BoE's Bailey (Q&A) says "if you come out of this thinking we are edging towards an insurance hike, you have misunderstood", paraphrasing Greenspan

• Thereafter, adds that El Nino, tariffs and other points are factoring in the uncertainty around the economy. Tariffs may be causing some downward impact on goods prices, as trade is redirected.

Governors who explicitly disavow a policy direction in Q&A are usually pushing back against a market or press narrative that has run ahead of the committee, and the corrective framing tends to weigh on the front of the gilt curve only to the extent the hawkish reading was actually priced. The historical pattern with this kind of verbal walk-back is that it settles the near-term path debate but leaves the terminal rate discussion untouched; the distinction between ruling out an insurance hike and signalling comfort with the current stance is what separates a timing clarification from a genuine dovish shift. Invoking Greenspan's insurance language is a deliberate reference point, and officials who reach for it typically mean to rebut the analogy rather than endorse it. The tariffs and El Nino commentary points the other way: trade redirection putting downward pressure on goods prices is a disinflationary read that, in past episodes of supply-driven price moves, central banks have tended to look through rather than react to. What is worth watching next is whether other MPC members adopt the same framing and how the remarks sit against the next inflation prints, since a governor correcting the market in Q&A often precedes a more formal restatement at the following decision or minutes.