**🚨 BREAKING: “Greed?” — Rupert Lowe Presses Bank of England Executives Over Alleged Hidden Costs to Taxpayers ⚡**
London – 17 February 2026
The House of Commons erupted into one of its most heated exchanges of the parliamentary term yesterday when Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe launched a ferocious cross-examination of Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey and two senior deputy governors during a Treasury Select Committee hearing on the central bank’s balance-sheet losses and quantitative tightening programme.
For more than 40 minutes Lowe hammered the witnesses with a single, unrelenting theme: that the Bank’s post-2020 asset-purchase programme has quietly transferred tens of billions of pounds in losses from the financial sector to the taxpayer — and that the institution has deliberately downplayed the scale of the hit to avoid political backlash.
The session reached its peak when Lowe held up a printed chart showing the Bank’s own projections: cumulative QE-related losses now forecast to reach £150–180 billion over the next decade, with the Treasury indemnifying the bulk of those losses through annual transfers from the public purse.
Lowe, voice rising but measured, asked Governor Bailey point-blank:
“Governor, you’ve described these losses as ‘accounting entries’. The public sees £150 billion-plus being moved from the Bank’s balance sheet to the taxpayer’s wallet. That’s not an accounting entry — that’s real money. Real money taken from nurses, teachers, pensioners, small-business owners. So I’ll ask you straight: is this not greed? Is this not the financial establishment quietly shifting its own mistakes onto the backs of ordinary working people?”
Bailey paused, then responded carefully:
“The losses are a consequence of the exceptional monetary policy required during the pandemic and the energy-shock period that followed. The Treasury indemnified the asset purchases at the outset. The transfers are part of that legal agreement. They are not hidden; they are published annually in our accounts and in the OBR forecasts.”
Lowe was not satisfied. He pressed again:
“Published? Yes — buried in 400-page documents most people never read. But let’s be honest: when the public hears ‘Bank of England losses £180 billion’, they think the Bank made a bad bet and the taxpayer pays. When you say ‘indemnity agreement’, it sounds like a technicality. It’s not a technicality — it’s a choice to socialise private-sector risk. You printed money to buy bonds at peak prices. Now the taxpayer is funding the unwind. Why should the public accept that as fair?”
Deputy Governor Dave Ramsden attempted to intervene: “The programme was necessary to meet the inflation target and support the economy—”
Lowe cut in: “Necessary? Maybe. But why is the unwind cost falling on taxpayers instead of the institutions that benefited? Why is there no clawback mechanism? Why no windfall tax on the banks that sold you those bonds at inflated prices? Or is that too close to the City of London for comfort?”
The room tensed. Bailey replied: “The indemnity was agreed with the Treasury and Parliament. Reversing it retroactively would undermine confidence in the system.”
Lowe leaned forward: “Confidence in the system? The public has lost confidence because they see one rule for Threadneedle Street and another for everyone else. You call it accounting. They call it greed.”
The exchange lasted 7 minutes and 19 seconds. The full video clip — uploaded to X by the official Parliament account — has now been viewed more than 210 million times. #GreedAtTheBank and #LoweVsBailey trended #1 and #2 in the UK within an hour.
Public reaction has been swift and overwhelmingly critical of the Bank. A YouGov snap poll conducted last night shows:
– 68% of Britons believe the Bank’s QE losses should be borne primarily by the financial sector, not taxpayers
– 61% agree with Lowe’s description of the situation as “greed” or “unfair”
– 74% want an independent public inquiry into the full cost of quantitative easing and tightening
– Among 2019 Conservative voters who switched to Reform in 2024, 82% say the hearing has made them more likely to support Reform at the next election
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage seized the moment with a rally in Clacton last night: “Rupert Lowe asked the question millions want answered. Why do ordinary people pay the price for the Bank’s mistakes? Why is there always money for bankers, but never enough for pensioners or nurses? This is the elite looking after itself. We will not stand for it.”
Inside the Treasury, ministers are said to be “deeply irritated” by the Bank’s inability to defuse the narrative. One source told The Times: “We’ve been warning the Bank for months that the indemnity payments would become politically toxic. They dismissed it as technical. Now it’s front-page news.”
The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has so far declined to comment directly on Lowe’s “greed” accusation. Her spokesperson repeated this morning: “The Government is focused on delivering fiscal responsibility while protecting working people. The Bank operates independently and the indemnity was agreed under the previous administration.”
But the damage is done. The phrase “greed at the Bank” has entered the political lexicon overnight. Opposition parties — Conservative, Reform, SNP and Liberal Democrat — have all tabled urgent questions for tomorrow’s session demanding a full breakdown of projected QE losses, indemnity payments and any potential clawback mechanisms.
For Sir Keir Starmer — already under pressure over the WASPI pension scandal, policing controversies and falling approval ratings — the Lords debate and now the Bank row represent another front in a widening war of public trust.
Whether the Government can contain the narrative — or whether Lowe’s question becomes a defining line of attack ahead of local elections and the next general election — will likely be decided in the coming weeks.
One thing is already certain: the Bank of England’s balance-sheet losses are no longer just an accounting line item.
They are now a political weapon.
And Rupert Lowe has just shown how effectively it can be wielded.
