AS THE post-referendum economy wobbles, the Bank of England is acting to prop it up. On August 4th, when it cut the base rate of interest to 0.25%—the lowest in its 322-year history—it also announced a new round of quantitative easing (QE), or printing money to buy bonds. The new round had a shaky start. On August 9th the bank bought fewer gilts than it had hoped, a reflection of illiquidity in long-term-debt markets and thin summer trading. Even when completed, the effect will be marginal: the £60 billion ($78 billion) in new QE is small compared with the £375 billion the bank had already amassed.

A second problem concerns the impact of an ultra-low base rate. Such enthusiastic slashing can create more problems than it solves. Banks make money by charging borrowers more than they pay savers. As the base rate nears zero, the margin between rates on saving and lending is squeezed. This is because banks are loth to offer savers a negative interest rate; disgruntled savers might pull their money out and hoard it under the mattress. As banks’ profits suffer, so they are less likely to lend. Cutting interest rates, perversely, can thus lead to a contraction in the supply of credit.

Here, however, a new wheeze, the “term funding scheme” (TFS), may be able to help. Banks will be able to borrow up to £100 billion of newly created funds, at a rate near the ultra-cheap base rate. Each can borrow up to 5% of their existing loan books, as well as extra funds equal to the increase in net lending in the coming months. Since banks typically pay around 1% for funding from retail deposits or in wholesale markets, this is a boon, says Samuel Tombs of Pantheon Macroeconomics, a consultancy. The TFS will help to preserve banks’ profitability, meaning that the cut in the base rate should be passed on to households and firms.

In some ways, the new wheeze resembles the “funding for lending scheme” (FLS), designed to channel cheap credit to firms, which was launched in 2012. The economic recovery got going soon after its introduction. However, Mr Tombs doubts the new scheme will have such a big effect. The punishment for not lending is hardly severe, as it was under the FLS.

Although in some respects the TFS is underwhelming, in another it is radical. Simon Wren-Lewis of Oxford University argues that the scheme bears a resemblance to “helicopter money”. Under this proposal, the central bank prints money to dole out to the public, with the aim of boosting growth and inflation. A few tweaks to the TLS and the helicopter comparison might seem apt. The bank could in theory make the interest rate on borrowing under the TLS negative, thus paying banks to borrow from it and subsidising lending to ordinary Britons, Mr Wren-Lewis says.

Measures to pep up the economy are certainly needed. Data released on August 10th showed business confidence sinking. But there may be an easier way to put money into the hands of ordinary Britons, points out Tony Yates of Birmingham University. The government can issue long-term bonds at negative real rates; it should take advantage of low rates to fund public spending. The bank is thinking creatively; now the government needs to step up.