What caught my eye this week.
I admit that marking the work of the Bank of England is probably above my pay grade.
However listening to this week’s episode of A Long Time In Finance didn’t exactly have me reaching for gold stars for the Old Lady.
The title – The Great QE Rip-Off – sets the tone for where the podcast is coming from, as does the show’s blurb:
Christopher Mahon of Columbia Threadneedle talks to Jonathan and Neil about how the Bank of England bought government stocks and sold them back at a loss.
One example: paying £101 (QE) and later selling it for £28 (QT).
The cost of this insane behaviour to the taxpayer? Probably over £115 billion.
It’s an interesting listen for sure. However I’d suggest the podcast makes things harder to follow than they need be.
That’s because it’s only at the end of the episode that Mr. Mahon explains how the Bank’s chosen course of action is directly costing the taxpayer.
Mahon’s contention is that by dumping long duration gilts into a pretty illiquid market that doesn’t hugely want them, the Bank is putting upwards pressure on yields.
This is increasing government (/taxpayer) borrowing costs – and at a time when we can ill-afford the extra burden.
Cue poor returns
Such market timing and yield curve distortion issues aside, it seems to me the BoE bought its expected returns when it made its gilt purchases, just like any of us do when we buy a portfolio of bonds.
And those returns were never going to be pretty, given it was buying near-zero yield bonds in 2020, for instance.
However QE1 was done for a reason.
You remember? It was to ward off a depression during the financial crisis years, and to support an economy that was all but switched off at times with Covid.
Hence any proper accounting of ‘the cost to the taxpayer’ from the BoE’s profit and loss agnostic bond trading strategy should take into account what would have happened if the Bank had bought different bonds or assets. Or even if it had done nothing at all.
Who knows? £115bn might be a snip compared to the cost of going into a depression.
Perhaps with all the unknowns, working out the true cost and benefit of QE and QT2 is beyond everyone’s pay grade.
At least if the bond rout of 2022 left you feeling bruised and befuddled then you might be comforted to hear the Bank of England doesn’t seem to have gotten through the regime change any better!
Related reading:
- Is the long gilt sell-off an opportunity? – Interactive Investor [Affiliate link]
- Europe can escape a bond doom loop. The US, not so much – Reuters
Have a great weekend!
From Monevator
Decumulation: year two for the No Cat Food portfolio – Monevator [Members]
FIRE-side chat: Accelerating to escape velocity – Monevator
From the archive-ator: You need a plan, not predictions or platitudes – Monevator
News
Contactless payments could become unlimited under new plans – BBC
Shopper confidence falls as Brits expect food inflation to climb – City AM
Car finance compensation should be paid next year, says FCA – BBC
House prices could fall as Budget fears spook buyers – This Is Money
Ministers must do more on Lifetime ISA reform, say MPs – BBC
It’s a tough time to be job hunting in America… – Washington Post via MSN
…while in the UK, ‘job hugging’ is a thing – Yahoo Finance
Farmers feel abandoned as thousands of contracts cut – BBC
Is Britain a good place to retire? – This Is Money
How Boris Johnson’s Brexit opened the door to the biggest wave of migrants in history – Telegraph [Or Sky with no paywall]
Products and services
Three in four savings accounts pay less than the base rate of 4%… – This Is Money
…though Nationwide’s regular savings account pays an attractive 6.5%… – via Yahoo Finance
…so should you fix your savings for five more years? – Which
Get up to £200 cashback when you open or switch to an Interactive Investor SIPP. Terms and fees apply, affiliate link. – Interactive Investor
Co-operative Bank switch offer: £100 + £75 – Be Clever With Your Cash
Vanguard 2.0 – Morningstar
How to avoid overpaying on your car insurance – Which
Supermarket Christmas savings scheme hack – Be Clever With Your Cash
Get up to £100 as a welcome bonus when you open a new account with InvestEngine via our link. (Minimum deposit of £100, T&Cs apply, affiliate link. Capital at risk) – InvestEngine
Why trading apps are going social – Blockworks
Tudor homes for sale in villages, in pictures – Guardian
Comment and opinion
Charles Ellis’ very short guide to very long-term investing – CFA Institute
Inventing problems – Humble Dollar
Just how bad would an ‘AI bubble’ be? – The Atlantic
Yes, a stock market crash is coming – Our Tour
Should you make tax-free pension withdrawals before the Budget? – Which
The ‘vinyl rule’ of retirement: plan for two sides in your next act – Kiplinger
Why don’t even the well-off feel rich? – This Is Money
Active versus passive is a false dichotomy – Alpha Architect
The goldilocks financial plan – The Purpose Code
Capital gains tax Hokey Cokey – Simple Living in Somerset
FIRE may make multi-generational wealth impossible – Financial Samurai
Keeping up with the Joneses mini-special
The bar only gets higher – Of Dollars and Data
All the things you need a billion dollars to buy are bad – How Things Work
How to avoid First World problems – A Teachable Moment
Naughty corner: Active antics
The hypocrisy of avoiding defence investments – Institutional Investor
Extreme concentration in the S&P 500 [Charts, PDF] – Axios
Bloomberg deep dive on crazy high-yielders – Random Roger
Where to? The story of Uber – Quartr
Equity duration and predictability [Research] – Alpha Architect
Kindle book bargains
Flash Boys by Michael Lewis – £0.99 on Kindle
Alchemy by Rory Sutherland – £0.99 on Kindle
The Green Budget Guide by Nancy Birtwhistle – £0.99 on Kindle
Techno Feudalism by Yanis Varoufakis – £0.99 on Kindle
Or grab one of our all-time favourites – Monevator shop
Environmental factors
Back to petroleum: BP’s backpedaling – The Observer
How France built 40 nuclear reactors in a decade – Works in Progress
The plastic recycling changes coming to England in 2027 – Yahoo News
New Zealand looks to kill to conserve – NPR
UK battery firms aim to unlock the path to net zero – Guardian
Corals growing on North Sea oil rig re-homed to artificial reef – BBC
Oysters on a mission to save the North Sea – Fakenham & Wells Times
Protect Arctic from ‘dangerous’ climate engineering, warn scientists – BBC
Robot overlord roundup
Techno-pipe dreams – Aeon
Geoffrey Hinton: AI will make a few rich but most poorer… [Paywall] – FT
…but anyway, AI won’t make you rich – Colossus
Your brain on ChatGPT – Klement on Investing
Evidence from Brazil on the impact of AI in the workplace – CEPR
AI and the breaking of Silicon Valley’s social contract [Podcast] – Odd Lots via Apple
Not at the dinner table
Killing of Trump ally lays bare America’s bloody and broken politics – BBC
The era of a step-on-a-rake capitalism – The Atlantic [h/t Abnormal Returns]
Wealth taxes are making Norway poorer – Unherd
America is getting the economy it voted for – Noahpinion
Ken Griffin: Trump’s risky game with the Fed – Wall Street Journal
New UK Green leader talks to Nigel Farage’s constituents – Guardian
America’s Perón – The Atlantic [h/t Abnormal Returns]
Israel’s war in Gaza and proportionality – BBC
Historical perspectives mini-special
The lost art of thinking historically… – Noema
…or maybe it’s all quite simple (and dark) – Ryan Holiday
Off our beat
Never bet against America – Unchartered Territories
Mike Lynch’s last night: a wildly improbable storm of coincidences – Wired
The school shooting industry in the US is worth billions – NPR
Sicker and stupider – Klement on Investing
On commitment – Adam Singer
Wild running: freedom, but also looking over your shoulder – Independent
Thank you, Melvyn Bragg – Defector
And finally…
“Our earth is degenerate in these latter days: bribery and corruption are common; children no longer obey their parents; every man wants to write a book, and the end of the world is evidently approaching.”
– Assyrian tablet, c. 2,800 BC., Devil Take The Hindmost
Like these links? Subscribe to get them every Saturday. Note this article includes affiliate links, such as from Amazon and Interactive Investor.
The £895 bn which the BoE used for QE wasn’t expended. It was created. The BoE fabricates all the money the Gov spends. Taxation then cancels the spending, helping control inflation. There are no economic losses from OT now, as there was no net cost to QE to begin with. Nor could there be a cost when the money used for QE was simply willed into existence digitally by the BoE. Money is just a consensual shared hallucination. A means of account. The losses aren’t real. However, the damage to human and social capital had the economy entered a deflationary depression in 2009 and 2020 would have been very real.
@Delta Hedge is correct. Money is just magically created, in the UK either by BoE or generally by private banks.
The BoE even have a white paper about it:
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy.pdf
It still escapes most people, including most MPs how money is created.
I enjoyed the link to the article on “Job Hugging”, this is a situation I find myself in, firstly because I’ve got too comfortable in my job after 10+ years at the same company and secondly I’m about 5 years away from FIRE and it seems easier to grind those out doing something with little risk and also the job market seems stale in tech.
Re: And finally,
I guess Arkad held the contrarian position.
Certainly going to be interesting to see what the Bank of England decide to do in relation to active QT rather than passive QT over the next year.
Active QT is where the B of E accelerates the process by actively selling bonds it bought through QE, rather than waiting for the bonds to reach maturity.
Active and passive QT combined have been taking place at about 100 billion pa.
The monetary policy committee make their next bank base rate decision on Thursday and my understanding is that the decision on whether to continue with active QT over the next year is made at the same time, but someone can correct me if that’s not right.
Estimates are that QT is increasing gilt yields at the longer terms by about 0.2% pa (the B of E figure) to about 0.7% pa, but nobody really knows. But whatever it is there must be potential for this decision to significantly affect gilt yields and prices next week.
Active QT also affects the government headroom under its fiscal rules as this brings forward losses from QE/QT into the headroom calculation. So the chancellor might hope for a pause to active QT (?). But then the B of E who make the decision on QT and government are supposed to be independent so there is clear tension there.
While the government can create money, it is also the case, that banks have made gains from QE and QT. Might that be used as an excuse to tax banks at the budget (?). That would seem unfair as the banks didn’t choose to participate in QE. But it’sa possibility.
Index linked gilts are similarly affected. I’ve bought some more index linked gilts at the beginning of the week when yields went up to their highest point but if combined QT is announced to continue at 100 billion pa that will probably work against me.
Well, I for one am interested in the long gilt sell off. A +2.4% index-linked gilt looks very tempting to me as someone who is FIRE’d and wants to diversify away from cash/gold (and not feeling too thirsty for more equities at the moment).
The II article does raise a point which I was pondering myself and would be intrigued to know what other people think – how much higher could yields realistically go, what’s the short/medium term downside risk? It feels to me like there’s a ceiling somewhere that’s not a million miles away from where we are where things start really breaking. Could government borrowing really be sustainable if we had 6.5-7% yields (or 3.5% index linked)? I know it’s happened before, but we’re not in the same place now.
I think the criticism of the Long Time in Finance is somewhat unfair in that the pod explained there were two forms of loss caused by the Bank of England, not one: in addition to the impact on yields on freshly issued debt mentioned at the end, there was also the losses incurred when selling QE-acquired gilts back into the market at a lower price than they were bought for, with taxpayers making good the shortfall.
There are a couple of comments on here from believers in Modern Monetary Theory who argue that these are merely paper losses, because the Bank of England and commercial banks can simply create more money with a keystroke, and therefore they don’t matter. The first part is broadly true, the second is at best overstated. A central bank can issue more bonds, but there have to be buyers. A commercial bank can issue more credit, but there have to be borrowers. In both cases, there are consequences, some positive, some negative, some distributional (ie beneficial for some, harmful for others).
A few weeks ago I’d posted on the discussion about the 2061 and long duration bonds that I’d been doing some naughty active antics.
I’m out of those positions now after capturing what I wanted – a few extra % on total AUM for this year.
It wasn’t as ‘painless’ a ride as I wanted – I got the nadir point of the panic wrong. I should have waited truly until the day Sky News, the Daily Mail and the Radio 2 breakfast show all led with bond panic to buy.
But I did average down that day. And like clockwork, the day of maximum mainstream panic was an inflection point!
Now back in the cosy bosom of the short term money market. I’m sure though there will be another panic coming soon!
As I said above, the main thrust of the complaint in the podcast isn’t related to whether money is being created or unprofitably traded or whatnot. It’s that the particularly heavy handed way the BoE is unwinding its position is distorting the market, increasing yields on long gilts by as much as nearly 100 basis points (1%) (though probably much less) and that this costs the taxpayer through higher government borrowing costs.
From our more selfish perspective, if there is any distortion on that level going on it might be a non economic reason for the UK’s higher gilt yields and potentially an opportunity…
I tend toward the view that QT should have been suspended prior to the start of the BoE’s recent cutting cycle. On one hand they are cutting policy rates, loosening financial conditions. On the other hand, they are selling Gilts, withdrawing liquidity and tightening financial conditions. It’s hard to quantify the net impact when you are moving two variables.
It wasn’t meant to be that way. QE came from the idea that once at the lower bound on policy rates (close to 0%), further rate cuts become ineffective, so QE was a way to futher loosen financial conditions. In reverse, QT would sell back the bonds into the secondary market, before the central bank started to raise interest rates. The sequencing was important.
COVID screwed that all up. The size of the supply shock, combined with a fiscal response that was overextended well into 2021 and even 2022, resulted in a massive pulse of inflation. The BoE had to hike first and then tried to do QT.
So, the BoE is in a difficult position with this. Not much else they could have done given the speed of the COVID shock. Nonetheless, it makes little sense to me to continue QT whilst cutting. Better just to let the portfolio run-off.
With a forward by Andrew Bailey, the Governor of the Bank of England, and written by two of the bank’s economists, the entry-level 2022 book “Can’t We Just Print More Money” is dare I say an interesting nay enjoyable read.
The FT says, “If you feel you should understand how economists think but have no idea where to start, this book is the answer.”
(No personal connection with any aspect of this book)
@ZX, I agree that it is difficult to see why the Bank is selling those gilts (QT) rather than just holding on until they reach their term and expire. I think of QE as like companies buying back their own shares, those shares are then cancelled rather than being further traded.
QE was an important tool in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, when the perceived lack of liquidity in banks’ central reserve accounts (which QE had the effect of boosting) was a risk to the system. And there may be a case that it softened stock market falls by making it less attractive for people to switch from shares to bonds. But after the crisis was over, I am not sure it did much good. The thought was that it might boost the economy, but actually it only boosted asset prices not the real economy. The main block to growth was likely to have been the policy of austerity, and the same money invested in public services and infrastructure would probably have been a better way to achieve growth.
The consensus view (and the Treasury view) is that the hit to the BoE’s gilt holdings’ capital values is not just internal to government accounting, but rather a direct cost to public finances, with HMT to BoE transfers needed to cover such losses, increasing public sector borrowing requirements and/or the necessity of either or both of tax rises and/or spending cuts.
But *why* is this, if indeed it is so?
The capital was created. It was not provided by borrowing.
It is, however, obvious, I think, that aggressive QT in thin/liquidity constrained markets amplifies adverse price moves and risks market confidence, raising real interest costs across the economy (regardless of falls in the Base Rate). Noone can really dispute that, as the BoE sells its gilts, it pushes yields higher, in effect voluntarily raising government borrowing costs and the baseline for long term mortgage rates etc.
Moreover, the benefits of QE in stabilising both financial markets and the real economy during major crises like COVID are often glossed over.
Without it, deeper recessions or market collapses would probably have cost far more than today’s alleged (but, I’d argue, illusory) ‘losses’.
I’d accept, however, that an ‘MMT only’ inspired view risks ignoring inflation effects, political limits, and distributional consequences. Who benefits? Who pays?
But, even if ones argues that the losses are real, or, at least, regardless of their (un)reality still have to be sterilised by less spending/higher taxes, not all losses are then equal.
Bonds held to maturity still deliver coupons.
The psychological and credibility costs of mismanaged QT are, however, real, as rising yields signal fiscal strain.
A slower, more transparent unwind, letting bonds mature naturally, would minimise losses and any market distortions.
> The capital was created. It was not provided by borrowing.
The trouble is that the GFC created a lot of capital from smoke and mirrors, and the QE was launched into this sucking money pit to try and put the fire out. Which was fair enough. Covid also destroyed capital, or leastways stopping it being created by productive effort, and again, created capital not borrowed launched into it.
Sure MMT opposes the hausfrau theory of the economy, but it does seem to be associated with ever-increasing debt and an ever-increasing money supply in excess of the natural increase in the amount of goods and services in circulation.
I got nothing against the firefighting, but sometime you do have to refill the tank, presumably? Else why not drop money from helicopters to solve all the ills, after all, created not borrowed?
At a very simplistic level, is it the case that money creation exacerbates the difference between those who own some assets with those that don’t. Eventually, those who don’t own any get so numerous and so pissed off, you get a revolution?
An analogy being a bike race in strong cross winds. As the echelons form, if you’re not in the front pack, it’s then impossible to get back on, they just move further away up the road…
@all — Cheers for the comments and thoughts. I’m not sure everyone has listened/skimmed the podcast though!
As mentioned above, the argument as I understand it is not that QE itself is causing a profit or loss. It’s that the BoE’s chosen method of winding down its position — by apparently price agnostic sales into the market — have pushed up long-term yields (because the market doesn’t want this stuff at lower yields) and that this in turn is costing the taxpayer, because *elsewhere* the government is having to borrow (/issue long-term gilts) at higher than otherwise yields.
Hence one reason why some here and elsewhere are suggesting it’d be letter to just let the positions run to maturity (or perhaps wait for a more propitious time, when *cough cough yeah right* the UK isn’t in such a straightened state and so reliant on borrowing…)
@Rhino #14 > is it the case that money creation exacerbates the difference between those who own some assets with those that don’t. Eventually, those who don’t own any get so numerous and so pissed off, you get a revolution?
I’ve heard it said that the honest dropping of money from helicopters gets the same effect without privileging asset holders.
The obvious riposte to
> perhaps wait for a more propitious time, when *cough cough yeah right* the UK isn’t in such a straightened state and so reliant on borrowing…
Is that it’ll never come. This is what decline looks like. For all I know the BoE can see the next economic fire starting and would like to have something in the tank, hence flushing things out at whatever price.
That’s the Austrian hard money and Chicago school monetarists strongest point – even if Keynes is right (spoiler alert, he was) Government’s haven’t the spine to tell the electorate in the good times that taxes and interest rates have to go up and spending down to prevent the economy from overheating, inflation from rising and the debt burden from bloating.
There’s no excuse for a deflationary depression.
We can readily cure that with QE or helicopter money.
That’s the easy bit.
The difficult decisions come not in 2008/9 and 2020 scenarios, but in periods like 1997-1999 and 2004-7, when the economy looks to be doing fine, but we’re not doing enough to prevent its’ overstimulation and to try and keep both private and public sector debt levels under control, and demand constrained to supply.
As @ZX has rightly said many times here, we get the politicians that we deserve – which might explain why they’re all c**p, whether it’s the Faragist (Peronist) far right fanatics, Keir the out of his depth centrist Dad, or Corby and Co. with their Citizen Smith tribute act.
The problem for us is that the UK has never had a wheelbarrows of cash Weimar 1923 moment to shake us out of our stupor.
But, then again, Germany’s problem was that it did have a Weimar 1923 moment, and that this then terrified it from taking any (even prospectively obviously necessary) counter cyclic stimulus medicine to mitigate the worse ravages of deflationary depression during 1929-32, with soon to manifest and quite dramatic geopolitical consequences.
On the whole, if I had to chose between the economic fates of stagflationary ‘fire’ and deflationary ‘ice’, then I’d prefer the latter, as the answer is both obvious, simple and easy (spend your way out).
But dealing with stagflation is like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube. When structural inflation and deficits get established then it’s hard and complicated to reverse.
Mr Bailey is getting some right stick today over OT.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/09/15/andrew-bailey-under-political-attack-on-all-fronts/
His approach may or may not be the right one, but the appearance of a lack of authority on his part (like with our present PM) is a confidence issue for markets. He hasn’t exactly been stellar either in his current role as Governor (since 2020) or his former one at the FCA (from 2016 to 2020).
Bring back Mark Carney. Techy but competent.
Or appoint Andy Haldane, Adair Turner or Paul Tucker.
Better still, given what’s at stake running monetary policy for a £2.9 trillion p.a. economy, why not just appoint them all (as the 3 wise men) to replace Bailey?
He’s on £600k all in, so £2 mn annually would cover a trio / triumvirate.
@ermine, if you read the serious MMT proponents you will find they spend most of their time discussing how much (and what) to tax to prevent an inflationary increase in the money supply.
@DeltaHedge, absolutely, there was nothing wrong with Keynes until you let politicans loose on his insights. And the resolute anti-Keynsianism in Bailey and the BoE is crazy, his whole raison d’etre is to take wider economic understanding into account without following a politician’s shortsighted emphasis on electoral prospects.
The issue with the BoE and economists in general is a combination of a lot of the above, much of which relates to the immediate current situation in the economy, but also, they are unaccountable and untouchable. I understand and am fine with the need for independence, but when there is absolutely zero chance you can be held to account with genuine consequences of any note, you really should be recognised as nothing more than an advisor.
When asking what the economists currently think about some marcroeconomic topic , I always get a snappy return “40% chance of…” which has became a running joke about how they actually do not ever commit to anything and when they are “wrong”, the defence is the near 50% statement (or split vote) which is basically worthless other than a slight indication of a preferred direction.
Regarding rate setting, the entire tool kit is higher, lower, no-change, and a dial+button that almost always is set to 0.25%. This is not the tool kit of highly educated and skilled individuals with the tools to set out to save the day. The truth of the matter is the direction of travel for the economy is set by the government, and the BoE etc, at best, can give nudges or make statements that sound a lot like vieled advice, which basically can be ignored until a crisis.
Despite the above, we now are getting first hand view of what happens when you put people generally ignorant of economics in powerful positions that depend on at least a rudimentary knowledge of it. Ms Reeves is going to be replaced eventually*, I can only assume they are waiting for the budget. The problem is not that politicians are generally incompetent (they are not) but the fact they cant get elected unless they promise more than the opposition, and then they most often have zero formal training and knowledge in the areas they lead once in government. This situation is not common outside of government. The problem is then magnified by reshuffles and changes, and ultimately made worse by a most likely term of less than a decade. Add on top of this, a, by design, employment structure that funds people whos entire job it is is to basically be agitators and to criticise your work day in day out (opposition), but without any real requirement to be proposing alternate plans that they will be forced to be clear on and stick to, and be accountable for. We can see why we end up in bad places.
The entire set up is not conductive to good planning and outcomes, but this is what we have. We see the worst consequences in anything that is fundamentally a long term or slow burn problem, like pensions, the economy, the national debt. It wont happen, but any problem that likely will outlive the current government really needs to be made politically neutral and attempts made to plan better.
How does this all relate to the post, well, ‘just keep selling more gilts’ into the future, kicks the can down the road, and delays and works, until it doesn’t.
*For completeness, the view that trickle down economics works and the Truss-type view which is against all research findings and experience is probably worse. I am making no statement of political colour.
@Random Coder, exactly. The only tool the BoE has is interest rates, but raising interest rates is only going to work if inflation is due to domestic overheating of the economy and then with a lag. Because they have nothing else they use it on externally stimulated inflation (Russia invasion of Ukraine) and then are surprised it doesn’t work.
(To be fair though, interest rates always needed to rise a bit to track inflation, but they should have come down once inflation did).
As you say economists of both parties seem to ignore the ample real life evidence that neither austerity nor trickle-down tax cuts work to encourage economic growth.
@ Random Coder (#19)
“Add on top of this, a, by design, employment structure that funds people whos entire job it is is to basically be agitators and to criticise your work day in day out (opposition), but without any real requirement to be proposing alternate plans that they will be forced to be clear on and stick to, and be accountable for. We can see why we end up in bad places.”
Exactly this. That’s the problem the current government have. Since 2010 until the GE last year, Labour had the luxury of being able to oppose without really having to say what they’d do different / better.
They didn’t take 14 years to work out a plan of attack, and won the GE largely by “not being the tories”, and seem not to have realised, or have forgotten, that what works in opposition (aka: what you can get away with) won’t work when you’re in government.
You see this in their hurt surprise that the shenanigans of Tulip Siddiq, Angela Raynor, Peter Mandelson etc etc are getting so much negative air time.
Their problem is that they’ve not really mentally adjusted from being in opposition. If they still were in opposition, all of these scandals would have had a fraction of the attention they have had because people’s attitude would have been “they’re in opposition, so it doesn’t matter”.
Unfortunately for Labour, they’re now in government, so it does matter. And moreso for a party that when in opposition, promised to be “the most open and transparent” government ever, and made a big thing about “the adults being in the room”.
Turns out they’re just as keen to bury scandals and to behave like petulant children as the last lot.
Boris was unseated for eating a bit of cake at the wrong time. “So what” you might say – the problem was that we still generally have quaint notions in this country along the lines of “Those who make the rules should also abide by them”.
Labour, having called out the Tories on this sort of thing constantly throughout the Coalition / Tory time in government, and often in very morally outraged terms, seem have have forgotten that what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.
How does the quote go? “Pesky things the voters. Why don’t we just dissolve them and elect new ones”
Or something like that … 🙂
@Dragon #21 – the quote’s from Bertol Brecht’s 1953 poem “The Solution”, on the uprising in East Berlin that year:
“After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers’ Union
Had leaflets distributed on the Stalinallee
Which stated that the people
Had squandered the confidence of the government
And could only win it back
By redoubled work.
Would it not in that case
Be simpler for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?”