Rupert Lowe, the Reform MP for Great Yarmouth, gave one of the most bizarre speeches to Parliament probably made for a long time on Wednesday last week when he presented what is called a ‘Ten Minute Rule' Bill to the House of Commons.
The speech, made in support of his Quantitative Easing (Prohibition) Bill (the text of which has yet to be presented to Parliament), can be found here.
To save you the agony of reading his incoherent diatribe, I asked ChatGPT to summarise it in 120 words, and it offered the following:
The proposed Bill seeks to prohibit quantitative easing (QE) and government indemnification of related losses.
It argues that QE allows governments to undermine economic accountability by devaluing currency, a practice historically associated with moral and financial decline. Examples include Henry VIII's debasement of coinage, Weimar Germany's hyperinflation, and France's Mississippi Scheme.
The speaker criticises modern central banks for unsustainable credit-driven growth, comparing QE to failed policies of third-world dictators.
The speech highlights the dangers of excessive state intervention, debt, and moral decline, advocating for limited government, fiscal responsibility, and adherence to a gold standard.
Historical warnings from figures like Woodrow Wilson and Friedrich von Hayek underscore the risks of unchecked state control over monetary policy.
I confess I find it very difficult to believe that someone who thinks themselves to be a serious politician (and Lowe believes he is that - and Musk even seems to think he should be the leader of Reform) could have presented something as inept as this Bill to anyone, let alone Parliament.
First, the idea that quantitative easing should be banned is extraordinary. This would have meant the UK banking system would not have been saved in 2008. The system as a whole would have collapsed. All savers would have lost their money. Transaction systems would have failed. With it, the food supply chain would have failed. The consequences are almost unimaginable.
The same is true of 2020. I guess Reform think there should have been no lockdown. The NHS would have collapsed. Massive numbers of people would have died, including many more medical staff. And, given the disaster that would have hit the economy, we would have been in deep trouble anyway. But what does Reform care?
Then note that Reform would not indemnify the Bank of England. This means they would let it fail; in other words, they would let the pound fail. As economic policies go, few get more absurd than that.
Except, of course, going back to the gold standard. Apart from the fact that this would guarantee austerity, deflation and 1930s-style recession, just imagine the absurdity of Reform suggesting our money supply must be based on an imported product, the supply of which would be quite costly, and all for absolutely no reason. Economic madness is rarely seen on such a scale.
Then note that rather absurdly, almost all the examples of monetary failure refer to asset-backed currencies or economic management techniques based on foreign-sourced currency, which is exactly what Lowe is proposing we use. He does not seem to have noticed fiat currencies alleviate such concerns.
As for the supposed moral arguments, Lowe seems to think mortgages are the curse that has brought the country to its knees. Either that or he has totally lost touch with reality, as mortgages are the most significant source of credit and private sector (government-encouraged) money creation in the UK.
Lowe was supported by Farage, Tice and the other Reform MPs in presenting this Bill. It obviously reflects their thinking. What we can safely say is that the policy Reform proposed would completely crash the UK economy. They can promote the policy that brought the British, and so many other economies, down in the 1930s if they wish. It is a free country, but people should know that this is their plan.
They should also know that Reform wants to destroy government as we know it by removing its ultimate power, which is to create money. In doing so, the government's ability to save us from disaster would disappear. My question is, why would they want to do that, and what is their aim?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
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!
Worth making the point that part of our current economic problems can be traced to unrestricted lending on property which by definition is in finite supply but thats a story for another day and not when talking about an economic illiterate
Hello Richard,
I think the idea of going back on the gold standard is the most stupidest thing ever suggested by a politician. After WW1 the soldier’s who returned were promised ” a land fit for hero’s,
instead what they got was grinding poverty and unemployment. In the twenties when much of the world was booming Britain was in recession because the City of London pushed the government to return back to the gold standard. In 1925 with Churchill as chancellor Britain returned to the gold standard and instantly all exports became expensive while imports became cheaper. The most notable effect was coal the 1926 miners strike,and the general strike. We should also remember right up to WW2 Britain was in recession alleviated by government spending on house building etc. It was this experience that led after WW2 to Labour coming to power the welfare state and the idea of government intervention to enable full employment etc. So I say the gold standard should be binned in histories failed experiments.
Agreed
Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man.
The old ways are still possible but capitalism also allows this new way.
Capitalism has not done that for a very long time, if it ever has. Capitalism allows for the extraction of value created by others. It is now rentierism, at least in the large company.
Mr Wiiliams,
I am not a socialist, although I believe in a strong public sector; but allow me to rephrase one statement to fit the facts; the fact that capitalism is a financial method that is indifferent to morality.
“Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by enslaving human beings”.
The British West Indies plantation culture was a brutally savage application of a highly efficient capitalist slave plantation business model, in which it treated the slaves as disposable stock; the reproduction rate of slaves in the West Indies was far below replacement, and required perpetual restocking; it was far worse than in the US, that was better able to adjust to the end of the international slave trade in 1807, because the US slave model possessed conditions that ensured a higher survival and reproduction rate.
In the US, Fogel and Engerman produced a famous book ‘Time on the Cross’ (1974), that forensically examined the ROC on slaves in the American slave plantation model. Meanwhile, in Britain the end of slavery in 1833 was only achieved by paying the slave owners compensation based on the market value of their most important asset – not land – but slaves; in order to protect the capital in their business.
Thank you and well said, John S.
@ Richard and readers: Further to John highlighting the business model and return on capital, https://cls-uk.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Drax-3.pdf may be of interest.
Thanks
I pretty much said that in my precis.
Before and after capitalism you could get rich by enslaving people. Capitalism though gave the UK the wealth to try to abolish it.
The last part of Rupert Lowe’s interesting proposal says
Given the historical track record of states abusing their citizens by various forms of currency debasement, including QE, the default position should be to make it illegal, unless this democratically elected House has an informed vote supporting debasement. This Bill seeks to achieve that position, and I commend it to the House.
So QE is still permitted provided the House votes to support it. This takes a little power away from the Bank of England and gives it to those we elect, and I am minded to approve.
QE only ever happens with Treasury approval.
Why not do a little research before supprting the far-right intent on destroying society?
Perhaps I should have added “This takes a little power away from the Treasury as well and gives it to those we elect, and I am minded to approve.”
Approve of what? Reform? Are you mad?
@ Walter Williams
I don’t follow your logic here.
EVERYTHING that every government Department/Ministry does is dependent on the consent of parliament (for now).
The entire budget depends on parliamentary consent (for now).
Every penny spent by government is spent with parliamentary consent (in theory).
Granted, in practice, governments and civil servants run rings round this, when it suits them, with backroom deals and statutory instruments, but it can and will stop if parliament decides it will, and, very rarely, they do.
I utterly fail to see how Mr Lowe’s mish mash of a bill alters that basic principle one bit.
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3916 (as yet, unpublished)
Stopping QE doesn’t make the Treasury any more accountable than an amendment to the Finance Bill does after any budget. It IS accountable – far too powerful – not challenged enough – yes – but constitutionally speaking, it is accountable to parliament like every other part of government. Even the monarchy can be abolished if parliament decides that it should.
The problems with accountability lie in the power structures that control MPs and Cabinet Ministers, getting them into office in the first place, and controlling them once they get there – greed, money, cowardice, criminality, incompetence, the press, corruption. Dealing with THAT is a very daunting task.
It’s the cowardice/ignorance/incompetence/corruption of Cabinet Ministers that stops the Treasury being more accountable.
If they don’t like a policy they can object to it in Cabinet – difficult but possible. They might get the sack, so they can take their objections to the back benches. If they can find 325 other MPs who agree with them, then the government falls (or – with far fewer MPs on their side, but the press and public getting excited, the government changes its mind or falls).
Yes, I know, it doesn’t work very well in practice, but we have seen very recently how vulnerable Prime Ministers and their governments can be to the opinions of their back benchers (Thatcher gave way to her Cabinet dissenters, Cameron gave way to Brexiteers, May gave way to Brexiteers, Johnson gave way to national disgust, Truss gave way to the markets and her back benchers. Unfortunately none of them gave way to economic common sense but that’s another story and why this blog is so busy.
At present we have bad Ministers being facilitated by bad MPs leading to bad government. I’ve never seen it this bad.
But I’m still hopeful.
I’m only interested in it because it’s talking about MONEY AND WHERE IT COMES FROM.
Noted.
Thank you.
It’s known that ‘Tech Bros’ like Musk and Thiel admire William Rees-Mogg & James Dale Davidson’s book ‘The Sovereign Individual’. Its central thesis is that globalised new technology and cryptocurrencies will make it impossible to collect taxes, leading to state disintegration – but far from seeing this predicted collapse as a bad thing, the authors see it as the opportunity for new leaders to emerge, free from the constraints of government regulation, the rule of law, etc…
Surely what he was suggesting takes power away from the BofE and to the House of Commons as he is suggesting QE can only be used after Parliamentary approval. I see this as a good thing and profoundly democratic.
Wow, the trolls are out.
You’re ignoring the destruction of money itself and applauding a minor issue on QE. Ansd you’re also gnoring QE is always under Treasury control. No more comments of this sort will be accepted from people who have never posted before.
Perhaps like his fellow money-grubbing colleague Nigel Farage Rupert Lowe is being paid to promote gold:-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/07/nigel-farage-paid-189000-last-year-by-gold-dealer-to-work-four-hours-a-month
Afterall Elon Musk is a big user of crypto-currencies and also believes gold to be a good bet as hedge. If there’s going to be a global trade war then there’s likely to be global recession in many countries:-
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/global-trends/elon-musk-may-have-a-revolutionary-crypto-plan-heres-what-we-know-about-x-money/articleshow/117011607.cms?from=mdr
https://www.isabullion.com/articles/is-gold-a-good-investment-in-2022-heres-elon-musks-advice/
Great post.
Actually Fa***e is not s sponsor of the bill, a fact obscured by Lowe bungling his naming of the sponsors when presenting the bill in the Commons.
I think the reason is because Fa***e’s now declared paid gold lobbying interests create a conflict of interest as the bill promotes gold, much the same way HE does.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/24840584.nigel-farage-made-189k-just-four-hours-work-advertising-gold/
Great to see more public discussion of MONEY AND WHERE IT COMES FROM, facilitated by the ramblings of those representing corporate interests of Fa***e & Tice’s company. Reform UK Ltd. https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11694875
Vote Reform? This is what the centre left is up against.
Why Elon Musk Loves Britain But Hates Keir Starmer – David Starkey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpGj7M_U-A0
Again the extreme right argue for a Hobbesian dystopia.
And yet again they fail to consider how they might fare in such a world.
They have amassed fabulous wealth under the auspices of a state that protects their property. When that state disappears their wealth will last as long as it takes for someone, probably their bodyguards, to kick their door in and steal it.
This is how you end up with people who rule with just opinions and not knowledge.
Because someone is bankrolling them.
This has been happening in the States for years, and now increasingly it is likely to get worse here.
Remember it is not democracy that makes this happen; it is the undermining of democracy by bad actors that enables this to happen. And the bad actors have deep, under taxed pockets to corrupt public life.
QE is a tool and like all tools it can be used correctly or badly. Gordon brown was correct to use it 2008 to protect the banking system. Rishi Sunak was also correct to use it during Covid, unfortunately he used it very badly, as has been well documented, VIP lane, track & trace, e.c.t. Georges Osbourne’s use of it after 2010 is verging on criminal, creating money to inject in to financial markets and inflate the value of assets predominantly owned by the wealthy.
This is just more small statism from Reform, they do not want the government to have power to help ordinary people. This always reminds me of a quote from Adam Smith which says, “For one very rich man, there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions. It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of that valuable property, which is acquired by the labor of many years, or perhaps of many successive generations, can sleep a single night in security.”
Firstly, this quote neglects to mention that the “labour of many years” is not just the labour of the wealthy, but the labour of many others who will not have retained the full value of their labour. Secondly, it highlights what small government is really about. Lowe, Rice and all, do not care if government are interfering in the lives of ordinary people or not, they just want to have a government that is focused on protecting and enhancing the wealth of the wealthy.
1st attempt by (de)Form to normalise thinking about alternatives such as gold or crypto. Gets people talking and, given whay passes for UK media, starts to almost normalise the consideration of alternatives to gov’ controlled fiat curreny. Given the poor state of discussions on money etc (Richard on endless radio & TV progs trying to talk sense to mostly imbeciles) this will doubtless get traction with UK serfs/peasants etc = job done.
Ruper Lowe’s proposals would weaken the UK state and impoverish its citizens. As such he is a traitor and enemy of the British state ditto the other deForm MPs. It is as simple as that, this is how they must be regarded.
Did you ever read The Sovereign Individual? I’m sure someone must have posted about this before on here, but when I heard about it on the fantastic Gabriel Gatehouse BBC podcast, The Coming Storm, I had to grab a copy and give it a read. A sort of know your enemy thing given it was picked up by Peter Thiel and pushed as an agenda.
At first it sort of works as a kind of anti-Sapiens, a darkest timeline view of history that sees any form of organisational structure, the village, town, city, nation state ad being the scourge of the true and free entrepreneurial spirit of mankind. Then it becomes a blueprint for how to use the coming Information Age as a weapon to destroy nation states and create a free-market utopia of sovereign individuals where everyone is “free” to determine their own value. Where everything is a fee to be paid. It takes in the information economy and crypto-currencies etc as ways in which they can undermine Evil government and win the future. Daddy Rees-Mogg has some extremely withering put-downs about governments printing money as a means of escape.
I don’t think it requires a question. Much like what you were saying about Musk and his bros in the city, this is a co-ordinated (or at least correlated) attack on nation states. They recognise that the only power that is a threat to their untrammelled ability to exploit the world is the nation state and in particular fiat currencies’ ability to make money and tax it back again. They do want to destroy the UK and the pound because then no one can stop them creating that utopia.
They’re nuts. Have you read it? It’s quite intolerable, but I’d love to know your thoughts on it.
It reminds me of this weird novel called The Inheritors by Ford Madox Ford and Joseph Conrad about this breed of rationalists who call themselves The Fourth Dimensionists and are hatching a plan to take over the world. It even involves a bid to annex Greenland.
I have not read it.
But thanks.
Well, if we’re going to get into the topic of bonkers commentary, it’s hard to pass up the op-ed provided by Peter Thiel , recently published without wall in the financial times.
Many people avoid the comment section, but I highly recommend digging into this one. It is absolutely rich material. Mind you that this gentleman happens to be one of the PayPal mafia cohort, Peter Thiel, Dave Sacks, Elon Musk, which includes Mark Zuckerberg all seem to be exhibiting behavior that could be described as crackhead delusion or Schizophrenic breaks with reality. The technical term for this I believe is bonkers.
https://www.ft.com/content/a46cb128-1f74-4621-ab0b-242a76583105
Elon Musk, if I’m going to believe what A Different bias reports “ REPORT: Cummings Working with Elon Musk to Bring UK Down”
Is it quite tolerable to you all out there that a South African born foreign national is dropping pocket change to buy politicians, is intimately involved in trying to meddle with your government, and incite race riots?
At least German universities and sporting leagues are having the good sense to abandon Twitter. And the pace is gathering force throughout Europe to ostracized the platform. Meta is not too far behind. My hope is that TheScentedOne and Zuck can be referred as MySpace-Karens in the near future.
It’s uncanny how much Musk is similar to the villain from Moonraker.
[…] might be intent on crashing the economy, our society and even country, but it seems that the people of the UK want that to happen. This was […]
I never thought I’d say it, but I think it’s harsh to say that Reform “want to destroy the economy”, as opposed to “Reform’s policy would destroy the economy, because they don’t understand how it works”.
Keynes famously wrote “Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.”
This applies to all sides of political debate. To understand why Labour, and most newspapers, have what you call a “neoliberal” view, look at what they learnt doing PPE in the ’80s and ’90s.
Reform on the other hand, seem to be the slaves of even older economists, possibly ones from the 19th century, rather than the 20th.
I was once a natural scientist, trained to fit my theory to the available data. It baffles me how many politicians and economists just don’t think like this, and carry on believing nonsense long after it’s disproved.
In Reform’s case, I think the plan is knowingly adopted. The consequences are far too well known for anyone to do so by accident.