This paper discusses recent UK monetary policies as instances of Galbraith’s ‘innocent frauds’, including the idea that money is a thing rather than a relationship, the fallacy of composition that what is possible for one bank is possible for all banks, and the belief that the money supply can be controlled by reserves management. The origins of the idea of QE, and its defense when it was applied in Britain, are analysed through this lens. An empirical analysis of the effect of reserves on lending is conducted; we do not find evidence that QE ‘worked’ either by a direct effect on money spending, or through an equity market effect. These findings are placed in a historical context in a comparison with earlier money control experiments in the UK.