BoE's Mann says UK markets have priced in greater risk premium since Middle East conflict intensifies.

Mann has consistently occupied the hawkish tail of the MPC through this tightening cycle, so remarks of this kind from her carry a known direction but limited weight on the committee's median; what has historically moved UK rates is whether such framing migrates toward the centre, since it is the swing voters who set Bank Rate rather than the outer positions. The substantive argument here is a familiar one in this debate: that tightening delivered through a higher inflation risk premium does not count as genuine restraint, because it reflects compensation for inflation uncertainty rather than a higher real policy stance, and therefore should not substitute for further action. That distinction matters for how gilt sell-offs are read; under this framing, a widening inflation premium in nominal yields is a reason to tighten more, not a signal that the market has done the tightening. The explicit linkage to Middle East conflict places the remarks in the supply-shock playbook, where the second-round-effects concern and the risk-management case for restrictive policy have tended to dominate hawkish commentary during episodes of energy-driven upside inflation risk. The follow-ons that matter are whether other MPC members echo the real-conditions framing ahead of the next decision, how the inflation and wage prints land against it, and whether the external risk premium in gilts persists or fades, since her argument effectively treats that premium as noise policy should look through. As commentary from an established hawk rather than a shift in the committee's centre, the signal is directional but consistent with prior form.