Natan Doron makes the case for Gordon Brown to lead the IMF.
Dominique Strauss-Kahn stepped down today from his position as head of the IMF to focus on clearing his name after being charged with sexual offences in a US Court. The Telegraph have already put the boot into any suggestion that Gordon Brown should be the man to replace him.
Jeremy Warner, the economics editor of the Telegraph, led calls last night to oppose Brown’s candidacy. Warner previously admitted to having not read Gordon Brown’s book about the future of global macroeconomic policy, published at the tail end of last year. This is not a crime in itself but undermines his ability to contribute to the debate about the future of global markets. This is Warner’s main argument against Brown:
“A man who has spent his life pursuing “big government” is scarcely likely to rub along well with an administration committed to cutting the state back.”
To suggest firstly that Brown spent his political career pursuing ‘big government’ is a gross over-simplification of his achievements as chancellor; New Labour abandoned many of the traditional Labour economic orthodoxies and displayed flexibility and pragmatism to deliver GDP growth consistently above the Eurozone average between 1997 and 2006 and maintained UK unemployent at a simliar level of consistently below the Eurozone average too.
Furthermore, for Warner to argue that the IMF exists simply to cut back the state shows just how far removed he is from debates about global markets.
The arguments surrounding conditionality and the role of the IMF in structural adjustment loans which decimated many developing economies are at the heart of why the IMF needs to reform. It is fast becoming the new orthodoxy that the problems facing the world today call for greater global economic cooperation, something Brown has made the main argument of his narrative on the next steps for globalisation.
Brown has always seen eradicating poverty, creating jobs and solving the public health and environmental problems facing the world as a major priority. The 10 Downing Street website lists the 2005 Gleneagles agreement to deliver global cooperation on eradicating poverty and climate change as one of Brown’s greatest achievements.
While other New Labour big hitters have used their post-government publications to ditch the dirt on eachother, Brown devoted his book to arguing that only increased global cooperation can deliver increased welfare for the world’s poorest and avoid a decade of low growth and high unemployment. He has argued this case with increasing passion and eloquence in recent months.
Brown’s credentials for the job aside, Cameron and Osborne are displaying vindictiveness in their opposition to his candidacy. Alistair Campbell is right to point out that during the Blair years Labour did much to advocate on the behalf of British politicians for international jobs, whatever their party background. Their posturing on Brown and the IMF job, on the back of the royal wedding invite snub which extended also to Blair, shows the Tories top men to be extremely unstatesman-like. It is perhaps particularly grating that Gordon Brown is infinitely more respected than George Osborne in the field of economics.
We on the left should be leading the defence of Gordon Brown today because to undermine Brown is to undermine Labour’s record in government too. Those in the Labour tribe have called upon the current leadership to do more to stand up for our record in government and not lay the blame for the deficit at the door of increased public spending but at the door of bailing out the banks (necessarily).
Here is our chance to do just that and in the process remind people of Brown’s leadership and vision on the global stage that saw the kind of global economic cooperation the world now needs going forward into the 21st century.
47 Responses to “The case for Gordon Brown at the IMF”
Liz McShane
Anon et al,
Where you awake during the global financial crisis or in a semi coma?
Captain Disco
RT @shamikdas: The mad comments from angry right-wingers on @NatanDoron's article continue apace…:P Read it: http://t.co/AZbkXJw
Anon E Mouse
Liz McShane – His austerity plans which may or may not have worked were nothing to do with him and when a decent man proposed a budget that may or may not have worked then told the truth about Brown’s deceit over the economy, he had “The forces of hell unleashed against him” by Brown and his bullies.
That man was Alistair Darling and his austerity measures were not that different from the government’s.
But it isn’t about that Liz. The fact is Gordon Brown is a decisive character who is reviled by the population of this country. The only thing he achieved was an inability to balance the UK books since 2002 when we were in a boom. Oh and claiming he’d stopped the economic cycle and selling our gold off too cheaply.
If Labour are serious about wanting to run this country again and the election of Ed Miliband over his brother would suggest they’re not, they need to pretend the awful Gordon Brown never existed and ensure he is never associated with the party again. Just as Labour did with Thatcher.
It’s all very well for the party to wallow about, ineffectively screeching about the cuts but they look like a bunch of amateurs at the moment and any association with the most unpopular Prime Minister since records began is madness.
You forgot to answer this Liz – “To reward bankers, city slickers and spivs with knighthoods and deregulation and allow tax fiddlers such as the Guardian Newspaper Group, to not pay their fair share is an outrage.” Or are you about to go into deficit denial as well?
And do you really not know the difference between a global financial crisis and a countries’ structural deficit or have you been in a semi coma for the last decade?
No offence Sweetie…
Vincent
Actually the main thrust of Warner’s article was:
“Yet the deeper criticism of Mr Brown is simply that he is not up to the job.”
I notice you don’t address this argument, as it’s blindingly obviously true. He built a bubble economy based on the self-servingly murky world of finance whilst hamstringing other private enterprise which high taxes and regulation. Hence when the banking crisis hit the UK was accordingly worse affected than other countries with a broader indutrial base. His arrogance to proclaim that he “ended boom and bust” was nauseating.
In addition, even in the boom years he spent more than he earnt, meaning debt as a percentage of GDP went up from 30% to 50% (without inclusion of the off-balance sheet items like the disatrous PFI). I’ll remind you that these “devastating cuts” are scratching the surface of the deficit, not the debt.
I don’t blame him for not spotting the timing of banking crisis, but instead for so poorly preparing the UK for a downturn, a cyclical economic inevitability, that the nation is having to repay his debt and will continue to do so for a generation.
Though you’re right about one thing: his record is Labour’s record, and what a historically incompetent record it is too.
Mr. Sensible
The Tories’ opposition to Mr Brown is nothing more or less than politically motivated.
Mr Mouse, of course the previous government should have done more on regulating the banks. But can you tell me what on Earth this government is doing about it? No real agreement to reduce bonuses, no deal on pay transparrency, and grose, not net, lending targets. No wonder Lord Oakeshott said in his parting shot from the Lib Dem front bench that the treasury couldn’t nigociate its way out of a paper bag.
And so many people criticize the previous government in relation to our gold reserves that anyone would think the fortune telling industry was booming.