By Ian McConnell
Business Editor
A RISE in benchmark UK interest rates to two per cent or higher within the next year is not “unlikely” or “implausible”, a member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee declared yesterday.
Michael Saunders, who voted unsuccessfully for a half-point rise when the nine-strong MPC voted to increase UK base rates by a quarter-point to 1.25% last month, said in a speech at the Resolution Foundation think-tank in London: “The precise path of future monetary policy is, of course, inherently uncertain, because it will depend on future economic developments that cannot yet be foreseen. But I note that the BoE (Bank of England) market participants’ survey and the Treasury’s survey of external forecasters both suggest that Bank Rate will rise to around 2% in the next year.
READ MORE: Ian McConnell: Are Tories about to see some sense as cost-of-living crisis builds?
“Market pricing is even higher. Neither the external consensus nor the path of inflation break-evens implies that such a rate path will leave inflation below target over time. Without wishing to endorse those views too strongly, I do not regard such an outcome – i.e. that Bank Rate will have to rise to 2% or higher during the next year to return inflation to target – as implausible or unlikely.”
He added: “But, rather than focus on a precise forecast for Bank Rate over the next year, the key point is that the tightening cycle may, in my view, still have some way to go.”
READ MORE: Ian McConnell: High time Tories did level with the public
UK base rates have been increased since late last year from an all-time low of 0.1%, as inflation has surged. Annual UK consumer prices index inflation had by May risen to 9.1%, more than four-and-a-half times the 2% target set for the Bank of England by the Treasury.
Mr Saunders said: “My own view is that further monetary tightening is likely, and indeed, as evident from my votes at the MPC’s recent policy meetings, my preference has been to tighten relatively quickly.”
He added: “This partly reflects my view that risks are tilted on the side of a more persistent period of excess demand and domestic inflation pressures than implied by the most recent MPR (monetary policy report) forecast, published in early May. Despite the inflation-induced erosion of real incomes, I put more emphasis on risks that the backlog of unmet hiring needs and low labour supply will keep the labour market very tight. In turn, I expect that spending will be underpinned by low unemployment, the household and corporate savings accumulated during the pandemic, and the fiscal support measures announced in recent months.
“Moreover, unless restrained by tighter monetary policy, the relatively high level of longer-term inflation expectations implies that domestic cost growth and firms’ pricing strategies may remain above target-consistent rates even if capacity pressures ease to more normal levels.”
Mr Saunders, who steps down as an MPC member next month, emphasised “risk considerations” influenced his policy views, declaring: “In broad terms, the MPC has to balance the risks and costs of tightening ‘too much, too soon’ versus ‘too little, too late’. In my view, the cost of the second outcome – not tightening promptly enough – would be relatively high at present.”
He added: “With excess demand and elevated inflation, ‘too little, too late’ would increase the likelihood that recent trends in underlying pay growth, longer-term inflation expectations and firms’ pricing strategies become more firmly embedded. Such an outcome would increase the costs of returning inflation to target in coming years. And it could make it harder for the MPC to again provide policy support promptly and on a large scale if needed in the future. I believe it is important at present to lean strongly against those risks.
“Conversely, if the committee tightens ‘too much, too soon’ and then finds the economy and inflation pressures are much weaker than expected, the policy outlook could adjust, if needed, and inflation expectations would probably be better anchored than now.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel