'Value in waiting' or risk falling 'behind the curve': Why the Bank committee's vote was splitpublished at 13:42 BST
Image source, Bloomberg via Getty ImagesClaire Lombardelli (L) and Andrew Bailey (C) at a conference in July
The nine members of the Bank of England's (BofE) Monetary Policy Committee were split 6-3 in whether to hold or raise interest rates - but opted to keep them steady.
Bank governor Andrew Bailey says he voted to hold because global energy costs have had a "limited effect" on price and wage setting. Let's look at some of the reasons - both for and against holding - that the other committee members gave:
Voted to hold rates
- Swati Dhingra says the Bank's rate "remains materially higher than in peer European economies", and that she continues to "see value in waiting for a clearer read" on how significant the shock to the economy from the Middle East conflict is
- The impact of the Iran war "has been more limited than expected" but "the case for raising Bank rate is building the longer the conflict continues", says Clare Lombardelli
Voted to increase rates
- Megan Green warns about inflationary pressures not just from the Iran war, but from El Niño (a natural weather pattern that can bring extreme weather) and AI-related supply constraints among others
- Green says waiting for "definitive evidence" of second-round effects (where economic shocks affect wages and raise inflation further) would put Bank policy "behind the curve"
- Raising the rate to 4.0% now would send "a clear signal" of the Bank's "commitment to achieved its price stability mandate amidst the fog of geopolitical conflict and data noise", says Huw Pill
















