Talk:Monetary Policy Committee (United Kingdom)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


from User talk: Savidan

Is this you? I'm a bit confused about the potentially-useful template showing MPC members; where are the details sourced from? For example, Sir Alan Budd left in 1999, but appears to be there to October 2000 on the template that appears on the DeAnne Julius page. Also, some instances need trimming (like Budd's did); are you doing all of them? Help! Carbonix 19:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It seemed useful to me. These people set the British pound, one of the world's major currencies. The composition of the Board at any given time is important, much like Supreme Court Justices, whom I modelled the template after. I got the information from the Monetary Policy Committee article. I thought I got all the errors on the template last night, but I was mistaken. I'll get rid of the remaining Budd's; let me know if there are any other errors. Sorry about the template's size. I like it best on articles like Paul Tucker, but I do intent to expand the articles of most of these people, as they are all notable as economists and other things. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Good; I also agree that even the larger templates (eg DeAnne Julius) will look fine when the articles themselves are expanded, as indeed is already the case with Sir Alan Budd. I'll check for accuracy when I get the chance. My only reservation now(!) is that the heading is a bit off-key; (1) Notwithstanding the Supreme Court inspiration I don't think anyone ever refers to 'The George Bank' when refering to Eddie George's time as Governor, short and to the point though that is! (2) Also, the Title (The George Bank) and the 'subheading' within the panel showing the Governor's name and years in office seem somewhat repetitive, and (3) It may not be immediately clear what the panel covers, especially where the person has had several roles in life (again, as in Sir Alan Budd's page).
To improve all this, can I suggest we either:
  • Change the heading text (in the blue border) to read: Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee Members, only having one blue panel even if the member served under two Governors (as in Paul Tucker's page), and expand the subheading in the panel itself to read something like Governor: Sir Edward George (June 1997–June 2003); OR
  • Change the heading text (in the blue border) to read: Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee Members under Sir Edward George, with a blue panel for each Governor, and then remove the subheadings showing the Governors' names.
Personally I prefer the first option. Sorry all this is so long, but I hope I have at least explained it clearly, and that any change adopted won't cause too much work! Will be interested in your views; this template is an overdue initiative - thanks again. Carbonix 23:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

How about chaing the heading to Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee and adding "Governor:" to the small link, and changing the color of this row to a slightly lighter blue. Then "The X Bank" can be removed. This is likely to be nontrivial, so I'll make sure that you are OK with it before changing it. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This sounds a fine solution. Just to show that it'll work, the current page for David Clementi doesn't even mention the MPC, but after these changes all will become clear! Note that if you put the dates of Governorship in the template, Eddie George was Governor from 1993 to 2003 (that is, before the MPC was started). Thanks for asking my views; given the work involved, do you want to do it for just one page before committing yourself to doing the whole lot (not sure how it all works!)? Carbonix 10:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The template is shared by all the pages so that's not an issue. It's on my to do list. savidan(talk) (e@) 11:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

May I politely butt in? I was thinking of saying myself that "The George Bank" is not quite right: what's there now is better. Could I also suggest that the table is compressed a bit? I would cut each name down to a surname only (failing that, and following the SCOTUS example, initial and surname). As this box is already huge after just 9 years of the MPC, I think this would help to make it more manageable. Also bear in mind these people do not "set the British pound"!! Gabriel R 10:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there; yes, a much improved layout by His Excellency Mr Savidan. The ability to work out who was on the committee at the same time, and to jump to their entry, is now exemplary.
OK, OK, so they set sterling interest rates, not exchange rates...; I think Savidan's point above was simply that the people were important. The article itself is accurate.
I take your point that the box is "huge", but I would have thought that shortening the names will only compress the table horizontally - and all nine names fit on one line already (even with long names, see June 2000-September 2000), at least for 'normal' screen settings. And for clarity, there surely needs to be one line per change of committee? As I feel the full names are much easier to assimilate, and they fit on one line already, I think the template actually works better than the SCOTUS example.
Also, if it makes you feel better(!), the box is only huge for the MPC page itself (where there should be a complete record) and for a few important long-standing members (ditto). For most members of the committee, the box is quite short (e.g. Alan Budd, Howard Davies) and the box will be less dominant when we finish writing the text for all the newer pages (such as for Ian Plenderleith) ! Carbonix 22:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Carbonix. They are much appreciated. I wouldn't mind if someone wanted to change it to surnames only, although I don't think that would address Gabriel's issue with the vertical length. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm finding actually that the box does break over the line in several places, so I think that cutting the names horizontally will make it shorter vertically. It will also just make the thing look less cluttered. The names are easier to assimilate in full, but they are also listed in full above on the MPC page. The idea surely is to work out who was on the committee at any one time, which is a good idea but not one that has to be so expansive.
In a worst-of-all-worlds situation, I've started cutting the names back, and then run out of time tonight. I tried leaving the name in full when the person joins the committee, but I'm inclined to say we should cut even this as it doesn't add much. Have a look and see what you think.
Can I also suggest that we continue this discussion on the MPC talk page? In that spirit I'm putting another suggestion over there, to try to kick this over where more people will see it and to prevent this proliferation of opinions not joining together. Gabriel R 00:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

May I ask what browser you are using that breaks the text? Mine (Mozilla) doesn't break any lines. If you must reduce all the monikers to last name only. Do it consistently. The problem with giving the full name once they join the committee is that the line of the template where they join the committee may not be on all the pages of the people who they were on the committee with. Thus for simplicity it has to be always last name or always full name. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

IE5, 1280x1024 res, w/ Favorites toolbar pinned to the left, normal text size. But my overall concern is just to get this info looking less enormous without compromising its usefulness. In that vein, should we say "September 1997-December 1997"? Surely Sep-Dec 1997 would be neater. Furthermore, some of the lines are only for one month but say two months, eg September 2000-October 2000. Since the MPC only meets once a month, at the start of the month, suggest these should imho be cut to simply "Sep 2000" etc.
On first names, good point. Gabriel R 12:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

With last names only there is no chance that this will break on any persons browser who doesn't go out of their way to clutter their screen. Don't abbreviate months. Theres no consensus for that anywhere on wikipedia, to my knowledge. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough Gabriel R 11:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Things to do

Following on from discussion here:

I think this box should ideally have the people's names in a slightly different sequence. I'd think the order would be: Governor, then Depy Gov (Monetary), then Depy Gov (Financial Stability), then Exec Dir/Chf Economist, then Exec Dir (Mkts), then the four external members in order of appointment. This could be a bit time-consuming.

Also to do:

  • Complete the "compression" of the box by changing all names to surnames, assuming people are happy with how this is looking so far.
  • Add info from January 06.
  • Also: there are some anomalies in this table. Eg it's assumed that there was an 8-person MPC between June and July 06. This is because the table has been derived from the (inferior) table above it. However, there was no gap between Bell leaving and Walton arriving, therefore this is a mistake. Needs to be reviewed.
  • From a market perspective, what matters is who was on the committee at each meeting. Therefore, I propose that the dates are "inclusive" - ie they run from the first committee meeting to the last committee meeting for each particular composition. This would also solve the previous anomaly. Does this work for other people?
  • Once that's done: check the box through with Bank website spreadsheet, then list this as source. Gabriel R 23:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Also: where did the pic of the Bank go?? Hope this wasn't me, I don't think it was! Gabriel R

I just got the dates from the article, I hadn't considered where they sat for a meeting. I think a person should only be listed as a member of a committee for a given month if they were at that month's meeting. People are still members of the committee even if they skip meetings. Just Bush is still the president even when he goes on vacation 3 months a year. If that's what you're saying, then I agree. As for the order, I thought seniority made more sense. If you want to do it that way you're going to need to columnize it (which will increase the width) and list the deputy governors and external members in terms of their seniority within that group. You would also have to potentially create new subtemplates because people may have changed between positions while they were on the bank, which would increase the vertical length of the template. Please think this through before attempting it. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

As for the order, fine, I won't touch it - it's too much work! If someone else thinks it's worth doing, let them come forward.
On the dates - it's a bit complex but the situation is basically that people on the MPC are to my knowledge always appointed from the first of the month to the end of a month. So eg MPC member #1 would be appointed March 1 2003 - February 28 2006 (inclusive), and his/her replacement would be appointed March 1 2006 - February 28 2009 (also inclusive). When I put people's start and end dates into the table, I followed these dates, as much as I knew them: and I only had precise dates for the most recent appointments. There was therefore no gap between Marian Bell and David Walton, even though you might think there was from the table. Bell's term ended at the end of June, and Walton's started at the beginning of July. So the line in the new chart which lists "June-July 2005" is entirely inaccurate and should be removed. But it also would be inaccurate to change the preceding line to end July 2005. Therefore (assuming the "first of the month to end of month" convention has always been followed) the chart's months ought therefore to be inclusive.
AFAIK, no MPC member has ever skipped a meeting, but if they do, I entirely agree that they are still on it; that wasn't my point as hopefully is a bit clearer now. What I was referring to was another aspect of the situation, which is this. The MPC meets once a month, near the start of the month. (It can meet at other times, but has so far only done so once (the week after 9/11).) So the table should reflect this. A person should be able to look at it and say, that interest rate decision taken in (say) June 2002 - who was on the committee that month? At the moment they cannot do so because the dates appear to overlap. That is if you like a secondary reason why these dates ought to be inclusive rather than overlapping. Not a big deal but just something I think worth getting round to doing. Sorry if this is rather long-winded, I do think this is worth doing and worth getting right hence my interest in it. Gabriel R 12:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
further to this I have started adding in some precise dates where I can find them. Not sure if they will back up what I've been saying or not... I've also put current members' names in bold on the first table. Do others think this works? If not, what should we do? It's important to make it clear somehow who is on the current committee. Gabriel R

I still don't quite understand, but it seems like you know more about the MPC than me. Feel free to adjust the dates in whatever manner it is that you were advocating. Are you saying, for example, that the line "May 2001-June 2001" never existed? That would make sense to me. I thought that the rows should be X-Y followed by Y-Z but it seems like you are saying that A-B followed by C-D is sometimes more accurate. This, if correct, would be much welcomed because it would decrease the vertical length of the template. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You've got it. Unfortunately, I'm not sure where to get precise dates in most cases. Will try to find them. Gabriel R 22:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry fo the delay in getting back to you. If I'm not mistaken, the following MPC's never existed (as in this was never the set of people at any meeting):

  • May 1999-June 1999
  • May 2000-June 2000
  • September 2000-October 2000
  • May 2001-June 2001
  • May 2002-June 2002
  • August 2002-September 2002
  • May 2003-June 2003
  • June 2005-July 2005

I will go through and remove these templates, and then mark them with {db-author}. Then I will adjust the dates of the remaining ones so that there is no overlap. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Very sorry about this Savidan but I have now got around to comparing all this with the official Bank data available here [1]. It turns out that - presumably because of a last-minute approach by the Chancellor, or difficulty in recruiting - there are actually some one-month gaps after all (though most of what you've listed just now is indeed incorrect). I've converted the data in this table into text but am not as adroit, wiki-wise, at improving your table. However, these are the facts:

  • June 97- July 97 George Davies King Buiter Goodhart Plenderleith
  • Aug 97 George King Buiter Goodhart Plenderleith
  • Sep 97-Nov 97 George King Buiter Goodhart Plenderleith Julius Clementi
  • Dec 97-May 98 George King Buiter Goodhart Plenderleith Julius Clementi Budd
  • June 98-May 99 George King Buiter Goodhart Plenderleith Julius Clementi Budd Vickers
  • June 99 - May 00 George King Buiter Goodhart Plenderleith Julius Clementi Vickers Wadhwani
  • June 00- Sep 00 George King Plenderleith Julius Clementi Vickers Wadhwani Nickell Allsopp
  • Oct 00 - May 01 George King Plenderleith Julius Clementi Wadhwani Nickell Allsopp Bean
  • June 01 - May 02 George King Plenderleith Clementi Wadhwani Nickell Allsopp Bean Barker
  • June 02 George King Clementi Nickell Allsopp Bean Barker Tucker
  • Jul 02 - Aug 02 George King Clementi Nickell Allsopp Bean Barker Tucker Bell
  • Sep 02 George King Nickell Allsopp Bean Barker Tucker Bell
  • Oct 02-May 03 George King Nickell Allsopp Bean Barker Tucker Bell Large
  • June 03 George King Nickell Bean Barker Tucker Bell Large Lambert
  • July 03 - June 05 King Nickell Bean Barker Tucker Bell Large Lambert Lomax
  • July 05-Jan 06 King Nickell Bean Barker Tucker Large Lambert Lomax Walton
  • Feb 06-Mar 06 King Nickell Bean Barker Tucker Lambert Lomax Walton Gieve
  • April 06 - King Nickell Bean Barker Tucker Lomax Walton Gieve

Please note that these refer to the monthly meetings attended by each committee member, and not the exact (ie, to-the-day) dates of appointment/departure. But as I've said already, this is probably the best way to manage this table. From a market point of view, what matters is who voted what in each month. More pertinently, I simply can't find exact dates of arrival and departure for these people, and as I say most of the time they were appointed at the start of a month and end their terms at the end of a month. This info above is definitely precise enough to be getting on with in my view. Sorry for confusion. Gabriel R

If I understand correctly, all the templates I elimated should indeed have been eliminated. I'll change the dates on the remaining ones (if you haven't done so already) to correspond to what you just found. Thanks for tracking this down. savidan(talk) (e@) 18:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Done. Assuming your data way correct, the template should be correct now. For convenience, in some cases, the name of the template is wrong but the date which appears is correct. Being as none of these "wrong" template should ever have to be used again (the composition of past committees never changes), there is no need to fix this. If anyone does, I content that they should see a doctor for editcountis. I probably won't check this talk that frequently now (if ever), so if anything else needs doing its probably better to hit me up at my talk. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Phew. Heroic work on your part there. Thanks. Gabriel R 15:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Whilst it is commonly known as the interest rate an encyclopedia should strive to be accurate (I don't mean this a snub so don't take offence); the MPC meet every month to decided the Bank of England's Repo rate. The MPC and the BoE generally avoid the use of the word interest in this context for a good reason; interest is the difference between the principle lent and the principle + compensation paid back by the borrower. The Repo rate is what the lender wants in compensation for lending the principle and this is whatever the MPC decides upon for the Bank of England. So it's quite important in the context of this article to make sure this is correctly explained or disambiguated.

Also it might be worth noting in this article that the BoE Repo rate is what the BoE lends money to banks at rather than individuals, the liquidity of retail banks are kept in short reign so that generally a change in the Repo rate forces a retail bank to pass this on to its clients see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/09/05/bcnbank105.xml I know that this isn't exactly something to do with the MPC per se however as they are the ones that set the Repo rate it is probably useful to close the loop between what the MPC does and how it is implemented in reality. RichyBoy 23:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monetary_Policy_Committee_(United_Kingdom)/Archive_1&oldid=936021866"