It is, of course, possible to argue for the end of central bank independence. Returning control of money and interest rates to politicians would put both monetary and fiscal policy where it - arguably - should be, within democratic control. It is possible to argue this way because many do. It is also true that this is the argument in favour of central bank independence. That monetary and fiscal policy should not both be under the control of the politicians.

The governor of the Bank of England has stressed the importance of its independence amid criticism from some politicians about its handling of soaring inflation.

There is a simple efficiency argument here. With an independent central bank action to curb inflation is more effective. The markets - for whatever reason - believe central bankers’ efforts to control the beast more than they do those of politicians. This inflation is curbed with lower interest rate rises than is the case if all were under political control. This also extends to periods when there is no or little inflation, the precautionary interest rates against its emergence seem to be lower too.

It’s entirely possible, as above, to argue that this should not be so. That all should be singly controlled. It’s just that that’s not the way the world out here observes matters.

The populace seems to believe a central banker’s raised eyebrow more than they do the heartfelt promises of some grinning politician. And while that may not be how democracy should be viewed in theory given actual experience it’s difficult to argue against the good sense encapsulated there.