At the Fed, the BoJ and the BoE, every vote against the majority was for a higher rate

Across the three central banks that published votes at their latest meetings, six policymakers voted against the majority, and every one of them wanted a higher interest rate than the one that was set. The Federal Reserve, the Bank of Japan and the Bank of England all kept their rates unchanged.

Six dissents, one direction

The Federal Open Market Committee kept its target range for the federal funds rate at 3-3/4 to 4 percent on October 28 by a 10-2 vote. Lisa D. Cook and Beth M. Hammack voted against and preferred to raise the range by 1/4 percentage point, the Fed said in its statement.

The Bank of Japan's Policy Board voted 8-1 on October 30 to keep the uncollateralized overnight call rate at around 1.25 percent. Hajime Takata voted against and proposed 1.5 percent, arguing that the bank needs to step up the pace of bringing the policy rate closer to the neutral rate, according to the bank's statement.

The Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee voted 6-3 at its meeting that ended on September 16 to keep Bank Rate at 3.75%. The three members in the minority voted to increase it by 0.25 percentage point, to 4%, the Bank said.

Together that is 6 dissents among the 30 votes cast at the three meetings, or 20% (computed: 2 + 1 + 3 = 6 dissents; 12 + 9 + 9 = 30 votes). None of the six asked for a cut. The Bank of England's vote is older than the other two, so the comparison mixes meetings six weeks apart.

What the majorities wrote

The statements of the majorities explain why they held, and each also keeps a rise open. The Fed's statement said that "Inflation remains elevated" and that "Economic activity is expanding at a strong pace." It did not mention a path for rates.

The Bank of England's summary said that the committee judged that the risks to the inflation outlook were tilted to the upside, and that it "stands ready to act as necessary to ensure that CPI inflation remains on track to meet the 2% target in the medium term." It added that there was little evidence so far of material second-round effects in price and wage-setting, which are increases that follow when higher energy costs spread into wages and other prices.

The Bank of Japan's statement recorded the dissenter's reasoning, which was that underlying consumer price inflation had reached the price stability target, and it kept the guideline for the call rate at around 1.25 percent.

Two banks that did something else

The Bank of Canada did not hold. It increased its overnight rate target by 25 basis points to 2.5% on October 28, and said in its announcement that it acted "to reduce the risk that continuing high energy prices spread broadly to the prices of other goods and services." The bank added that "there could be a need to increase the policy rate further, but given uncertainties, Governing Council agreed to proceed carefully."

The European Central Bank held its three key rates, with the deposit facility rate at 2.50%, on October 29. Its statement said that "Energy prices have continued to rise, posing upside risks to the inflation outlook and downside risks to the growth outlook." The ECB's statement as published does not record how members voted, so this comparison cannot say whether any of them preferred a different rate.

Energy is the pressure three of the statements name

The Bank of England, the Bank of Canada and the ECB each name energy prices in the passages quoted above. The Fed's statement names inflation and strong activity but not energy, and the Bank of Japan's recorded dissent cites underlying inflation. That is a difference in how the banks describe their problem. The ones that mention energy are also the ones that raised the rate (Canada) or judged the risks tilted to the upside (the Bank of England, the ECB).

The statements do not establish that energy is why any member voted as they did: the dissenters' own reasons are published only for Japan.

The dates that follow

The Bank of England's next decision is due on November 5, according to its Bank Rate page. The latest UK figure, from the Office for National Statistics, is that the Consumer Prices Index rose by 3.5% in the 12 months to September 2026, up from 3.1% the previous month. That reading came after the September vote in which three members wanted a rise, so the committee that meets on November 5 will see a higher inflation figure than the one it had in September. Our earlier report covers the run-up.

The Fed's next meeting is December 8-9, a meeting with a Summary of Economic Projections, according to its calendar. For the Bank of Canada, the Bank of Japan and the ECB, our reports on each decision (Canada, Japan, the euro area) carry the details, and the Fed's own decision is in our report.

What the count does not show

Six dissents out of 30 votes is a small minority, and each majority prevailed. The votes show where the disagreement sits, not that the majorities are about to move. Votes are also taken one meeting at a time, and a dissent at one meeting does not predict the next.

We read the dissents as a signal about where the next argument starts

Our reading is that the next argument at these banks is about how long to wait, not whether to ease. With every dissent on the side of a rise and the Bank of Canada already having moved, the burden of proof has shifted toward the case for holding. The opportunity is that banks which wait while energy-driven inflation proves temporary avoid raising rates into slower growth, which the ECB itself names as a risk. The threat is the opposite: the UK figure of 3.5% suggests the Bank of England's minority may no longer be a minority on November 5, and the longer inflation stays above target, the more a hold looks like a decision to accept it.

We expect, as a forecast and conditional on UK inflation staying near 3.5%, that the Bank of England's vote on November 5 will be closer than 6-3, and that more banks will see dissent for a rise than for a cut through year-end. We would change that view if energy prices fall enough to take the headline rates down, or if core inflation, which excludes food and energy, stops rising. We weigh core inflation and the trend over several meetings above one vote.

The view in this final section is FinanceInTime's editorial opinion, for information only. It is not investment, tax, legal or other advice, and it does not take your circumstances into account. Forecasts are uncertain and past results do not guarantee future ones.