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”
Anon E Mouse
Mr.Sensible – The clown said he’d ended boom and bust for goodness sake and as for the gold it was a historic low.
One doesn’t need to look for a fortune teller – just understand what you’re doing and clearly he didn’t. As a Labour supporter why on earth are you defending the sell off of OUR property in such a costly way?
What happened about boom and bust Mr.Sensible or letting the Guardian media group fleece the taxpayer in our country?
And btw Brown DEREGULATED the banks – that was the problem.
And not a single apology from the Labour Party yet. But there will be in the future…
Anon E Mouse
Liz – I’m not saying that everything Labour did was wrong but the main claim of ending a normal economic cycle by abolishing boom and bust was pretty important.
But you’re doing what the left typically do in that you seize a small item, such as the the sale of 3G and argue it to death.
What about the big stuff Liz? Like leaving the country broke and STILL denying it….
Liz McShane
Anon, I am not a deficit denier but yo fail to see/recognise/understand the impact that the global financial crisis had on The UK economy & that under Labour’s stewardship we averted a 1930s style depression (thankfully Osborne was not at the helm then. Also other key western/developed economies followed Labour’s initiative.
Neither do I subscribe to the simplistic notion that macro economies are akin to a household budget – maybe that is why we will never agree on this matter.
I see that you are mastering the Mac keyboard a bit better! Practice makes perfect!!!
Anon E Mouse
Liz – Thank’s for the final compliment.
I have not mentioned the global economic crisis – I’ve seen Inside Job and realise what happened but I’m on about the books not balancing since 2002 – which they didn’t.
Well?
Ash
Anon –
“And do you really not know the difference between a global financial crisis and a countries’ structural deficit”
The two are hardly unrelated; the structural deficit is largely the result of the structural damage done to the financial and housing sectors of the UK economy during that crisis. It’s a favourite Tory trick to conflate the 2.5-3% of GDP structural deficit Gordon Brown was running pre-crisis with the structural deficit we have now, which is around three times that size.
(Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying Brown’s deficit was so small it doesn’t matter. It does matter. But a bit of balance wouldn’t go amiss.)