UK Govt borrowing in April '26 was £24,300,000,000 or £24.3 billion - IN ONE MONTH.

Just for fun, this equates to £357 per person or £1,429 per family of 4 ! IN ONE MONTH.

You can do the sum for a year - this is a major problem that will take decades to correct.

Interest on Govt. debt makes up nearly half of that figure.

Any ideas Brits ?

(Haven't done the sums for the USA!).

Yada yada yada... You Brits need to try and keep up and stop whining...

---

AI Overview

The U.S. federal budget deficit for Fiscal Year 2026—which began on October 1, 2025—is projected to surpass \(\$2\) trillion, with early monthly statements indicating a wider gap compared to the previous year. The Treasury reported massive early outlays to kick off the fiscal year, with mounting pressure from high-interest debt and expanded retirement obligations. [1, 2, 3]

A chronological breakdown of the published U.S. government deficits for the first several months of FY 2026 highlights the escalating trajectory: [1]

• October 2025: Deficit of \(\$284.4\) billion (Revenues: \(\$404.4\) billion | Outlays: \(\$688.7\) billion). This notably exceeded expectations due to complex budget adjustments and high-interest payments.

• January 2026: Deficit of \(\$95\) billion (Revenues: \(\$560\) billion | Outlays: \(\$655\) billion). This month saw significant outlays for military, veteran benefits, and Medicare. [1, 2]

You can track and download the official, ongoing data updates directly through the U.S. Treasury Monthly Treasury Statement platform. [1]

Edited May 24May 24 by gargamon

Thanks Gargamon - I haven't done the sums for the USA but I suspect they're worse.

In the UK, I'd be interested to hear any Politician actually try to tackle this. We grumble about spending on benefits but no one seems to face up to size of the wider problem.

You can't fix a deficit of this enormity, (and bear it in mind we're sitting in deadly neglect of necessary defence spending). You just can't dent this by fiddling around with taxes and benefits !!

A whole new mindset needs to be promulgated but the first Politician who moots a smidgen of 'austerity' (i.e. reality) will be consigned to history in peals of laughter. It's serious.

Meantime, entitled youngsters can study art and butterflies with no hope of ever earning enough to pay for their studies and the taking of unearned gap years, let alone buy a property they have been priced out of.

I wonder if Gordon Brown's advice to the Chancellor will help, I fear not. We're doomed !

Ideas ?

There are perhaps two major obstacles to anything serious being done to correct the financial situation:

1. Public expectations of being able to draw benefits from an economy that cannot support them; and

2. Career politicians with no concern for what produces revenue, only of what milks off revenue already produced, and what sham promises can be made to garner the necessary votes.

In my youth, if I recall correctly, politicians were mostly older folk who had made their mark in industry, commerce, labour (shop-floor then unions), or military.

Doubtlessly there was a desire for personal prestige. Incompetence and corruption (think of Horatio Bottomley) existed in some measure. John Profumo's career was destroyed because he lied to parliament (not because of his relations with Cristine Keeler and Mandy Rice-Davis). But there was also broad experience.

There was dedication to national interests and, divisively, class interests. National crises helped to bring classes closer together. Churchill on return to power did not destroy what the Atlee government had created. Macmillan criticised Thatcher for "selling off the family silver".

M.P.s' salaries were 600 GBP, worth a lot more in today's money but surely less than the 80,000 plus in total emoluments they are said to receive nowadays. Now, young people study politics with a view to making it a career, and perhaps a stepping-stone to more remunerative positions.

Voters have a paucity of choice in the candidates they can vote for. But they get the ones they, as a majority, choose. Public attitudes need to change and perhaps the gathering storm may help in that, if combined with perspicacious grassroots movements.

When the storm finally clears we may end up with a new breed of politicians, and hopefully a few statesmen.

If I were in Britain today, I would put my money on Restore U.K. of Rupert Lowe and/or Advance U.K. of Ben Habib. Not on Nidel Farage's Reform U.K.

When Nigel Farage was an M.E.P, I was impressed by his outspoken criticism of the Brussels bureaucracy. But when Brexit had been voted for, he withdrew entirely from the scene, saying Brexit had been achieved. It had not. Wanting something is not the same as getting it.

After Reform UK had been born, Farage joined and took it over as if it were his personal property. He criticised and alienated some who were fighting for what he claimed to want, changed his policies, and has now started hastily recruiting Conservative politicians who had been strongly anti-Brexit.

In the 1994 Eastleigh by-election Nigel Farage, standing for the newly formed United Kingdom Independence Party, had sought the endorsement of Enoch Powell. The latter declined, reportedly because he felt him to be 'an opportunist'. UKIP was founded in 1993 by Alan Sked, a Scottish Eurosceptic and Professor Emeritus of International History at the London School of Economics. Sked resigned from the party he founded in 1997, claiming growing far-right radicalism.

Edited May 24May 24 by ericbj

Thanks Eric. I agree with your 2 main points.

Yes Political Parties have to propose a lowering of general expectations - it'll be interesting to see how that goes! (It's not hard to predict).

And the Politicians - we have a crowd who care of course but I get the impression, that for most, being an MP is the best paid job they have ever had or will ever have. As you say, nearly all come to Parliament with no real experience or achievements behind them.

So £357 per month or say £4,000 p.a. for each Man, Woman and Child - I can't see how the UK can pull back that deficit!

It defies the imagination to even try to believe that a combination of benefit cuts and rises in taxation can dent that overspending significantly. The UK (and the USA), have major long term changes to make!

So let's start with cutting the 'triple lock' and means testing payment of the State Pension and gold plated pensions for Govt. employees - good luck with that! And ALL other benefits must be cut back.

Tax increases - any ideas ?

Get people back into Employment !

We have to change the common "entitled" state of mind and work at lowering expectations generally - MMmmmm

Who's gonna vote for all that ?

Answer - almost no-one - heads are firmly in the clouds!

8 minutes ago, TorquayFan said:

We have to change the common "entitled" state of mind and work at lowering expectations generally - MMmmmm

Once the government hands out free cheese, no one wants to give it up. If anyone calls for cuts, they will get crucified as trying to kill babies or push grandma off the bridge. Look at the riots in France when anyone tries to make modest changes to its bloated retirement system.

According to this video, in the West, there is a 3:1 ratio of people paying into the system vs receiving benefits. In the US, it's 2.71:1. Since systems are pay-as-you-go, younger generations are getting the raw end of the deal. Here is a write-up with napkin math on the costs of Social Security and Medicare from another thread:

The largest driver of the growing debt is the social programs. The issue with SS/Medicare is the ratio of people paying into the system vs receiving benefits. In 1960, the ratio was 5:1; now it's 2.7:1. The average SS payout is $24,852/year. Which means the people paying into SS are paying $9,024/year to support retirees. Then add in Medicare, which is about $15,000 per person per year. $15,000/2.7 =$5,555.56. Which means the taxpayer is paying a significant amount to support retirees. In reality, these programs are cash flow negative.