There were “a range of views” among the seven Bank of England officials who voted to keep Bank Rate unchanged on Thursday.

Officials’ opinions varied regarding how much more evidence they need to support a rate cut, and also “the degree to which incremental information was leading them to update materially their assessment of inflation persistence.”

In other words: BoE voters aren’t collectively sure how much additional inflation moderation they need to see, nor is there any real consensus around how much confidence they should derive from the data they do have.

The two dissents (Dhingra and Ramsden obviously) suggested rates should “become less restrictive now to enable a smooth and gradual transition in the policy stance, and to account for lags in transmission.” Sounds pretty reasonable when you spell it out, doesn’t it?

Anyway, the bank’s stay at terminal will last at least a year. The last hike — the 14th consecutive — was in August.

Odds are, the first cut will come on the one-year anniversary of the last hike. On Wednesday, while editorializing around May’s UK inflation update, I gently suggested traders were probably wrong to pare bets on an August cut. That was borne out Thursday by the statement and the minutes, which pretty plainly nodded at an August move.

“Some” of the seven policymakers who voted to keep rates unchanged Thursday said upside surprises on services inflation aren’t likely to “alter significantly the disinflationary trajectory that the economy was on.” “For these members,” the account of the meeting said, Thursday’s decision was “finely balanced.”

In addition, the statement alluded to the August forecasts: “As part of the August forecast round, members of the Committee will consider all of the information available and how this affects the assessment that the risks from inflation persistence are receding.” That sounds innocuous, and it is, but… well, if a decision’s “finely balanced,” it helps to have new forecasts you can point to if you need to justify a move. The August meeting comes with new forecasts, September’s meeting doesn’t and November’s too late. You do the “math.”

Sure enough, traders lifted the implied odds of an August cut and full-year pricing reflected nearly 50bps — so, better chances of two full quarter-point cuts.

In May, Andrew Bailey said a cut at the June meeting (i.e., today’s decision) wasn’t a “fait accompli.” He didn’t rule it out either, but subsequent developments, including and especially Rishi Sunak’s decision to call an election for July 4, did the ruling out for him.

If you ask me, a cut in August is as close to a foregone conclusion as these decisions can be with allowances for macro indeterminacy.