I have no idea if Gordon Brown is interested in being the next head of the IMF, no idea if it is true that current incumbent Dominique Strauss-Khan fancies himself as the Socialist Party challenger to President Sarkozy at the next election, and no idea if GB would be a frontrunner if and when DSK moves on.
What I do know is that David Cameron’s pre-emptive strike reveals a petty nasty vindictiveness that does him and his office no good. I know their entire economic strategy is based on the lie that GB is to blame for the global financial crash, but to take that to this extreme goes beyond party politics and into the realm of putting narrow party interest before possible national interest.
I never had much good to say about John Major’s premiership, but I do recall the grace he showed in sending the man he defeated in the general election, Neil Kinnock, to the European Commission. Also my diaries are littered with examples of TB trying to secure top international jobs for current and former Labour, Lib Dem and Tory politicians.
You certainly need a ruthless streak to get to the top in politics, but it is not the same thing as vindictiveness. It exposes a weakness rather than a strength, and the real weakness is that Cameron can’t see that.
50 Comments
Leave a reply
My Latest Book
But What Can I Do?
Why politics has gone so wrong, and how you can help fix it
by
Alastair Campbell
"Your country needs you. Your world needs you. Your time is now."
Our politics is a mess. We have leaders who can't or shouldn't be allowed to lead. We endure governments that lie, and seek to undermine our democratic values. And we are confronted with policies that serve the interests of the privileged few. It's no surprise that so many of us feel frustrated, let down and drawn to ask, 'But what can I do?' That question is the inspiration behind this book. It's a question regularly posed to Alastair Campbell, not least in reaction to The Rest is Politics, the chart-topping podcast he presents with former Tory Cabinet minister Rory Stewart. His answer, typically, is forthright and impassioned. We cannot afford to stand on the sidelines. If we think things need to change, then we need to change them, and that means getting involved. But What Can I Do? provides each of us with the motivation and the tools to make a difference. Opening with an acute analysis of our polarised world and the populists and extremists who have shaped it, it goes on to show how we help transform it. It explains how we can develop our skills of advocacy and persuasion. It draws on Alastair’s long experience, as well as on role models and lessons from history, to offer practical tips on starting and leading a campaign. It offers advice on developing confidence and coping with criticism and setbacks. And it sets out the practical steps by which we can become political players ourselves. Part call to arms, part practical handbook, But What Can I Do? will prove required reading for anyone who wants to help change things for the better.
I must agree that, at first view, Cameron’s respsonse to the idea of Gordon Brown becoming the next Head of the IMF comes across as petty and vindictive, but one has to ask the question, wouldl GB be suitable in that higghly important position. Indeed shoudl it go to a politician at all or to a professional from the Finance Sector instead?
Certainly some of the actions of David Cameron since becoming Prime Minister have shown a nasty peittiness that is not evident in his media persona of “The Nice Guy next door” with a pretty wife and three young kiddies. This is evident in partiuclar when he is rattled or on the losing side of some argument or political situation and is possibly his Achilles Heel.
A calm balance here Alistair. It’s all unravelling for the “condem” misalignment, possessed of a leader who shows all the high handed, hands off approach of his old Etonian forbears.
The Lib Dems will pull back from the brink with a new leader in the next parliament and together with a refreshed labour party, they will start to map out real alternatives to the Cameron narrow politics.
Spot on. It reveals not just vindictiveness but the same childishness that Cameron regularly displays at PMQs. Statesmanlike Prime Ministers attack their current opponents forcefully but usually show magnanimity towards their predecessors.
Furthermore – and this cannot be stated too often – if Cameron and Osborne thought Brown was recklessly racking up debt before the global crisis, why did they say at that time that they would, if elected, stick to Brown’s spending plans?
Very true, but he’s just trying to justify that lie that you mentioned. I actually feel Mr Brown’s actions re the Banks, prevented a more serious economic meltdown than the one we actually experienced and that suggests he could make a good head of the IMF, should he be interested. Of course I’m biased and look at the world through red tinted specs, but no amount of Tory spin can hide the fact that Cameron and Osborne’s mad axe-man antics are anything other than ideological, and have very little to do with helping the economy.
What other response could he have given when asked the question? He has not said he wouldn’t find him a job or support him in seeking a role, just that the head of the IMF would not be appropriate. Something of an understatement surely. Gordon did not want to face the fact we had such a large deficit and thought Labour should be claiming Labour investment vs Tory cuts as a slogan? How can he be taken seriosuly as head of the IMF when dealing with deficits around the world? Do you think he would be an appropriate head of the IMF?
Perhaps the IMF would be concerned he wouldn’t turn up to work – given his record at Westminster – what’s going on? Is he unwell? Why does he not carry out the role he is currently being paid for? It’s shameful.
I was horrified by Cameron’s statements. I watched Gordon Brown’s speech at the INET Conference and am amazed that the bit the press picked up on was the admission of guilt. I heard that as an admission that nobody had realised the complexity and interlinked nature of the global financial system. I also heard a masterful analysis of what happened and why, along with some insightful observations about the future. I think the IMF would be a brilliant move for him and I hope it is true. The problem is that it would rather stuff David Cameron’s argument that the current dismantling of the public sector is all down to Gordon Brown’s handling of our economy. Surely even those who believe that argument must have found Cameron’s comments distasteful in the extreme.
Cameron is Prime Minister of a coalition government and has co-opted many Labour MPs and supporters (Hutton, Field, Denham) to work with the coalition so it doesn’t appear he has the slightest problem with promoting or supporting political opponents if he thinks they are the right person for the job. Clearly he thinks Brown is the wrong person for the top IMF job and when asked by Evan Davies (so it wasn’t a pre-emptive strike) he said as much.
It is hardly very progressive too argue that important international positions be filled by whatever Briton just happens to want it.
If Brown wants to run the IMF he should have seen Cameron privately and discussed whether this was something the British government could or would support. Thus saving embarrassment all round. Cameron may well have already offered his support to one of the other (better) candidates.
So agree, but not inthe least surprising.
“I actually feel Mr Brown’s actions re the Banks, prevented a more serious economic meltdown than the one we actually experienced and that suggests he could make a good head of the IMF, should he be interested.”
And a more though-through series of actions could have seen the bankers not be given a massive get-out-of-jail-free card allowing business as usual and massive bonuses with no requirement or obligation to restructure or reform. Coupled with the fact that the UK’s “best” High Street bank Lloyds was effectively destroyed by Brown’s forcing of it to takeover HBOS.
There are many countries that suffered less through the banking crisis than the UK because their financial systems were better regulated and their economies had much less debt and leverage in both their government and private sectors. Surely one of the finance ministers or bankers from these countries are better placed to run the IMF than Gordon Brown.
“If a Prince has to hurt a man he must destroy him utterly”.
The justification being that the one hurt will otherwise come back and attack the Prince tit for tat.
And we know that if GB could come back to bash Cameron and this wretched government he would and our lot would be cheering him on.
Pure Machiavelli.
I agree. Cameron is small minded and vindictive. Apart from the damage this would do to Cameron’s ridiculous arguments that 1) Gordon Brown ran an excessive deficit prior to the banking crash (why won’t journalists repeatedly remind him he and Osbprne agreed with Labour’s spending plans) and 2) Gordon Brown was responsible for the international crisis – foreign observers must look on with disbelief.
I think though there is another, more base reason for Cameron’s opposition, the fear of being upstaged. Even those who dislike Gordon Brown would concede that he is a serious and weighty politician who is driven by a desire to make the world a better place. No serious political commentator would put the shallow, self-interested Cameron in the same league.
Surely to support Brown’s nomination for the position would be anti-democratic? The head of the IMF has considerable global clout yet the voters of the UK decisively rejected him at the ballot box on numerous occasions (Euro elections, council elections and of course the General Election). People who run for these positions should be both highly qualifed (Brown is no economist, as, amongst other things, the selling of the Gold showed) and have a popular mandate (which he definitely does not).
Appointing people to positions of influence, as Major did with Kinnock, is an insult to the electorate. The voters made it clear that they rejected Kinnock as a legislator yet he was given that position anyhow. This arrogant, contemptuous view of the electorate cost New Labour in the end and for once, Cameron is respecting their view.
Finally, I have never understood why it is important to have British people involved in these giant global quangos. Surely that would be petty nationalism of the worst kind. They can do very little to push Britain’s interests – and not being elected, nor should they. Does Mr Campbell believe that Brits are inherently the best people for these jobs, and if so, why?
It says much of Mr Cameron´s abilities that he thinks that a man who single-handed saved the world´s financial system from total collapse is not fit to be a new head of IMF.
Ps. I would like to correct a couple of mistakes made in British media about our (Finland) election. True Finns are on the left – they are not a far right party. And National Coalition party is no longer conservative, it is nowadays a liberal party.
It probably is vindictive but it’s also excellent judgement. Why on earth appoint a man who has wrecked one economy to a position where he would be able to damage others?
If there’s one thing Cameron has proved he is good at,it’s insulting people,and nasty petty name calling,it certainly showed up in the article about Gordon Brown. I believe in Karma and it will soon bite him in the bum,I can’t wait!
Strange that Tory commentators no longer recognise insolence when they hear it. Cameron’s insolence was reminiscent of the worst out-of-touch backwoodsmen of the 60s. I increasingly find Cameron and Osborne have less and less in common with Keith Joseph and Enoch Powell never mind Butler and Boyle.
You really are the most amazingly social climbing person on the face of the earth. If you think it is alright for “TB…to secure top international jobs for current and former…politicians” then you reveal more about your crony persuasion than you know. Sadly, and perhaps more importantly, you just simply cannot see that you are morally bankrupt.
Alastair, I somehow must have missed the exact point where Cameron blamed Brown for the global financial crash, he has blamed him for the UK part in the crash but come on ‘global’. Are you not getting confused with Brown’s perception of his coming to the rescue of the ‘global crash’?
And this nonsense about previous PMs sending their erstwhile adversaries to the EU feeding bowl as ‘an act of grace’ is more like a disgrace. The Kinnocks have sponged millions out of the EU and they are not alone. It’s like it’s some reward for all of the failed years in opposition so, obviously they deserve looking after by the gravytrain!
Are you telling us that Brown didn’t have one bone of vindictiveness in his body, come on be slightly more genuine and we might respect your pronouncements a bit more!
I heard the interview and DC didn’t come across as vindictive at all. He didn’t raise the subject, he was asked the question by the interviewer. He said he hadn’t psemt much time thinking about it, but when pressed gave a couple of reasons why he didn’t think Brown was the right man for the job.
Some press reported him as calling Brown a ‘washed up’ politician. He didn’t. The interviewer responded with something along the lines of ‘would you prefer a washed up politician from rom another country?’ and DC said no.
I genuinely don’t believe DC was being vindictive. He was, however, being consistent..
Absolute drivel. Cameron is only saying what most of us think.What next, Prescott as European Minister for Health ?
The only thing more absurd that this would be making Tony Blair Middle East peace envoy…….oh hold on.
Co-opting politicians from other parties might well be a sign of magnanimity and a recognition of expertise, but it might equally be a means of neutralising criticism. Let’s just quote from Cameron’s interview and seriously ask ourselves whether his comments about a predecessor merit the description of ‘magnanimous’:
‘The prime minister also clearly indicated he would oppose any attempt to appoint Gordon Brown as the next managing director of the International Monetary Fund, saying “it does seem to me that if you have someone who didn’t think we had a debt problem in the UK when we self-evidently do have a debt problem, then they might not be the most appropriate person to work out whether other countries around the world have debt and deficit problems”.’
Gordon Brown was and is fully aware of the UK’s debt problem and that of other European countries and the USA, some worse off than us. Cameron knows that. He is therefore being a brazen-faced liar. Unfortunately there are people who will believe him and defend what he says. I agree 100% with Alastair’s post and just add that when Cameron makes this kind of statement he reveals himself as a very low-calibre politician who will stoop to the lowest of low if it is politically expedient.
Anyone see Blanchflower ,he of BOE Monetary Committee on the Beeb commenting on GB as leader of the IMF. He had extremely positive things to say about GB and that he would be a very good candidate for the job.GB has also written a very good book on the subject. People may not like GB but i`d much prefer him to the lightweight Cameron anyday.
Is that the same shallow self interested GB who tried to cuddle up with Clegg in the week after the Election , to form a minority coalition Government. Do us a favour!
Having “Saved the World”, and ensured that “there would be no return to boom and bust”, GB’s place in History is already assured. As head of the IMF his astute judgement, charm and persuasive nature would deliver success not seen since Jack the Ripper pioneered courses to be given to door to door salesman!
PS AC really ought to take the trouble to see the News clip referred to before launching off at Cameron: you guys are in danger of getting your knickers so twisted about Cameron and Clegg that your spite and vindictive bile results in another period like the era leading up to ’97, in the wilderness. Anybody see Ed Minibrain at the weekend? Now there is leader of men.
Is it really vindictive? I continue to read political memoirs which all record GB’s vindictiveness against colleagues. I have yet to see a vindictive side to Mr Cameron. Stating that he does not feel that GB should head the IMF does not amount to vindictiveness. Neither has he stated that GB is responsible for the global meltdown. He did say that the UK was in a worst position than our European neighbours such as France and Germany in coping with the global situation. This is accurate as GB set up the tri-partite financial regulatory system which Eddie George opposed at the time. He also relaxed many other financial instruments leaving citizens in this country with greater personal debt than others in Europe. I am quite sure that DC dislikes GB – again all the books I have read suggests that GB lacked the ability to work with opponents (never mind colleagues) and hated the Conservative Party. He was also renowned for ignoring shadow Chancellors! Can we compare the EU and the IMF? The IMF is a global institution and we all know that France has dominated the organization for years. I myself do not feel that GB should get the job. I do not think his track record is good enough and we all know that even when we were facing meltdown GB was the last person to admit it. Further, he only did so when his colleagues insisted. We all tired of his slogan tory cuts v labour investment when our debts were mounting Indeed, I do not think another European should become Head of the IMF- lets give it to someone from Asia. That is were the growth is and they have eminently qualified economists and politicians who would do a sterling job on behalf of the world community.
Not only vindictive but stupid. Of course he doesn’t want GB in that position but anyone with any sophistication and guile could have sidestepped the question and avoided being so obvious. His blatancy simply draws attention to his own insecurities.
Incidentally (and totally off subject) can anyone imagine what would have happened if Bush and Blair had announced in say 2002 that the only acceptable outcome of the no-fly zone over Iraq was the removal of Saddam Hussein?
Can you just hear the cries of ‘war criminals’?
Yet Cameron and Obama’s announcement has been generally accepted, certainly by the British media.
Saddam Hussein was in breach of more UN resolutions than Gaddafi ever was. He was still in breach of UN 678 on the question of disarmament, which authorised ‘all necessary means’ to bring him into compliance. Can someone tell me how that differs from ‘all necessary measures’ in UN 1973?
Blair continually reinforced the fact that the point of the action against Saddam was disarmament, not regime change. Any hint that regime change was the intention was pounced on by the media.
I can’t understand how commentators who are so ready to cast doubts on the legality of Iraq are now happy to accept Cameron’s avowed intention of regime change in Libya with much less justification, both moral and legal.
‘a man who has wrecked one economy’ ???
I’m still waiting for Tories to explain comments like this. How exactly did he wreck the economy? We know (fact) Cameron and Osborne fully supported Labour’s spending plans prior to the crash, so this statement can’t refer to the pre-banking crisis period. It can’t even relate to his admitted failure to regulate the banks more fully as the Conservative front bench were urging even less regulation.
It can only refer then to Gordon Brown’s decision to bail out the banks, opposed by Cameron and Osborne at the time. Would any Tory supporter care to hazard a guess as to the depth of the depression which would have followed if bold action had not been taken? How many jobs, homes and businesses would have been lost? What would have been the fallout, economic, political and social, of ordinary bank customers unable to access their funds through bank cashpoints?
If Tories truly believe it was a mistake to bail out the banks, and a 1930’s style depression would have been preferable, then why not say so?
Interestingly, when Osborne had an opportunity to prove he didn’t agree with bank bailouts he chose not to, by pumping £6billion into the Irish economy to protect British banks’ involvement in the Irish financial sector.
The logical conclusion to draw is that Cameron and Osborne know Gordon Brown did the right thing and saved the country from a financial catastrophe. As they were on the wrong side of the argument during the unfolding crisis, they can’t admit it. Instead they hide behind pathetic criticisms of the man who had the bottle to tackle the problem. Gutter politics at its worst.
Alastair I’ve thought quite a few times when I’ve watched David Cameron that he comes across as a nasty piece of work and seems to enjoy putting other people down, he doesn’t seem genuine at all.
I don’t think AC is being quite fair. The Tory position on the economy is based entirely on the mythology that Labour equals world recession. There is no rowing back from there. Give David Cameron credit for consistency. You can’t tell a huge untruth one minute, and give ground the next.
What job did Denham have. He has been the shadow cabinet since the last election.
Well said.
Not one major Western economy had any idea of the oncoming financial crisis. Not one.
This country was doing just fine until the American sub-prime debts were finally exposed and world’s financial system froze for fear the ever bouncing black ball of debt would land in their back yard.
Gordon Brown, with his almost obsessive understanding of economics, devised a plan. It was global. It required all the major economies to be on board. It required a leap into the unknown. Gordon Brown had a plan when nobody else did. Nobody.
I was fortunate enough to Sarah Brown during the 2010 election. I asked her what it was like at the time Gordon pulled together the governments of the world and asked them to trust his judgement. To trust his plan.
She told me that for two days Gordon did not sleep. Everybody was waiting for the markets to open to see if Gordon’s unprecedented,
incredible and untested plan would pull back the world’s economy from the financial abyss.
I asked her, “But what if it had failed?”
She looked me steely in the eye and simply said, “But it didn’t.”
Enough said. Think about it. We were THAT close. Two days…
Doing anything you can to keep out the Tories need not be self-centred, just sane.
Again, Tory criticism with no basis in fact.
In the event of a hung parliament, in our country, the sitting prime minister is expected to make the first attempt to form a government. Gordon Brown behaved in accordance with this convention.
Absolutely spot on and brilliantly put. The Labour Party simply have to find a way of getting this exact message across. They have to repeat in and reinforce it and never never allow an opportunity to go past to remind the country (not the Tories cos they already know) that the financial crisis was not caused by Labour and things would be a lot worse if it hadn’t been for GB and AD. The government and its supporters (including the media) can’t be allowed to keep on with these lies.
For nearly a decade Brown overspent and over borrowed in the UK and we were reassured that it was OK because other countries were doing it.
Someone so susceptible to that kind of group think mentality just isn’t up to the job. Sorry
Completely right, Janete, but don’t expect ‘Chris lancashire’ to explain himself. He just wants to keep parroting his one-liners against Gordon Brown without making any attempt at argument, or marshalling any facts to support his position. I can only conclude that he must get some kind of cheap thrill out of being a constant irritant, but after a while you realise he’s not making you itch anymore. Maybe he works for Conservative Central Office? His comments are certainly on a par with some of theirs.
Your use of the nickname, ‘Ed Minibrain’, rather calls into question your diatribe against ‘spite and vindictive bile’ and probably leaves your knickers a bit uncomfortable too. It’s an old playground tactic, isn’t it? If you don’t like somebody or you disagree with what they’re saying you attack them by belittling them. I don’t know how Ed’s brain compares in size with yours, but I do know it functions better. But that’s not to belittle you, of course.
See above Dave, read, learn and inwardly digest.
I looked above, but as usual I saw nothing. There was nothing there.
A selection of the insults to DC from your pals on this blog, today, Dave:
“petty nasty vindictiveness” – AC
nasty piece of work
Not only vindictive but stupid
lightweight Cameron
Cameron’s insolence
Cameron is small minded and vindictive.”
Stones and glasshouses, lad.
I do not bear any ‘spite and vindictive bile’ towards Red Leader, ED, and I am curious as to why so few of you have any words of support towards him. You did not like my language but did not disagree with the content.
We always disagree with the content in your comments Dick. Well, that is if petty name calling passes for content. Given that they never contain any facts, informed political judgement, logical argument or coherent thinking there isn’t usually much to reply to.
Knoweth ye the saying of pots and kettles?
Yes I do know the saying. Were you about to make some point in relation to it? Please don’t keep us waiting too long in suspense.
Again, Tory criticism with no basis in fact.
In the event of a hung parliament, in our country, the sitting prime minister is expected to make the first attempt to form a government. Gordon Brown behaved in accordance with this convention.
I see you have not quoted richard Adams in the Grauniad on this one!
Cameron’s vilification of Gordon Brown has always disgusted me. However, what goes around comes around. Cameron and Osborne will eventually be found out to be the incompetent creeps they really are. Unfortunately it will be at great cost to the country.
It’s sad that Gordon Brown has the respect he deserves abroad and not in his own country.
And this is why GB is amazingly well qualified to be head of the IMF. I can see how GB being the head of IMF could be very embarrassing for the government. I would understand, though not respect it, if DC quietly opposed GB’s appointment – but no, he had to have a petty, vindictive swipe at Gordon.
Cameron is a lightweight.
AFZ
These aren’t insults they’re statements of fact.
The Party of Myth and Legend have produced a propaganda story that the Govt.of GB left the country’s economy in a mess . From Cameron’s point of view it would be contradicted by GB being an Internationally Recognised Authority on the IMF . I was pleased to see that GB has become Chairman of the World Economic Forum also an Internationally Recognised Authority on economics. Especially at the annual meeting at Davos.