The BOE vote split today was one of the most interesting central bank happenings in a while. For some context, the “tie” in the first round wasn’t so much so a split between wanting to cut rates and wanting to keep the bank rate unchanged. The proposition that they were voting for was whether or not to cut the bank rate by 25 bps.

And that saw a voting split [50 bps – 25 bps – 0 bps] of 1-4-4. The tie was between wanting to cut the bank rate by 25 bps and leaving the bank rate unchanged. The sole outlier was Taylor who dissented in wanting to cut the bank rate by 50 bps.

Now, Taylor pushing for a 50 bps rate cut wasn’t a real surprise. But there was an expectation that we would see Dhingra also choose to do so, as they are the two most dovish members on the committee.

So, could you imagine this? What if Dhingra had dissented in favour of wanting a 50 bps rate cut as well?

That would result in a voting split of 2-3-4 with the majority decision favouring to keep the bank rate unchanged. Remember, the proposition was whether or not to cut the bank rate by 25 bps to 4.00%. There was no other option to that proposition on the table.

In this setting (if it happened), it would seem the BOE would have to keep the bank rate unchanged even if there were more members wanting a rate cut. The fault in that was just differing views on how big the rate cut would be.

Thankfully for the BOE and for Bailey I would say, the second vote made it more clear cut as the proposition was for whether to cut the bank rate by 25 bps to 4.00% or to keep it unchanged at 4.25%. Basically, members had to choose one or the other. And that helped to settle the score at the end of it all.