David Lowry sent me this Q&A from the House of Lords:
Why share it? Because what this reveals is a government willing to hide behind deceit.
The reality is that the purchase of bonds by the Bank of England only takes place with the explicit, written, approval of the Treasury.
What is more, the company that actually acquires government bonds, whilst technically acting on behalf of the Bank of England, is actually wholly indemnified for its actions by HM Treasury. In that case, whilst technically a subsidiary of the Bank of England it is not consolidated within its accounts because it is actually under the control of HM Treasury.
What does this mean in the context of the question that was asked and the answer that was given? Firstly, it means that the claim that monetary policy is under the control of the Bank of England is not true: they only act with Treasury permission. The body actually in control is, therefore, HM Treasury.
Secondly, for a minister to deny responsibility for a policy for which the government is directly responsible is, therefore, to mislead Parliament. That would appear to be a breach of the Ministerial Code.
Thirdly, it seems that ministers now do this without any conscience on a regular basis.
Such is the state of government in the UK now.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
The reality is that the purchase of bonds by the Bank of England only takes place with the explicit, written, approval of the Bank of England.
Should this say “approval of the Treasury”
Yes!
Thank you. Corrected.
Makes me think of this quote;
“I know of only three people who really understand money. A professor at another university; one of my students; and a rather junior clerk at the Bank of England.”
John Maynard Keynes.
I very much doubt anything has changed.
I think you are right
This reminds me of Disraeli’s reply when asked to explain the “Schleswig-Holstein” question. Disraeli said only three people in the world understood the Schleswig-Holstein question; one was dead; the second had gone mad, and the third was Disraeli himself; and he had forgotten. Sounds much line the current Cabinet and their knowledge of their own Coronovirus policy; it is becoming a Conservative trait.
🙂
“ This reminds me of Disraeli’s reply
Thought it was Lord Palmerston or is it one of those questions asked by numerous people?
That aphorism seems to be attributed to Lord Palmerston, but only after his death, and apparently the first known source is in Italian (!) – https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/12/31/mad/
Something similar was said by the MP George Peacocke in 1864 – “The popular theory as regards the Schleswig-Holstein question was that that question had been mastered only by one man, a certain German professor, who went mad in consequence”
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1864/feb/04/address-to-her-majesty-on-the-lords#column_141
The first person – the dead man – is often said to be the Prince Consort; the second – the mad one – a German professor; and the third, Lord Palmerston himself.
Is someone going to take this up with the good Bishop?
He needs to be told.
I will be telling him