the precise level of interest rate are not only likely but an indication that policy is broadly on - track. that is why the motto of the mpc should perhaps be “ divided we stand, united we fall ”. some commentators have been unable to resist labelling members of the committee as either “ hawks ” or “ doves ”. there is a fundamental problem with this labelling. it makes no sense in the new system to describe individuals as hawks or doves. each member of the committee has the same inflation target. unlike some other central banks, mpc members cannot entertain closet views about the attractions or dangers of slightly higher or lower inflation. their task - to which they will be held personally accountable - is to hit the government ’ s inflation target. so members of the committee vote on interest rates according to the economic data, which change from month to month, and the analysis of those data. no one takes a position that higher interest rates are a good or a bad thing out of principle. if you drove past an infant school at 40mph, you might well be described as driving dangerously fast. but if you drove at 40mph on a motorway, you might well be described as driving dangerously slowly. actions must be judged in the light of the circumstances. in terms of monetary policy, that means that the positions which members of the mpc take on interest rates will change over time according to the way the economy evolves. but if interest rates themselves cannot be predicted, because they depend on changing economic data, what should be predictable is the way mpc members respond to those data. a predictable “ policy reaction function ”, to use the jargon, should, over time, diminish the interest which market commentators take in the meetings of the mpc and direct that interest to what is happening in the economy. so, as the voting record shows, it is seriously misleading to think of the mpc in terms of fixed camps of “ hawks ” and “ doves ”. as circumstances change, it is easy to imagine that the “ hawks ” shall be “ doves ” and the “ doves ” shall be “ hawks ”. and, over a five year period, since each member of the mpc is trying to hit the same inflation target, i predict that it will be impossible to distinguish between “ doves ” and “ hawks ”. what will the commentators call us then? if britain either has or is about to join monetary union, then the birds

, our intention is to apply the ‘ same risk, same regulatory outcome ’ approach in the uk. the government has announced its intention to legislate in the current session of parliament to update the powers of the bank of england and the financial conduct authority to regulate and supervise stablecoins. we hope to issue a consultation document on the regulatory policy framework later this year. taken as a whole, the uk authorities have made clear that they are prepared to see stablecoins – issued by either banks or non - banks - operate in the uk, provided they are properly regulated and supervised [ 9 ]. this should not, however, be interpreted as any weakening in standards for risk mitigation. i doubt any of the stablecoins currently in operation in other jurisdictions would meet the necessary standards for operation at systemic level in the uk – whether in the crypto world, should that become systemic, or in conventional financial services. and this brings me to my final lesson – that innovation and regulation are, in the end, friends not enemies. as i said earlier, the initial use cases for the technologies developed in the crypto world, such as speculative crypto assets, may have a limited future. but we can see that a range of other use cases are being proposed and developed in both the crypto and the non - crypto world. on the retail side, while libra / diem, the most high profile proposal for stablecoins for retail payments, including cross border, has withdrawn, a number fintechs and established firms are exploring the potential for technology in this area. similar exploration around tokenisation and dlt is happening in the area of wholesale payments. a separate but rapidly developing field is the deployment of crypto technologies and smart contracts in the exchange, clearing and settlement of financial securities. today, in mainstream finance these activities are carried out in sequence by separate entities at significant cost. however, some of the protocols that have begun to be developed in the crypto world have pointed to the possibility of collapsing these activities into a single entity and automating through the use of smart contracts. if successfully developed, such technologies could simplify the network of relationships that need to be maintained for trading in shares and bonds and lead to lower costs, greater speed and greater transparency for end investors. of course, the automation of activities through a smart contract raises many questions about how firms and regulators ensure appropriate risk management and resilience. in the uk, the authorities are to establish a