That would indicate a decision shortly after Christmas. The three front runners for the job – Sir Howard Davies, chairman of the Financial Services Authority, Andrew Crockett, outgoing general manager of the Bank for International Settlements, and Mervyn King, the present deputy governor – have already been much analysed and commented on, but only the last of these candidates has a track record in the administration of British monetary policy by which he can be judged. The other two men have had spells at the Bank (Sir Howard actually voted at the first two Monetary Policy Committee meetings) but neither of them have been MPC time servers.Does Mr King's record count for or against him? The fashionable view is that making the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee responsible for interest rates was one of the best things New Labour has done in its five years of power. In marked contrast to both the European Central Bank and the US Federal Reserve, the Bank's handling of monetary policy has been masterful. Inflation has been kept low while aggregate growth, though plainly not as good as the US, has easily outstripped other major economies. In Europe policy has been too tight, in the US it's been too loose, but in Britain it has been just right.Scratch the surface, however, and the MPC's record doesn't look as good as it is often portrayed. Ever since August 1998, inflation has either been at or quite significantly below the mid point of the Government's target range. On a number of occasions it has come perilously close to breaking through the bottom limit of the range altogether, a point at which the Governor is required to write formally to the Chancellor explaining why the Bank has messed up so badly.The implication is that monetary policy has been too tight through most of the MPC's reign.

Growth could have been higher than it was without significantly adding to inflation. On one or two occasions, such as the run up to the Russian debt default in the autumn of 1998, the MPC was demonstrably at fault in maintaining rates at too high a level.What of Mr King's individual record? It scarcely needs saying that Mr King is a hawk, but boy what a hawk he has turned out to be The MPC has met 65 times since its inception. Generally speaking, Mr King has voted with the majority and much of the time the vote has been unanimous. But where the MPC has been split, there's not much doubt about where Mr King stands. On no fewer than nine occasions Mr King led the minority in voting for a rise, and on two of those occasions he was on his tod in thinking higher rates appropriate.

On two occasions he was in the minority in opposing a cut and on 13 occasions he was with the majority in opposing it. On 10 occasions he was with the majority in voting for a cut but there was a minority that wanted an even bigger one. Finally, he was with the majority in voting for a rise on four occasions.In only three instances where there has been a split on the MPC has there also been anyone in a more hawkish position than Mr King, and on two of those occasions it was the maverick Willem Buiter, who has since left the Bank. Given his position and standing, it is only reasonable to conclude that Mr King has at all times exerted an unduly hawkish influence on the committee. Had Mr King on all occasions got his own way, the Governor would by now have penned his letter, and possibly his resignation too There's no point in beating about the bush. On the hard evidence, Mr King has been wrong, and furthermore he's been more consistently wrong than anybody else.That in any case is the message being whispered in some parts of Whitehall There are excuses.