More like this
IMF: Blanchflower joins campaign for Brown
Coalition’s block on Gordon Brown is ‘tawdry’ - he was not responsible for shattering UK economy
David Blanchflower, the British economist who predicted the 2008 financial crisis and also suggested a cure for it months before many of his peers cottoned on, today told The First Post that the coalition government's blacklisting of Gordon Brown - and support instead for French finance minister Christine Lagarde - in the appointment of a new IMF boss, was "tawdry" and "cheap nastiness" that would rebound on David Cameron and George Osborne.
Referring to the "ethical issues" which continue to bedevil Lagarde, Blanchflower maintained that the former British prime minister was head and shoulders above the other candidates for the IMF position, which was vacated by Dominique Strauss-Kahn last week.
Blanchflower, a former member of the Bank of England's monetary policy committee who recommended interest rate cuts months before the beginning of the last recession which would have cushioned the blow for millions of Britons, also gave succour to Gordon Brown's campaign by saying that David Cameron does not have an ultimate veto over his predecessor's chances of acceding to the top job in world finance. It would be "very embarrassing for the coalition" if Brown succeeded in getting the job with the backing of the United States.
He also poured scorn on the ideology of Lagarde, whom he dubbed alongside George Osborne as being part of the "Chicago austerity" group of economists - a reference to the guiding principals of Milton Friedman, the economist who taught at that city's university and spawned the laissez-faire monetarist philosophy so beloved of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s.
"This ideology has failed everywhere it's been implemented - look at Portugal," Blanchflower said, pointing to the Eurozone member whose government recently agreed a €78bn bailout with the European Union. And he noted that the European Central Bank line (endorsed by Osborne and Lagarde) of demanding that countries cut their spending has "hardly come through with shining light".
Blanchflower agreed with the view of British political figures that the coalition decision to oppose Brown's candidature was political more than anything else. "They have to maintain the line that the British economy was bankrupt and had been shattered by Gordon Brown. Not true," argued Blanchflower. He also said that the key role the IMF plays in developing nations would be far better served by the former British PM, who talks for the "global coalition".
Now professor of economics at Dartmouth University in New Hampshire, Blanchflower also noted that his erstwhile boss, Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England, had criticised the approach to economics of the coalition's triumvirate of Cameron, Osborne and Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem deputy prime minister. "All they care about is politics," he said.
That point was also made today by the economic historian Lord (Robert) Skidelsky. In a letter to the Financial Times, he said: "The UK coalition government's public opposition to appointing Gordon Brown as the new managing director of the International Monetary Fund is a woeful example of putting domestic politics ahead of the world good."
Critically, it is not just British economists backing Brown. The US Nobel winners Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman have also said the former Labour prime minister should take on the role which many feel he would excel in. And US president Barack Obama is also known to admire Brown. He told Andrew Marr on Sunday that Brown helped "yank an economy out of a potential Great Depression. Great Britain [played a large role] in making sure that the world financial system didn't collapse."
Will he say the same thing in private when he meets David Cameron for talks tomorrow? ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
I could not agree more with Mr Blanchflower, and I hope he is right that it comes back to haunt Cameron. Nothing this fellow has done diminishes my opinion that he is easily the worst British Prime minister ever. He is spiteful, pompous, interfering, warlike and does not give a straw about ordinary people. I am so glad that FIFA decided to go ahead with their election on Wednesday, if only to show Cameron that he cannot control the world and that his opinion counts for little globally. Bombing and killing Libyans, telling the World football body what to do, instead of minding his business and improving the lot of the British people, which is what those who voted for him would want him to do.
No. The Tories will not have to explain any relationships between the UK's recent prime minister and any other countries. If they exist they are irrelevant to his known and often-listed mistakes. He destroyed the British economy with irrational acts dictated by his political prejudices, and his addiction to off-balancesheet accounting will delay recovery for decades. While devoting his time to the imaginative mismanagement of our national assets he also, in passing and almost as an afterthought, destroyed the Armed Forces in his pursuit of "bringing those generals down". He left us so weak that, in common with the other countries you mention, we had insufficient strength to cope with the instability of the international financial relationships as easily as we would have done with almost any other politician in power. If he is given the power of the IMF there will be nowhere we can run for safety.
Roy
Well On Broon's watch he sold our gold reserves at the bottom of the market, he introduced the system that finished 90% of final salary pension schemes, he allowed the largest number of economic immigration ever (and I think lied about how many were coming in) and paid for it on our taxes. He saved nothing and spent money in the labour heartlands of Islington , The North and Guardian lovers.
So Rory why are Germany, France, Norway, Netherlands even Belgium not a financial shambles - because they didn't have deficit deniers like brown and the miliband Duo in charge.
Brown couldn't make a sensible decision to save his life - remember how he bottled calling an election.
I think his vindictive disloyalty in the Blair years means he is unfit for public office and he will not stand again in a few years - his last great failure was the MOD and his 'starving' our soldiers of proper weapons in time to fight do you know he never went to the MOD for any briefings as Chancellor.
Boy the Guardian'' Champagne socialists have short and forgetful memories.
Hmmm... hardly surprising as Blanchflower is from the Gordon Brown 'tax, spend, borrow' school. LaGarde of course isn't and the result is that the French economy is growing strongly, having had a relatively easy time of the recession, whereas under Brown our economy was poleaxed and is still reeling from the shock of the recession. That's because France didn't run up a huge structural deficit and didn't deregulate its banks as we did - or to be more specific, Gordon Brown did.
Brown is a Keynesian, good. The Friedman poison has done incalculable damage to the world. But Brown is a cheer-leader for the equally poisonous doctrine of Globalization which will pull us all down.
That, and that alone, would prevent him ever being a suitable candidate for the working man.
I don't think we'll be taking lectures form an economics of happiness guru on letting Brown loose on the world.
Brown lacks the interpersonal skills as well as having the track record of destroying the UK's economy. You have to wonder about those who promote the idea of him being head of the IMF.
Blanchflower and Krugman are right; Brown would do a good job as IMF boss. Unfortunately for the Tories, his candidature could well deflate their most precious myth--that Brown was responsible for the UK's current fiscal plight. They will have to explain why he is also responsible for the parallel economic woes of Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland (Osborne's favourite), the US, and, for that matter, Estonia and Ecuador. Good luck with that.