'National Debt set to treble . . something has to give'

If the Public borrowing could be brought under control NOW, or within the next year or so, then this wont happen.

The July borrowing figure was 3.1 Billion, which fully supports the claim that there is something like a £20 Billion black hole in the nations finances.

We all knew that there were difficult times ahead, we were told this during the election campaign, but IF (and I admitt its a big IF) the government can (1) close the deficit and then (2) bring about growth, there will be a brighter future.

• an ageing population, with a falling birth rate and the ‘baby-boom’ cohorts moving through retirement putting downward pressure on revenues and upward pressure on spending;
  
  
• climate change, including the fiscal costs of completing the transition to net zero while also coping with damage from rising temperatures and more severe weather;

• and rising geopolitical tensions, with both the previous and current UK Governments aspiring to raise defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP.

That is, real physical costs, not caused by public spending. Cutting public spending will not cure them, and would likely exacerbate at least two of them.

The projection that interest payments on govt debt will eat up a runaway proportion of GDP by the 2070s appear to be based on current rates of interest and GDP growth. Even good forecasters can't know what they'll be in 50 years time, and the OBR has a terrible forecasting record, even over 1 year. As the OBR concedes, it could be averted if we could just restore GDP growth to pre-GFC rates.

That said, those costs will be inflationary, which would normally mean central banks raising interest rates. If interest on govt debt does eat up a runaway proportion of GDP, something will indeed "have to give". And that something will be the 'full funding rule' - see section 2.13 here - that government should match its net (deficit) spending with bond issuance. A fiscal rule which govt imposes on itself in normal times (if govt would otherwise simply run out of its own currency, there would be no such rule).

As in previous crises - i.e. not normal times - the rule will either be suspended, or circumvented by central banks buying the bonds at its chosen price floor.

But won't that cause a run on the pound?!! No, because the drivers are global and will affect all currencies. Any government stupid enough to try and balance its budget in such conditions (that'd probably be a British one) would find its GDP shrinking faster than its debt, and soon find itself out of government.

Money when you try to think about it is an extraordinarily difficult subject to fully comprehend. If the argument is that governments can’t run at a surplus or balance but have to run a deficit but the deficit can not be unlimited, the obvious question is what level should that deficit be?
Is it possible, in a world where humanity’s greed has put in jeopardy much of life on the planet in the course of at most 200 years, to pursue yet more growth?
Ignoring inflation, if interest is to be paid on debt , then as debt rises interest cost must rise with it compounding the critical gap between spending and tax. How can this be avoided?

It's not about creating money per se, it's about creating GDP which a healthy money supply then follows.  Try it the other way round and you get inflation problems.

And the concern in that report is not that government debt will increase but that the Debt:GDP ratio will treble making that debt unserviceable leading to economic collapse with the inevitable societal collapse following.

Yep. People moan that the tax take as a % of GDP has reached high levels but so has the bill for running an organised society with an NHS and an elderly population.

We want a quality of life like Denmark we need to pay higher taxes like Danes do.  From obr.uk/box/the-uks-tax-burden-in-historical-and-international-context/