Fact check: The Bank of England admit responsibility for the fallout to Liz Truss' budget

1. Summary of the results

The claim that the Bank of England admitted responsibility for the fallout from Liz Truss' budget is not accurate in its simplistic form. While the Bank did take significant action by purchasing £65bn of debt to prevent pension fund collapse ^[1], Governor Andrew Bailey explicitly stated these actions were aimed at maintaining financial stability rather than pressuring the government ^[2]. A more nuanced analysis shows shared responsibility between multiple factors, with a Bank of England working paper indicating that approximately two-thirds of the borrowing cost spike was due to pension industry risks, while another report attributed about half to the mini-Budget itself ^[3].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several crucial contextual elements are missing from the original statement:

• Market Forces: Financial markets, not just institutional actions, played a primary role in Truss's downfall ^[4]
• Constitutional Context: There was a fundamental tension between elected officials' control over economic policy and the independent central bank's role ^[5]
• Document Modifications: Civil servants had to modify documents that originally described the mini-budget as "disastrous" after complaints about political bias ^[6]
• Pension Industry Vulnerability: Pre-existing risks in the pensions industry contributed significantly to the crisis ^[3]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The statement oversimplifies a complex situation and reflects specific narratives that benefit different parties:

• Truss's Perspective: She promotes a narrative of "establishment" sabotage ^[7] and refuses to accept market forces as the primary cause of her downfall ^[4]. This narrative benefits her political legacy by shifting blame away from her policies.
• Bank of England's Position: The Bank frames its actions as purely institutional responses to maintain financial stability ^[2], which helps maintain its image of political independence.
• Market Reality: The evidence suggests that both Truss and Kwarteng failed to anticipate market reactions to their economic plans ^[4], indicating that the crisis was more about market dynamics than institutional conspiracy.

This complex situation demonstrates how different parties can interpret the same events through their own lens, making simple attributions of responsibility misleading.