You should look at the total effect of debt if your intention is to study what would happen without debt. So the total effect is:
1) 150 billion per year net new borrowing
2) 115 billion per year interest payments
Conclusion: the effect on the budget of stopping this whole debt thing would be a net cost of either 150 or 265 billion per year (because you "lose" the new debt, but you still have to pay the interest payments), or about triple the current budget cost of debt, or 12% to 21% of the total government budget.
The cost of making the debt fall as fast as it was rising would be 150b + 150b + 115b = 415 billion per year, call it 33% of the government budget.
In contrast, making the problem worse at the current rate has a 3% positive effect on the budget. This will not change in the near future. It's exponential and it itself rises at about 8% per year, in other words, next year it'll be 3.2% (and the government could choose to force the banks' hands to get that down)
In other words: the government will do the opposite of what everyone's suggesting here, regardless of labour vs conservatives. Either party will increase lending and make the problem worse, faster. Why? Simple: they sure as hell aren't about to give up a quarter of the budget, especially when worsening the problem actually still has a positive effect on the budget (and a strong negative effect on the problem). Note that the interest payments are actually the smaller part of this. Not borrowing fresh money is between 60% and 70% of the "cost".
Which also shows that the problem is not the rich. Well, unless you count the government. And yes, I count organizations that spend 10% more than they "can" as rich. If spending more than your fair share isn't being rich, I don't know what is.
Furthermore the "reduce debt" is a trap argument. It ignores forget ... we die. Most of UK government expenditure is labor. In other words, reducing the debt, even just stopping the rise in debt, is effectively asking us to work harder now, in trade for the country being in a (let's be honest - slightly) better position in 10 years. So you're expected to give a lot up now, in trade for giving the rich more money now (and less in the future). But you'll die, and if you're 40 or above, the calculus will show that you'll get more government services before you die at 72 if we let the situation become worse, rather than fix it.
1) 150 billion per year net new borrowing
2) 115 billion per year interest payments
Conclusion: the effect on the budget of stopping this whole debt thing would be a net cost of either 150 or 265 billion per year (because you "lose" the new debt, but you still have to pay the interest payments), or about triple the current budget cost of debt, or 12% to 21% of the total government budget.
The cost of making the debt fall as fast as it was rising would be 150b + 150b + 115b = 415 billion per year, call it 33% of the government budget.
In contrast, making the problem worse at the current rate has a 3% positive effect on the budget. This will not change in the near future. It's exponential and it itself rises at about 8% per year, in other words, next year it'll be 3.2% (and the government could choose to force the banks' hands to get that down)
In other words: the government will do the opposite of what everyone's suggesting here, regardless of labour vs conservatives. Either party will increase lending and make the problem worse, faster. Why? Simple: they sure as hell aren't about to give up a quarter of the budget, especially when worsening the problem actually still has a positive effect on the budget (and a strong negative effect on the problem). Note that the interest payments are actually the smaller part of this. Not borrowing fresh money is between 60% and 70% of the "cost".
Which also shows that the problem is not the rich. Well, unless you count the government. And yes, I count organizations that spend 10% more than they "can" as rich. If spending more than your fair share isn't being rich, I don't know what is.
Furthermore the "reduce debt" is a trap argument. It ignores forget ... we die. Most of UK government expenditure is labor. In other words, reducing the debt, even just stopping the rise in debt, is effectively asking us to work harder now, in trade for the country being in a (let's be honest - slightly) better position in 10 years. So you're expected to give a lot up now, in trade for giving the rich more money now (and less in the future). But you'll die, and if you're 40 or above, the calculus will show that you'll get more government services before you die at 72 if we let the situation become worse, rather than fix it.