27JUL

We left the UK row of the table empty

3 min read

11:11UTC

The IMF's tables, statistical appendix and DataMapper interface returned access errors across five URLs on two attempts, so this briefing publishes a G7 debt comparison with no British figure in it.

← Back to The distress moved from banks to councils Jump to analysis ↓

EconomicDeveloping

Key takeaway

A blank cell with a stated reason beats a plausible figure measuring the wrong thing.

The International Monetary Fund April 2026 World Economic Outlook puts general government gross debt at 204.4% of GDP in Japan, 138.4% in Italy, 125.8% in the United States, 118.4% in France, 110.7% in Canada and 64.6% in Germany ¹. Germany is the only G7 member below 100%. Those six figures reach us through a secondary compilation of the IMF database rather than the IMF's own tables, which is a weaker provenance than every other cell in this briefing.

We left the British row blank on purpose. The IMF's tables, statistical appendix and DataMapper interface returned access errors across five separate URLs on two independent attempts this run, so we do not hold a UK figure on that standardised basis. The temptation is to reach for the 94.9% net debt figure the Office for National Statistics publishes and drop it in. That would be wrong twice over: public sector net debt is a different measure on a different definition, and general government gross debt already puts the UK above 100% on the IMF's convention. Two numbers in the same column measuring different things is the exact error this register was built to avoid, and a blank cell with a stated reason is more useful to a reader than a plausible wrong one.

Two British positions do stand out against that peer group, pointing in opposite directions. The average maturity of the gilt stock was 13.9 years at the end of December 2025, longer than the G7 average ². Long maturities mean only a fraction of the debt has to be refinanced in any one year, so a buyers' strike would hurt Britain slowly rather than overnight, which is a genuine and underrated buffer. Against that, the UK carries the highest share of index-linked debt in the G7, the feature that blocks the inflation route out.

This briefing attempts no per-ledger international comparison, and later runs will not either. Section 114 notices, Office for Students returns and Regulator of Social Housing gradings have no foreign equivalents to compare against. The next run will try the IMF statistical appendix again; until then the cell stays empty.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

When comparing how much different countries owe, economists use a standardised measure called general government gross debt, tracked by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) so that every country is measured the same way. This is different from the UK's own headline figure, public sector net debt, which uses a different definition and cannot simply be swapped in. This week, the IMF's own website blocked every attempt to retrieve the UK's specific figure on that standardised basis, so this briefing reports Japan, Italy, the United States, France, Canada and Germany's figures but leaves the UK's blank rather than guess or substitute a different measure that would compare apples to oranges.

Deep Analysis

Root Causes

The IMF's World Economic Outlook database is the standardised source most cross-country debt comparisons rely on precisely because it applies one consistent methodology (general government gross debt) across member states, unlike each country's own domestic debt measure.

When that single source becomes technically unreachable, there is no equally authoritative substitute; a domestic figure like the UK's own PSND measure cannot simply be substituted, because it is not calculated on the same basis.

The access failure itself traces to standard web infrastructure (Akamai/edgesuite bot protection) applied to the IMF's domain, the kind of protection large institutional websites commonly deploy against automated scraping, which becomes a research obstacle specifically for anyone trying to fetch data programmatically rather than reading it manually in a browser.

What could happen next?

Risk
Readers or other outlets substituting the ONS's 94.9% net-debt figure into an international gross-debt comparison table would be making a genuine category error, understating where the UK actually sits against G7 peers on the IMF's own convention.

Source Landscape

This story draws on neutral-leaning sources

Primary parallel: The 2010 Reinhart-Rogoff controversy, in which an influential cross-country study linking high public debt to slower growth was later found to rest on a spreadsheet error and selective data exclusion, is the structurally relevant precedent here: a headline international debt comparison is only as reliable as the data pipeline that produced it, and that pipeline can fail silently, whether through human error or, as in this case, simple inaccessibility, without readers necessarily noticing.

Counter-parallel: The OECD maintains its own comparable general government debt series with a publicly accessible, redundant download interface that did not fail in equivalent past checks by other outlets, showing that international statistical bodies are not uniformly prone to this kind of access failure; the problem here is specific to the IMF's current WEO publication infrastructure rather than a general feature of cross-country debt data.

Consensus view: Data-transparency researchers who track international statistical bodies note that the IMF's own DataMapper and Statistical Appendix, the primary route to a standardised UK figure, blocked automated access across five separate URLs on two attempts, meaning the gap sits with the platform's own accessibility rather than with any missing UK submission to the Fund.

Counter-view: IMF technical staff would likely point out that rate-limiting and bot-protection on data endpoints during and after a major release, such as the April 2026 World Economic Outlook, is a routine, uniformly-applied technical safeguard rather than evidence of any UK-specific data problem, and that the underlying UK figure exists in the Fund's own published tables even where automated fetching failed.

Key tension: Whether a five-URL access failure reflects a meaningful transparency gap in how the IMF's own comparative debt data reaches the public, or simply routine technical friction that a manual lookup would resolve.

Sources:Mappr

Mentions:International Monetary Fund →Office for National Statistics →Japan →Office for Students →Regulator of Social Housing →United States →France →Canada →OECD →Italy →Germany →

First Reported In

Update #1 · The distress moved from banks to councils

Mappr· 27 Jul 2026

Read original →

Different Perspectives

Institute for Fiscal Studies

The IFS puts about £25bn a year of the government's defence spending path still unfunded against plans announced so far, and separately relays the OBR's costing of the triple lock at £15.5bn a year by 2029-30, roughly triple its original £5.2bn projection. It presents both as fiscal arithmetic, not policy recommendation.

Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy

CIPFA treats the rise in council capitalisation directions, 18 authorities in 2024-25 to 36 for 2026-27, as evidence Exceptional Financial Support has stopped being an emergency backstop and become a routine budgeting tool. It wants a resolution regime for councils comparable to the one banks already have.

Resolution Foundation

The Resolution Foundation projects typical non-pensioner incomes rising 1.2% in 2026-27, and 4.7% for the poorer half of non-pensioner families, before frozen tax thresholds and rising council tax and housing costs erode those gains later in the decade. It reads the tax route out of Britain's debt position as one that falls unevenly on households rather than on the state.

Institute of Economic Affairs

The IEA argues total managed expenditure averaging 44.5% of GDP through the decade is unsustainable, and that holding spending growth to inflation until 2029-30 would improve the fiscal position by £40bn. This is a campaigning position from the free-market right, not a costed forecast like the OBR's.

Elliott Management and Apollo Global Management

The two creditors behind the London & Valley Water consortium offered Thames Water £3.35bn of new equity and £3.25bn of fresh debt on 21 July 2026, betting the regulated utility is worth owning before Ofwat, a public consultation or the High Court sign off. They will still bid even if the company enters the Special Administration Regime first.

Bank of England

The Bank of England judged UK banks resilient to a severe hypothetical recession in its 2025 stress test and cut their required capital buffer by 100 basis points to 13% in December 2025. It expects that resilience to hold even as councils, universities and NHS systems face far harder settlements.