Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What were Labour's budget deficit figures in each year since 2010?
Executive summary
Available sources do not provide a single, complete year‑by‑year table of “Labour’s budget deficit figures in each year since 2010.” Reporting and official documents instead give headline deficit estimates for 2010 and discuss totals or percentages around that time (for example a cited 2010 deficit figure of about £158–£168bn and Treasury/Parliamentary forecasts of ~£163bn or similar) [1] [2]. Other sources review broader trends and disputes about what to count as a “deficit” (current vs overall, structural vs headline) but do not list Labour‑specific annual deficits for every year since 2010 (not found in current reporting).
1. Why a simple “year‑by‑year Labour deficit since 2010” is hard to produce
The debate over the 2010 deficit illustrates the central problem: commentators and political actors use different measures — headline borrowing, cyclically‑adjusted (structural) deficit, current budget deficit, or specific “black hole” or forecast shortfalls — and sources do not present a consolidated, Labour‑only annual series after 2010 [1] [2]. Parliamentary briefing in 2010 cited forecasts of a 2009/10 deficit around £163bn (11.1% of GDP) and projected falls thereafter, showing how even official numbers are framed as forecasts and projections [2]. Full Fact notes that a commonly quoted “£158bn” figure for 2010 referred to the size of the deficit when Labour left office but cautions comparisons can be misleading because figures measure different things [1].
2. What reputable sources say about 2010 specifically
Official UK material and independent fact‑checks agree the government entered 2010 with very large borrowing: the 2010 Parliament briefing recorded borrowing forecast at roughly £163bn (11.1% of GDP) for 2009/10 and other public summaries reference a comparable ~£158bn figure as “the deficit” when Labour left office [2] [1]. Full Fact stresses that such headline sums are often presented without clarifying whether they are forecasts, end‑year outturns, or include one‑off items [1].
3. Disagreements and partisan uses of the numbers
Political parties have repeatedly used different deficit concepts to score points. Conservatives in 2010 and later emphasised a large Labour‑era deficit to justify rapid consolidation, while critics argued much of the rise was driven by the global financial crisis rather than discretionary Labour overspending [3] [4]. Full Fact explicitly warns against direct, simplistic comparisons of “black hole” claims because they refer to different measures — a point used by both sides in 2024–25 debate about inheritance figures [1] [5].
4. What the sources can (and cannot) give you about year‑by‑year figures
Available documents in the provided set include budget statements, parliamentary briefings and fact‑checks that cite individual headline numbers or forecasts for particular years (notably 2009/10–2010/11), but they do not publish a continuous list of Labour‑attributable annual deficits from 2010 to the present in one place [6] [2] [1]. If you want a complete year‑by‑year series (numerical amounts for each financial year), those series are typically compiled by the OBR or ONS; the provided search results do not include an OBR or ONS time series table to cite here (not found in current reporting).
5. How to get the precise year‑by‑year numbers and what to watch for
To compile a defensible annual series you should consult Office for National Statistics (ONS) public sector net borrowing and Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) historical tables; those bodies publish consistent, comparable annual outturns and forecasts. When you compile the series, pick one consistent definition (public sector net borrowing, current budget deficit, or cyclically‑adjusted deficit) and state it clearly; the sources here show that confusion over definitions fuels political dispute [1] [2].
6. Contextual takeaways for interpreting any series
Numbers alone don’t settle the argument: experts and fact‑checkers say the 2008–10 global financial crash is a major driver of the spike in deficits Labour faced, but political narratives have used headline sums to assign responsibility for subsequent austerity or policy choices [3] [4]. Full Fact and Parliament briefings repeatedly call for careful comparisons and note that forecasts, structural measures and departmental “black hole” claims are not the same thing [1] [2].
If you want, I can (A) assemble a year‑by‑year table using ONS/OBR outturns and label exactly which deficit definition I use, or (B) extract the specific headline numbers referenced in the sources you provided for 2009/10–2010 and 2024 claims and present them with the caveats above. Which would you prefer?