BoE's Breeden says it is not at all obvious that there is a path to lower energy prices

Remarks of this kind sit squarely in the second-round-effects debate that has defined MPC communication whenever energy costs rise: the question has never been the initial impulse to headline inflation but whether it propagates into wages and core pricing, and Breeden's framing, limited indirect pass-through so far, points to the benign reading. The explicit contrast with the earlier energy shock is the operative line; in that episode policy was loose when the shock hit and the MPC was widely judged to have been behind the curve, whereas starting from restrictive territory changes the reaction function, making the bar for responding to a supply shock higher rather than lower. The reference to slack is the tell: officials who emphasise spare capacity are typically arguing for looking through the shock, and the historical pattern is that such commentary leans against the market's tendency to price energy spikes straight into the near-term rate path. The distinction worth drawing is between gilt reaction at the front end, which tracks the perceived hiking risk, and breakevens, which capture the inflation impulse itself; commentary of this sort has tended to steepen that gap. Follow-ons are whether other MPC members adopt the same pass-through language, the next round of wage and services inflation prints, and how the remarks sit against the latest energy curve moves. As commentary rather than a decision, the signal is directional.