BoE's Dhingra says her rate decision signalled economic direction
LONDON, May 19 (Reuters) - Bank of England policymaker Swati Dhingra said on Monday her decision to vote for a half-point reduction in the central bank's recent interest rate decision was to make a statement on the direction of the British economy.
"I get to pick times when I want to be able to make a more categorical statement about where I think the economy is headed," Dhingra said in a podcast interview to the Financial Times.
"If I were to keep doing 100 basis points reductions, I don't think it would have as much impact on how financial markets perceive that reduction," Dhingra added. "I don't think it would be as strong as if I were to use it sparingly, and that's what I've chosen to do."
The BoE cut its benchmark Bank Rate by a quarter of a percentage point on May 8. Dhingra was one of two members, alongside Alan Taylor, on the Monetary Policy Committee to vote for a bigger 50 basis point reduction.
On Monday, Dhingra also attributed the vote to her wider view on where interest rates should be over the longer term.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
8 minutes ago
- Sky News
NATO chief's speech was meant as a call to arms, but it was also a shameful admission for the alliance
For all the stark warnings and ominous predictions made by the head of NATO today, one key fact remained unmentioned. The West is still funding the Russian war effort to the tune of billions by buying oil and gas, funnelling vast amounts into an economy that is now fully militarised. Russian gas exports to Europe went up by 20% last year and its LNG exports to the EU are now at record levels. Vladimir Putin's Russia is now making more money from selling fossil fuels than Ukraine receives from allies. NATO's secretary general Mark Rutte did not mention any of that. But he did spell out what Russia is doing with all that hydrocarbon revenue. It is using it to put its economy onto a war footing that is now pumping out munitions at a rate that puts the West to shame, to the extent Russia could have the capability to take on NATO in three to five years, according to Mr Rutte. The secretary general meant his speech in London as a warning and call to arms. But it was also a shameful admission for the Western alliance he heads. More than three years into this war, Russia is outstripping the entire Western bloc by four to one in terms of munitions production. 5:09 Russia's economy is 1/25th that of NATO's combined economic might and crippled by sanctions and yet every three months pumps out more shells than the entire NATO bloc manages in a year. And while Europe carries on funding Russia's war effort by buying its oil and gas, none of that is going to change. We are now in the insane and obscene situation where European taxpayers will have to fork out more, a lot more, to counteract the threat of a militarised Russia, whose resurgence is being subsidised by Western countries buying its fossil fuels.
BBC News
10 minutes ago
- BBC News
Job losses at Totally as urgent NHS call firm collapses
A healthcare firm, which provided urgent care services in NHS 111 call centres, has gone into administration with the loss of 100 which employed 1,400 people across several sites in the UK, including Stockton-on-Tees and Newcastle, said workers had lost their jobs across the group but did not confirm how many had been affected at each company has been sold to PHL Group, another healthcare provider to the NHS - with the immediate transfer of 600 of its Vance, joint administrator at EY-Parthenon, said he was pleased that hundreds of jobs and "critical frontline NHS services" had been safeguarded by the sale. Derby-based Totally had been struggling since losing the NHS 111 support contract in February. Mr Vance said: "We are pleased to have agreed the sale of Totally plc which safeguards critical frontline NHS services and includes the retention of over 600 jobs." Follow BBC North East on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.
The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
Rachel Reeves may have U-turned on winter fuel, but her problems are far from over
Standing in what appeared to be a garden centre to announce her latest U-turn on the pensioners' winter fuel payment, Rachel Reeves looked as if she was wilting a bit. Never at ease in front of a camera, the chancellor was more stilted than usual and didn't make much of an attempt to justify the change on any rational grounds. If this 'difficult decision' was the right thing to do last year, when the public finances were under pressure, one might ask: why is it the wrong thing to do this year, when the public finances are still under pressure, albeit for different reasons? She cannot, for reasons of pride, admit the U-turn is because of the recent electoral punishment-beating administered by an angry public – with the added force of Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage both declaring they'd restore the payment in full and immediately. She certainly cannot concede that this totem of her 'iron determination' to do whatever it took to achieve sustainable public finances has had to be tossed away, against her wishes, because the prime minister publicly ordered her to do so and her backbenchers increasingly demanded this hated policy be ditched. But she knows that everyone knows the truth – and to her credit, she cannot disguise her discomfort. She is in the worst of all worlds: she looks callous (even if she is not) but now she also looks weak, and will get few thanks for giving the winter fuel payment back (mostly). This is not a dream combination of attributes for a senior Labour figure or, for that matter, for a finance minister hoping to dazzle the markets. In fact, even in executing this U-turn she has somehow managed to botch things, by trying to retain some element of the means-testing she introduced last year, just to save face. So, even now, not all pensioners will receive their £200 or £300 (depending on age). Or rather, all will receive it initially, but some, not fantastically rich on an income of £35,000 or more, will find it entirely clawed back by HM Revenue and Customs through the self-assessment procedure. It would have been easier all round just to complete the U-turn: instead, Ms Reeves has stopped around the 170-degree mark. It hardly seems worth it. Even when it was first announced at the end of July last year, means-testing the WFP was an ill-conceived move. Of all the options available to her – and all chancellors, even in the tightest of binds, have choices – she plumped for the one that combined an incredibly modest saving (about £1.5bn) with the maximum political damage. Some 10 million active and motivated pensioners were ready to head to the nearest polling station at the earliest opportunity to make their displeasure clear. Too late, Ms Reeves and Liz Kendall pointed out how relatively generous the triple lock on the state pension was. Yet they didn't attempt to point out what a functioning NHS might do for the quality of life of older people. There was never so much as the faintest hint that an incoming Labour government would scrap something introduced by Gordon Brown and retained by the Conservatives since 2010. Making the U-turn announcement now, two days ahead of the comprehensive spending review was, presumably, an attempt to manage the news cycle – getting the good-but-embarrassing news out of the way. That might be shrewd, if the review does indeed show how the public services will 'live within their means' in the coming years, with welcome extra resources for the NHS, schools and the defence of the realm, restoring Ms Reeves's prestige. Yet the authority of the chancellor has been badly compromised by the missteps she's taken in her first year in office – unforced errors compounded by poor presentation. The so-called 'tractor tax' and an over-reliance on employers' national insurance contributions have also landed badly. As some old Treasury hands suggest, it feels very much as though her civil servants reached for their favourite policies when the inexperienced chancellor asked about options, and she accepted the recommendations all too readily, in a way her predecessors did not. Maybe the very real 'black hole' she inherited panicked her. It looks like it. At any rate, she is finding it even more difficult to resist her more powerful colleagues in the spending departments when they push for politically expedient solutions. We need not exaggerate matters, though. Ms Reeves is not like Kwasi Kwarteng being recalled from an IMF summit to be sacked by Liz Truss for delivering (her) mini-Budget in 2022. Nor is this a repeat of a dazed Norman Lamont staggering into Whitehall to announce that sterling was leaving the European ERM in 1992. Unlike in those episodes, the government's economic policy has not been destroyed by an adjustment of about £1bn in a social security budget of more than £300bn. But she knows that she is in a weakened position – and, with no following in the party, depends heavily on the confidence of the prime minister to survive. Sir Keir Starmer knows, as she does, that if he were to move her this early in the life of the government it would only make matters worse in every respect. For now, they're still in this together.
