NewsBreakingOnline

I detect no signs of anyone suddenly championing the former chancellor’s case in the corridors of power Should Gordon Brown be considered, let alone picked, to run the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in succession to Dominique Strauss-Kahn? When David Cameron gave him the thumbs down on the radio a few weeks ago, I thought the prime minister’s position was wholly defensible. But plenty of serious people I respect think otherwise and have not hesitated to say so publicly – this at a time when they have little or nothing to gain from endorsing a man who has no political future in Britain and isn’t going to get the IMF plum either. These matters will doubtless be discussed in the corridors of the G8 summit which convenes across the blustery Channel in Deauville this morning, graced by Barack Obama, who was so shamelessly flattering to our fragile self-esteem all day yesterday. It must quite have tired him out. Between them, the European Union (32%) and the US (16.7%) have a virtual majority of IMF votes – extra ones are never hard to find among debtor nations – and could settle the vacancy in Deauville, probably in favour of Christine Lagarde, the French finance minister, a highly competent lawyer who speaks perfect English. But she is not an economist and her CV is not overwhelming. The Guardian’s Larry Elliott made the case for Britain’s former chancellor and PM on Monday and against his “shabby treatment” by Cameron and George Osborne, who are backing Lagarde against non-European claimants. But Larry is far from alone. In the Evening Standard, the former World Bank president, Sir James Wolfensohn, praised his record and said it shows Brown has the “leadership skills, the vision and the determination” to be an effective MD at the IMF at a very delicate time for the world economy and especially for Europe, which has always dominated the fund. This week, the FT has run letters from other heavyweights. The Tory economist and biographer of Keynes, Lord Robert Skidelsky, accuses coalition ministers of “a woeful example of putting domestic politics ahead of the world good” because Brown is “by far the best qualified” candidate. Skidelsky cites Brown’s role in reversing the slide towards another global depression in 2008-09, his championing of debt relief for Africa, his insistence on rebalancing global current account inbalances (i.e. being so indebted to the likes of China and Germany), and his knowledge of EU finance in the current crisis. All solid points, though the fourth bumps straight into a problem for Brown which ought to be a plus in the Tory camp – though some argue it killed his prospects within the major EU states from day one. No guessing which problem, though he rarely gets any credit. It was Brown’s insistence on five tests of the national interest – I barely remember them, but that was never the point – before the Labour government would consider taking Britain into the eurozone when it became a hot issue after 1997. We would have had to cut public spending, lower interest rates and the exchange rate to enter, and Brown put domestic priorities first. Was it mere tactics – partly to thwart the pro-euro but economically unsophisticated Tony Blair – that motivated him? Or did he grasp that you need a state to run a currency, and that Europe isn’t one? As the fate of the eurozone hangs in the balance, we can see that now. It is not yet clear whether the zone will develop into a de facto economic union run by the Germans, will contract to discard troublemakers on the fringe of the “optimal currency zone”, or will implode entirely. So high are the stakes – the EU’s share of global output will have fallen from 25% in 2000 to 18% by 2015, but it still matters – that the union’s case for keeping the job in European (usually French) hands is a powerful one, the FT’s Martin Wolf conceded in midweek. Indeed, he assumes that the Deauville summit will stitch it up for Lagarde. But Wolf is also frank enough to say that the counter-case being made by non-Europeans or Americans (both champions of the status quo, which gave them control of the IMF and World Bank after 1944) is a better one – namely that the IMF should set up a commission to examine all possible candidates (India, Mexico, South Africa and others have serious claimants) and pick the best one. Moreover, the case that Europe needs to hang on to the job because it needs an IMF chief who understands its problems – 79.5% of IMF credit was to Europe as of last month, says Wolf, two-thirds of it propping up eastern European economies – is pretty insulting to non-Europeans, who have had to take usually harsher IMF medicine. In fact, Europe might benefit from unbiased and objective advice – you might call it “tough love” – of the kind that Strauss-Kahn, a talented economist and skilled politician, could hardly provide when he had at least one eye on the French presidency. Where does this leave Brown? Sitting quietly next to Blair, listening to Barack Obama in Westminster Hall, as TV viewers will have seen yesterday. But I detect no signs of anyone suddenly championing his case in the corridors of power. Lord Desai, the Labour economist and erstwhile Brown buddy, signed another FT letter making the case for a non-European. Is their disavowal shabby of Cameron and Osborne? Does it put petty party politics and personal ill-feeling before the national or EU interest? Maybe. Under both governments lately, the Brits have become increasingly parochial and marginalised in Brussels, focusing energies on the US relationship and the wider world without acknowledging that Europe is often the best (the only?) institution through which to leverage our own (modest) power into something bigger. But their core case against Brown is not lightly dismissed either. It is that he failed to create a regulatory framework to tame the boom (so did Washington, and the Tories egged them on) or lean against the boom in terms of curbing borrowing in the good times (they embraced his spending strategy until after the crash). But he was in charge at the Treasury, later at No 10, and as John Major and Norman Lamont – in charge on Black Wednesday – can attest, life is sometimes unfair. Gosh, we never knew he was interested in the IMF job, William Hague said on TV. Knew? He routinely threatened to walk out on Blair for the IMF during his long decade at No 11. Which brings us to the personal factors. Brown’s persistent disloyalty to Blair – love-bombing him would have been so much smarter – is underpinned by his solitary habits, well-documented in both Brussels and Washington, where diplomats often did not know where their chancellor was. Not a man for schmoozing would-be allies in corridors, he tended to do his Brussels stuff (lecturing fellow finance ministers on British economic success!) and then fly home to the comforts of his coterie of advisers, not all of whom would now vote for him either if they had a vote. He was also personally rude to the two Tories, their winning Blair/Brown duo, who were smart enough to oust him from office when chance arose. From my own observation, Osborne was the only shadow chancellor of the seven who faced Brown across the Commons dispatch box over 10 years who rattled him, often by just teasing. Not that GB would face the music personally when the Treasury got into trouble – he would dispatch a junior minister. All in all, and despite his achievements, fairly set out by Skidelsky, I end up in the No camp on grounds of Brown’s personal and judgmental failings, and suspect that plenty of people who have worked closely with him (and know him better than I do) now think the same. Listen, and you can hear their silence. We can’t have someone in charge who doesn’t accept how important it is to bear down on excess debt, Cameron trilled brightly when putting the boot in. We’re yet to discover how well Dave does on that score. It could be less well than the glowering Heathcliff of the heather. Come back, Gordon all is partly forgiven? No, not yet, and not in time to do him much career good. I see Peter Mandelson’s name was touted for the IMF job by Martin Kettle the other day. The Great Mentioner, as Americans describe incestuous namechecking gossip, is also encouraging Nick Watt to report that Cameron wants Mandy to run the World Trade Organisation . So do the Chinese, it is said. Both suggestions are preposterously ethno-centric but, as between Brown and Mandelson (whose career he did so much to damage), in a catfight I’d put my pennies on M’Lord surviving every time. Gordon Brown David Cameron George Osborne Tony Blair Labour Conservatives Economic policy IMF Michael White guardian.co.uk