029/30, with £4.7 billion still to be resolved at Budget 2026).
Expected benefit
The fiscal rules could strengthen control over day-to-day spending while preserving borrowing for productive investment. Additional capital investment could improve infrastructure, public services, productivity and long-term economic growth. Helping more people into sustained employment could increase incomes, reduce welfare spending and generate additional tax revenue. Public investment could attract additional private capital and accelerate infrastructure projects. Higher defence investment could strengthen national security while supporting British manufacturing, technology, skills and employment.
Potential trade-off
Compliance with fiscal rules depends heavily on forecasts and how assets and liabilities are classified. Investment increases near-term borrowing while financial returns may take years to appear. Employment support requires substantial upfront funding and does not guarantee lasting jobs. Taxpayers carry investment risk if projects underperform. Defence commitments without identified funding could increase borrowing, taxation or pressure on other departmental budgets.
Conservatives
The Conservatives propose £47 billion of spending savings, with their Golden Economic Rule committing at least half of identified savings to deficit reduction and the remainder to tax cuts and pro-growth measures.
Expected benefit
Spending reductions could lower borrowing and create room for tax cuts, while lower taxes may strengthen incentives to work, invest and grow businesses.
Potential trade-off
The savings depend on substantial reductions in welfare, overseas aid and Civil Service costs. If the savings are not fully achieved — or reduce service capacity — the tax cuts could increase borrowing. Abolishing Stamp Duty would also reduce revenue and could feed into higher house prices where supply is constrained.
Liberal Democrats
The Liberal Democrats place greater emphasis on increasing growth through closer economic integration with Europe, including a customs union and Single Market membership.
Expected benefit
Closer economic integration with Europe could reduce trade barriers, increase investment and exports, and ultimately strengthen tax revenues and the public finances.
Potential trade-off
Any agreement would require negotiation with the EU and acceptance of shared rules or obligations. The scale and timing of additional growth and revenue would remain uncertain.
Reform UK
Reform proposes lower taxes, including a £15,000 personal allowance, alongside reductions in welfare, foreign aid and Civil Service spending.
Expected benefit
Lower taxes could increase household disposable income and incentives to work, while lower public spending could reduce the size and cost of government.
Potential trade-off
Raising the personal allowance substantially reduces tax receipts, while large spending reductions could affect welfare recipients and public services. The package would need independent costing to establish whether the savings fully fund the tax reductions.
Green Party
The Green Party proposes greater taxation of large concentrations of wealth and investment income alongside higher public investment. Its proposals include a wealth tax above £10 million.
Expected benefit
Higher taxation of large concentrations of wealth and investment income could fund public services and infrastructure while shifting more of the tax burden away from earnings.
Potential trade-off
Wealth taxes require difficult valuation and enforcement decisions and may change investment or tax-planning behaviour. Higher public investment also carries delivery and borrowing risks if projects cost more or generate lower returns than expected.
Where there is common ground
All five approaches argue that stronger economic growth is important to sustainable public finances. The disagreement is mainly about how much government should spend, where savings should come from, who should pay more or less tax, and how much borrowing should support investment.
Britain on Purpose: The Test
No fiscal strategy should be judged simply because it meets a rule on paper. We want one clear scorecard: Tax → Spending → Borrowing → Debt → Interest → Investment → Growth. For every major commitment: what was forecast, what did it cost, and what actually happened? Forecast it. Fund it. Measure it. Show us the result.
Spend wisely. Invest well. Make the numbers add up.