Osborne's bank raid reconsidered

Was the "smash and grab" actually so bad?

When Osborne re-arranged the accounts between the Bank of England and the Treasury to put the £37bn profit of the QE programme on the nation's books, it was widely seen as a swindle, with our own David Blanchflower calling it a:

Smash-and-grab raid on the Bank of England to make his borrowing look lower.

But the FT's David Keohane (yes, second time today) wonders if the fading importance of central bank independence means that we should reconsider that assessment. Keohane writes:

We still find it hard to view the “raid” itself in any sort of harsh negative light.

We did and do acknowledge the timing was… awkward… but essentially it’s still accounting — the shifting of figures between a parent and a subsidiary. If anything, the “raid” has made the whole process far more transparent.

More generally, the idea that central bank independence might necessarily be eroded, and that it might be a good thing, was until recently taboo. But it is becoming more and more accepted that a central bank’s status is dependent on the economic realities it exists in.

The two big problems highlighted by Osborne's raid were that it blurred the lines between monetary and fiscal policy, and that it could come back to bite in the future. The former's looking like less of a concern in the current climate, but the latter actually might not be that bad. Even if it has already happened.

Keohane quotes Bank of America Merril Lynch's John Wraith:

As a result of the dramatic spike higher in yields that occurred over the first week or so of the New Year, the mark-to-market value of the BoE’s portfolio of Gilts acquired through QE over the past four years dropped by more than £7bn.

The Treasury/BoE is still earning £1bn a year month of positive carry — the value of holding the bonds — which ought to soften the blow. But ultimately, the fear sparked by an accounting change may prove to have been a storm in a teapot.

The Bank of England. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

McKay Savage/Wikimedia
Show Hide image

John McDonnell's Mao zinger spectacularly backfires

The shadow chancellor quoted from Mao's Little Red Book in his response to George Osborne's autumn statement.

John McDonnell's response to George Osborne's autumn spending review has quoted from a surprising source: Mao's Little Red Book.

The Little Red Book is the name commonly given to Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung, a book that collected together the - you guessed it - quotations of the former Chairman of the Communist Party of China. It was widely distributed after the cultural revolution during the personality cult of Mao, alongside Lenin's The Three Sources and Three Components of Marxism and Engel's Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. 

In response, George Osborne opened the copy of the book and said "it's his [McDonnell's] personal signed copy".

Aside from chapters on labour, women and the army, the book also collects quotations on topics like "Imperialism and All Reactionaries Are Paper Tigers". Mao's legacy as a political theorist is somewhat contested given the approximately 18 to 45 million people who died during China's "Great Leap Forward", a process of rapid industrialisation instigated by the Communist Party in the late 1950s. The death toll from Mao's cultural cleansing program is hotly debated, but sources generally agree over half a million people died as a direct result.

There has been some suggestion that in terms of "not offering obvious spin opportunities to your opponents", the decision to quote Mao may not have been McDonnell's finest.

I'm a mole, innit.