dealtn wrote:Buying Gilts as part of monetary policy doesn't mean it isn't independent.
This eternally comes into the question of what "independence" means.
Oddly enough I stood in I think the 1997 General Election when independence of the Bank of England was a Lib Dem policy in the manifesto, but was not AFAICR in the Labour Manifesto. It was, however, implemented by the Labour government. I remember one constituent asking me about it having read the manifesto (not a thing a lot of people do).
The MPC
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/11/section/13Is partially ex officio bank officials (I assume appointed by the Treasury through ministerial order) and partially appointed by the treasury.
The governor is a civil service post announced by the treasury and I would assume essentially appointed by government.
Hence the MPC is independent, but subject I presume to the power of hire and fire by the government.
There could be greater independence if the Governor was appointed like the information commissioner by parliament or through links to the judicial estate of the constitution.
Judges, for example, can only be fired through a motion through the commons which is exceedingly rare. (I think the 1701 Scotland Act confirmed this).
If this goes badly wrong there may be pressure for more independence, but I think Rishi Sunak understands the potential problems even if Boris Johnson does not. Sajid Javid is also quite competent in this area.