Gathering at Bethnal Green police station

I went to the demonstration for justice for Ian Tomlinson, as I mentioned in this post yesterday. I just felt like, you know, I had to do something. And I guessed in that sense it would be rather more cathartic – for my own benefit, to set my mind at rest – than because I thought it would actually achieve anything in particular.

The statement by the family at Bethnal Green police station, the start of the march, really was very moving, and I’m glad I took part. We needed to make a statement.

However, I think I was right on the second part – the demonstration measured (I guess) 500-600 people at most. Thankfully it got a fairly good (brief) report on the BBC News website.

But on the first part, I was wrong. It didn’t lead to a sense of catharsis for me, just a sense of hopelessness, as the demo was hijacked by various people trying to push their respective political agendas. In this case it was largely the SWP who plastered their logo and website across their banners stating “Who killed Ian Tomlinson?”. There were plenty of others there hawking their Socialist Workers and various other hard left newspapers, and several large banners were on the march for the Union of Servicemen (?), the Socialist Workers and the Stop The War Coalition.

Using this event – a solemn march to demand justice for a man who had died – to push any sort of other agenda just seems to me to be incredibly tasteless.

Marching towards Bank

This wasn’t about “the system”, or about capitalism. It was about a man who died, at least partly due to police tactics. How is that partisan? How could anyone think it appropriate to make it exclusive to their political creed?

Perhaps I am just expecting too precise a message than is possible in a group of several hundred people, and perhaps this protest was extraordinary. But it at least made me reconsider the final paragraph of this comment I wrote on Ed’s G20 post. Do protests work? (Obviously, they do sometimes.)

I’m now watching Persepolis, a really brilliant film – the original French version – apparently the English version isn’t as good (Marjane really can’t sing though.). In the Iranian Revolution, protests against the Shah’s pretty awful regime, only partly down to religious concerns, were hijacked and used to justify wholehearted support for the new theocracy.

Obviously the parallels aren’t direct (er, at all), but it’s an interesting contrast, perhaps.

Maybe I’ll feel better about it all tomorrow.

(Penny Red has another report from a different perspective and highlights an incident I had forgotten)

Nine days have now passed since the death of Ian Tomlinson, and in that time, one thing has become very clear: he did not simply die of ‘natural causes’, as the police at the time suggested. In fact, his death was a very unnatural one indeed – and the police are directly responsible.

It’s easy to get very angry about this sort of thing and descend into hyperbole. But two things have become clear:

1) Police tactics are at fault

The police tactic of ‘kettling’ is unnecessary, counter-productive, and unacceptable. Last year the House of Lords ruled that the practice of ‘kettling’, deployed in the May Day protests of 2001 (where thousands of protesters were held for SEVEN HOURS at Oxford Circus) was compatible with the ECHR Article 5(1), as “the sole purpose of the cordon was to maintain public order, that it was proportionate to that need and that those within the cordon were not deprived of their freedom of movement arbitrarily”.

Let’s hope this senseless policy gets overturned at the European Court of Human Rights. When 3000 people are held in an area of less than 2000 square metres for 7 hours, until 21:30, with no food, water, or sanitary provisions, how can that possibly be justified?

Similarly, with the G20 protests, how can it be justified to hold people for such a long period of time, and only allow them to leave if they agree to provide their details and be photographed?

And how can the police get away with smacking people on the head with truncheons, cordoning off and then baton-charging peaceful climate camp demonstrators (who hours earlier had been pitching tents, playing music, and selling flapjack) and setting dogs on people who had been posing no threat at all?

If there’s one video you watch today – assuming you’ve watched the videos of the police beating Ian Tomlinson (1, 2)- watch this one. Riot police march in to beat unarmed, peaceful protesters, with their hands in the air. Then watch this one from the film Goodbye Lenin, which depicts the Stasi’s tactics of violently breaking up demonstrations. That there is any resemblance between the two at all is appalling.

How can these things not be seen as a deterrent to future protest, and a breach of Article 5?

2) The policeman responsible for Ian Tomlinson’s death should go to prison – and for a long time. But he’s not the only one.

I’m afraid, not for the first time, that I am going to have to disagree with the charming commentator on this (very good) Daily Mail article (via) who said:

“Ian Tomlinson, drunk and out for trouble, decided to deliberately walk into a riot situation and blatantly obstruct the police. He was pushed out of the way. He died because he was a chronic alcoholic and was likely on his last legs anyway. The police did nothing wrong and, compared to other European countries, acted in a very restrained manner. This whole media frenzy is pathetic, transparent and more to the point, very boring. Nobody cared about this man when he was alive, not the media, not the readers of this column and certainly not his family, so let’s have less of the crocodile tears and public lamenting now he’s dead. If people want to criticise the police then do so, but don’t assume everyone is of such low intelligence that putting a bit of spin about a story of a drunk having a heart attack will prompt any right-thinking person into outrage and anarchy.”

- Dom, UK, 10/4/2009 10:40

Ian Tomlinson wasn’t doing anything wrong. He was a bystander, making his way home from selling newspapers. The video clearly shows him shuffling away from the police with his hands in his pockets.

But even if he was doing something wrong, that is obviously no excuse for smacking him in the legs and violently throwing him to the ground. The policeman actually lunged at his back. The only threat to public order was from that policeman himself.

As others have pointed out, this particular piece of brutality which led to Ian Tomlinson’s death was not exceptional; there were countless examples of this on the day. So yes, this stupid thug should go to prison, and for a very long time, both for what he did and to set an example to others thinking of going the same way. But this goes much higher than that.

The Met is not only responsible for the police tactics, it’s also responsible for the disgraceful way that it responded to Ian Tomlinson’s death, briefing that it was “of natural causes” and that demonstrators threw bricks, bottles, etc. while police were trying to save his life. And the media’s responsible for unquestioningly lapping it up. It’s since “emerged” that he was an alcoholic Milwall fan staying in a bail hostel. Oh, well that’s ok then.

So what’s going to happen now?

Well it’s clear that IPCC inquiry is not going to be sufficient. As the Guardian’s editorial on Thursday noted,

“And what kind of independent body is it whose first reaction to the Guardian’s evidence on Tuesday night was to call at our offices (accompanied by a City of London policeman) and ask for it to be taken off the website?”

Surprise! The CCTV cameras “weren’t working”. Sorry, that must have come as a shock. And from that Channel 4 News interview, the chairman of the IPCC is clearly an idiot.

We need a full judicial inquiry, and the only way we’re going to get that is if sufficient pressure is placed on those who can make it happen. Protests might not help much, but it’s better than nothing.

Join the protest against police brutality, tomorrow (Saturday 11th April) at 11:30, at Bethnal Green police station.

I want to have confidence in my police service again. I want to trust them, and to believe that they’re there to protect me. How can I do that when nine days ago, a man died at their hands, and they don’t seem all that bothered?

Some more coverage:

• Liberal Conspiracy: Who’s to blame for this accidental death?
• Liberal Conspiracy: So who will excuse police brutality now? (includes lots of other links)
• Liberal Conspiracy: I still blame police brutality (2nd April)
• Chicken Yoghurt: Ian Tomlinson: video reveals G20 police assault on man who died
• Bloggerheads – Why aren’t these people working to protect us?
• Laurie Penny – Fuck.
  

photo credit: thefost

It’s now been a whole week since the G20 met (an event which, if it was a Friends episode, would surely be called The One Where The Canadian Prime Minister Missed The Group Photo Because He Was In the Toilet) and yet commentators are still very much divided on the deceptively simple question: Was the summit a success? This isn’t really surprising, since the answer depends on how you define success. For example, if you were looking for a demonstration that in the midst of global recession the world’s leaders are able to get together, put aside their differences and promise to sort stuff out then the summit was very successful indeed. Alternatively, if you were looking for a solid commitment to prevent a global crisis like this from ever happening again, then you must have come away very happy with the result. And if what you were after was a bunch of vague commitments that will probably/maybe be ratified in the future but more importantly look very good in the present, then you’re probably still doing triple backflips of joy.

But if you were hoping for a substantive commitment to lifting the global economy out of recession – and doing it now, rather than later – then it’s hard not to see the G20 summit as a bit of a let-down, albeit a very glamorous and show-stopping one. It’s true that restoring growth and getting people back to work was never the sole aim of the summit- in the final communique it’s merely listed as an equal pledge amongst eight others -  but lifting the world out of recession is nevertheless the first thing you’d expect someone to say if you asked them what the summit’s main goal was. And with good reason – the current numbers coming out of America alone suggest that we might have to soon start switching out terminology from talk of global recession to the use of the dreaded “d” word (“depression” that is, though doom and devastation work quite well too).

To prove my point, let’s examine what have been touted as the main substantive achievements of the summit – the clampdown on tax havens, the new regulatory framework and the headline-grabbing sum of $1.1 trillion.

The publishing of a blacklist for tax havens is obviously a really welcome development, but tax havens had little to nothing to do with the current crisis. Tackling them was very much an example of “we’re never going to have so much capital to get stuff done, so let’s sort out the havens while we’re here”. Moving on to the ambitious new international regulatory framework, this is – assuming it’s actually followed through and enforced effectively – a spectacularly impressive achievement.  Indeed, the proposed reforms that will be the responsibility of the new, international “Financial Stability Board” read like a checklist of what should have been done to prevent the current recession: controls on leveraging,  stricter capital reserve requirements, regulation of derivatives like credit default swaps, better analysis of systemic risk, etc. But let’s be clear: the progress on regulation is all about preventing another global recession. Welcome as these reforms are, they’re of no use for the one we’re in now.

Which brings us to that eye-catching $1.1. trillion pledge. If you break it down, it comes to an extra $500 billion in funding for the International Monetary fund, a $250 billion increase in the IMF’s “special drawing rights” (sort of like a cheap overdraft facility for IMF members), $250 billion in trade finance and $100 for multi-lateral development banks like the World Bank. At first glance, this is an impressive haul. But, just like Bernie Madoff’s company accounts, the more you scrutinise the numbers the more they fall apart.  Mark Lander in the New York Times has undertaken a rather damning analysis of the figures; suffice to say it turns out that much of the $1.1 trillion is a mixture of money that’s already been pledged, hasn’t yet been pledged, isn’t really money or has been pledged but needs to face an unlikely approval by a country’s legislature (hello, American Congress!). As Felix Salmon has pointed out, at best you can say that there is around $400 billion of new money.  Others have been more brutal and pegged it at $100 billion. But even putting aside questions about the exact amount of new money pledged, there still remains the fact that the majority of it is aimed at preventing the poorest countries from financial collapse. A crucial concern, no doubt, but it doesn’t really help us with the recession we’re already in – it’s merely preventing it from deteriorating too badly. In other words it’s staunching the wound but it’s hardly sowing our fingers back on…

So, as the steak-lover said to the vegetarian chef, where is the beef? Leading economists have warned that we need more Keynesian, deficit-spending, stimulus packages in order to reduce the growing output gap between what the world should be producing and what it is producing. But there were no commitments to increase the size of international stimulus packages to be found in the final communique, merely vague promises and disingenuously boastful references to the inadequate stimulus packages that have already been passed. This was not at all surprising given that the Franco-German anti-stimulus crowd had won the argument against the Anglo-Americans weeks before, but it was nevertheless very dispiriting to see the advice of most leading economists trumped by misguided European concerns over the demerits of more stimulus.  Of equal concern is the fact that another piece in the recovery puzzle – dealing with the toxic assets of banks and confronting the current insolvency of many leading financial institutions – was also shied away from; more vague language was all we got on that front.

This leaves us with the alarming realisation that a summit convened in response to a global recession has failed to come up with any substantive responses to it. It’s true that the leaders of the free world put on the convincing show that everyone needed to see. And it’s also true that a lot was achieved to prevent another recession like this one. In that sense, good work was done. But when it came to fixing the economy in the here and now, the G20 members put on their magician’s hats, bestrode the stage and gave us nothing but grandiose statements and awe-inspiring illusions; except unlike most good conjurers we can now see how their tricks were done. And, frankly, I want my money back.

There are no surprises in the deal announced today to reform the banking system, to prevent banks making the kind of risky loans and investments that precipitated the worst global economic crisis since the 1930s.

But it’s nonetheless a historic event that the world’s 20 most powerful economies have signed up for these reforms – because they represent the death knell for the Anglo-American doctrine that economies flourish when financial firms are left alone to do as they please.

Indeed.

18:32 BST: Buried under all the G20 news has been the potentially groundbreaking meeting between Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, which resulted in an agreement to reduce the nuclear arms of both sides much further than the current agreement demands. This could be very important…

18:30 BST: A wise comment from the Guardian’s Andrew Sparrow (whose live-blog was probably better than mine but nowhere near as epic!):

I’ve been busy updating our main story, having sat through the opening of Brown’s statement. First reaction: I found myself sitting there thinking ‘David Cameron could not pull off an event like this’. That’s not because I think Cameron’s a lightweight. I don’t. It’s because the most important summit conclusions involve international finance, global trade and the inner workings of organisations like the IMF and there are probably very few prime ministers or presidents in the world who understand this stuff as well as Brown.

18:20 BST: Lest I be judged  by my comments below to have been a bit too harsh on the protests, I want to stress that I have great respect for most of them. I say most of them, because the anarchists were just so annoying. Proper anarchism is really cool. It’s an extremely sophisticated ideology . These guys, however, were just pathetic. Bad anarchists!  The majority of protests, however, made some good points.The fact remains, though, that they surely made no difference on the summit at all. If you want to get something changed, you focus on it like a laser and you don’t go off message. But the protests were never on message to begin with – from homelessness to climate change to ending the war to the death of capitalism; only a minority were  actually focused on the topics of the summit! The question becomes then – did they really want to influence the summit? Or did they just want to get their message out there in a sort of vague picture of defiance?  In their defence, however, you could respond that they never stood a chance anyway: governments don’t respond to the people anymore. No-one listened to Iraq protests, for example and they were very focused. So it’s an interesting debate. But I do think that they could have maybe stood a chance at getting some traction if they focused on one message and, you know, stuck to it.

18:13 BST: Here’s the full text of the communique, courtesy of the Guardian. There’s tonnes of details here…

18:10 BST: Oh and I forgot to add that hedge funds and other non-banking institutions will come under the aegis of this new Financial Stability board. Since the mysterious financing of hedge funds helped to exacerbate the mess, this is also good news; but again it all depends on how strong the regulation is…

18:05 BST: The headlines are focusing on the issues of tax havens and that $1 trillion figure, but there’s tonnes of other stuff that’s just as interesting. For example, there’s going to be a new Financial Stability Board that will work with the IMF to monitor the risk of banking transactions and impose limits on things like capital reserves and leverage requirements (not to mention executive bonuses.) This is absolutely crucial in getting the banks back on track and preventing such a crisis happening again, since it was an inherent failure in the banks’s ability to evaluate “systemic risk” that made the crisis so bad. This is pretty complicated and I’ll come back to this another time, but suffice to say it’s a good move – that is, as long as this new regulatory body actually has proper regulatory oversight.

17:54 BST: A timely article over at Foreign Policy discussing whether protests ever work. I agree with its basic conclusion: protests have to be unified and targeted; and focused on changing the system not overthrowing it. The G20 protests were none of these things and so I’m afraid that they’ve had absolutely no effect whatsoever.

17:46 BST: Did Sarkozy and Merkel get their victory? Or was there never any “victory” to begin with? Everyone was in agreement over the basic regulatory provisions. and had been for weeks. The real controversy-  over the possibility of national stimulus packages – was won by Merkel and Sarkozy weeks ago, and so it was no surprise to see no such provisions today. However, Sarkozy must be feeling pleased that the language on tax havens was quite fierce. In the big picture, it’s not really much of an issue, but he’ll make a big deal of it, which is fair enough…

17:44 BST: Canadian PM Steven Harper’s absence in the photo is not going down well in Canada…

17:35 BST: Mark Brough in the comments points out, completely correctly, that I’ve been claiming all through this live-blog be on “GMT” time – Greenwich Mean Time – when in fact, because the hour went forward last week, we are now on “BST” – British standard Time…. Um… My bad!

17:20 GMT: Okay, they’re replaying Sarkozy’s press conference; he’s really laid it on thick… “There’s something moving about this…”; “Who could imagine?”  Definitely basking…

17:14 GMT: Question from Mark Bailey in the comments: does Brown get a boost in the polls from this? Hmm, tricky one that. On the one hand, this trillion dollar figure could backfire; it’s not quite what Obama and Brown wanted in the sense that there’s no commitment to plow government stimulus packages directly into G20 countries. Further, we should expect to see many journalists tomorrow asking the question: How does this help us? How does this help Britain? After all, it’s hard to see how increased IMF funding for developing countries helps the unemployed back in Britian. However, I find it hard to believe that he doesn’t get at least a small boost. I mean, come on: for two days he’s been the public greeter, charman, conductor and organiser of the world’s twenty most powerful people. He’s  even managed to outshine to Obama… (who has appeared quite tired) Moreover, though you can argue over how concrete the provisions are,  there’s no doubt that this is a groundbreaking agreement. And as long as you think globally, then the agreement is very good for Britain in terms of more secure, regualted international finance and trade . The trick for Brown will be getting the British people to realise this. It’s not an automatic thought process; but if he gets the point across then he could get a very significant boost. I still think he’d benefit from giving us a proper stimulus, though…

17:09 GMT: Didn’t listen to French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s press conference, because it was, if you believe it, held at the same time as Gordon Brown’s! Oh, Sarko! But the consensus seems to be that he did a lot of boasting on his achievements re. hedge funds, strong regulation and, crucially, tax havens. Arguably he deserves to boast – he got the strong language he wanted on tax havens; the naming and shaming in particular. He also apparently did some typical admonsishing of journalists. Never a dull moment with this guy…

17:00: GMT: Gordon Brown spoke well at his press conference and the final communique is, on the face of it, pretty impressive. But the criticisms are already forming: is the language against protectionism strong enough? Are there any provisions to force everyone to stick to these agreements? Are there really any sanctions against tax havens? And crucially, is the $1 trillion “stimulus”  really a stimulus, or just a series of provisional loans? There’s certainly no concrete agreements to force governments to plow stimulus money directly into their own country – no direct stimulus. But make no mistake, the IMF funding etc is very significant.

16:40 GMT: Okay, so all the rumours are no more and now we have the final communique – the final version. It’s incredibly complicated, as you might expect. My head hurts just thinking about it. The “headlines” appear to be the following:

- A $1.1 Trillion global stimulus comprised of: $500 billion in extra funding for the IMF; $250 billion in “special drawing rights” – in effect a cheap IMF overdraft facility for poor countries – $250 billion in world trade funding and $250 billion  for “multi-lateral development banks” like the world bank to give to really poor countries

- a multi-tiered “blacklist” list of tax havens that is being published today – here comes the naming and shaming!

16:35 GMT: Clever Channel 4 question: What are the sanctions to make sure countries actually do all this stuff? Brown points out that the IMF will be watching and assess it regularly, and we’ll meet again to check up on stuff in the autumn. Hmmm….

16:31 GMT: What does this mean to the person watching at home? Brown responds by emphasising that today’s developments means that people’s savings, investments and businesses will soon be much safer. “Dealing with the international hurricane that has lashed our shores as well”.

16:27 GMT: Really geeky question about tax havens; basically asking is this really the end of tax havens? Brown says this is the start of the end; a major step forward; outlines three-tier system of tax havens as I described below. We’ll expand the reach later, says Brown.

16:22 GMT: Oooh…. an interesting question from a Chinese journalist: “you say the era of washington thinking is over, but is the era of washington currency”… he’s talking about the possibility of a global reserve currency as proposed by the Chinese. Hope Fox news doesn’t get onto this, as they seem to think that this means replacing the dollar altogether! Brown explains it well…

16:19 GMT: A CNBC guy asks about the controversial breaches of EU countires re. protectionsim: Gordon Brown responds by reiterating that the kind of world trade funding seen today is a boon for free trade.

16:15 GMT: Nick Robinson, the annoying BBC political correspondent asks his question: and his mic doesn’t work! Hahahaha! When he finally asks his question, he tackles one of the main issues, albeit in an annoying, disingenuous way: isn’t the “stimulus” just a series of loans that isn’t techncially a stimulus and won’t help, for example, people in the UK? Gordon Brown rather niftily turns round by pointing out that since we now have a global stimulus, it turns out that the main controversy everyone was talking about wasn’t actually a controversy at all. Clever, although Robinson may have a point about the nature of the “stimulus”. This needs more analaysis later…

16:10 GMT: Gordon Brown is speaking. Lots of stuff here. Six main pledges:

1. Reform the banking system
2. Clean up banks’ toxic assets
3. $1 trillion global stimulus, mainly to the IMF (as described below)
4. Action on global poverty
5. Kick start international trade
6. Seek agreement on post 2012 climate change plan

More analysis later, but first let’s see the questions.

15:53 GMT: Mark Bailey again, from the comments:

I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again: I love Sarkozy!

15:46 GMT: Surely not: it’s looking like Gordon Brown’s closing remarks might be happening at the same time as French President Sarkozy’s press conference! What??? Split screen chaos, here we come!

15:44 GMT: Meanwhile, here’s what we haven’t heard about in detail but we’ll probably see: Fairly strong but not watertight language against protectionism, fairly strong regualtions for hedge funds, possibility of a general regulatory body for global banks, stricter capital/leverage requirements, a new system for regualted ratings agencies, and super-vague language on public stimulus packages. Oh, and maybe some bonus crackdowns too.

15:34 GMT: While we wait, another summary of what we (probably) know so far is definitely part of the G20 agreement:

A package of over a trillion dollars, technically a stimulus package, (see my comments below) which consists of a $750 billion increase in IMF funding that can be used to help developing countries, a $250 billion increase in “special drawing rights” for the IMF – the cheap overdaft facility for poor countries that I talked about below – and at least a $100 billion funding for world trade. Also, an agreement to publish a multi-tiered blacklist of tax havens.

15:30 GMT: Mere minutes away from the Press Conference. This is definitely it, people!

15:28 GMT: Papers including the Guardian are calling the decision to delay publication of the tax-haven blacklist as a partial defeat for France in favour of the likes of China. Perhaps, but you really have to stress the word partial…

15:22 GMT: I’m now into my ninth hour of live-blogging, and I have to say I have enormous respect for the kind of established bloggers who do this regularly… I’m exhausted. The G20 summit may save the world’s economy, but it’ll be the death of me…

15:17 GMT: The BBC just replayed an interview from earlier with UK Climate Change & Energy Secretary Ed Milliband, who gamely tried to assert that climate change issues were also being addressed at the G20 today. Nice of him to try, but I can’t think of  a single provision that will help the environment. Best he can hope for is some vague niceties. And quite right too: this is about saving the economy. Climate change can come later…

15:14 GMT: For more on tax haven news and details, see the Financial Times. Note also that the G2O won’t be publishing a list today; there’ll just be a vague mention of it and then the OECD itself will actually publish the list later…

15:12 GMT: News is leaking out about the decisions on naming and shaming tax havens… basically there’s going to be a sort of three-tier list published by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). One tier will be the sort-of-good-guys: the countries that have already shared information.  Then there’ll be the countries that are sort of promising to do so. Then there’s just the downright naughty ones that aren’t doing squat. So, sort of like a, uh, multi-hued blacklist….

15:11 GMT: Okay, just  a red herring… no press conference yet.

15:10 GMT: Here we go…… Gordon Brown speaks!

15:06 GMT: Funny how things turn out – all the talk about how Gordon and Barack won’t be getting their global fiscal stimulus, and yet now all the news is focused on a  global fiscal stimulus. Of course, the devil’s in the details: this isn’t the kind of stimulus we’ve been talking about that will directly help the populations of developed countries like Britain and the rest of Europe. It’s a stimulus via the IMF, as I described below. On the other hand, this is a big boon for developing, poorer countries. However, it doesn’t look like there’s going to be a new public spending fiscal stimulus for any developed countries. This could cause problems for Gordon Brown, since we may end up with a summit that, commendably, helps brazil and India but doesn’t directly help the UK…

14:59 GMT: It’s looking like all the measures I described a few updates ago – funding for the IMF, special drawing rights for the IMF, increase in world trade funding – are going to total around $1 trillion dollars. Expect, therefore the “trillion dollar stimulus” to be one of the main headlines to come out of today’s agreement – funny how everything always comes to a nice round number, isn’t it?

14:38 GMT: Okay, I understood nothing that Bob Geldof just said. I’m not entirely sure he did, either.  I think he just woke up and walked into the building and started quoting his dreams or something. Great stuff, regardless.

14:37 GMT:  “But the truth is that they may as well protest against themselves, because we sucked on the tit of free money and the bloated bubble that burst was us.” -  Bob Geldof, being interviewed by the BBC!

14:25: Following on from Lewis Hamilton’s punishment, more proof that this is a great day for the burying of bad news: Israel’s new foreign minister, the notorious racist Avigdor Lieberman, recently announced in his inaugration speech that the Annapolis peace agreement of 2007 has no force because it was never ratified by the Israeli parliament. More evidence that Israel’s new  extreme right-wing government has no interest in a two-state solution…

14:22 GMT: Via Matthew Yglesias, why IMF reform is so welcome

14:19 GMT: I wonder why all the news and rumours coming out of the meetings are focused on stimuli of things like the IMF and world trade, but nothing on regulations? Does that mean that everyone’s in agreement on things like hedge funds, tax havens and regualtory bodies, or does it mean that there’s so much disagreement that there’s nothing concrete enough for a rumour? I suspect the former…

14:11 GMT: A couple more points to add to what I’ve written below: First, the news I just described does seem to be concerned with what is in effect a kind of global stimulus, though not the kind we’ve been talking about the past few weeks. Basically it seems like the IMF itself is being given a stimulus in order to help struggling countries. As for the “special drawing rights” I talked about, this is really big news: if you didn’t get my explanation below (and I don’t balme you, it’s horrifically complicated) then let me simplify further: it’s a cheap overdraft facility for struggling countries. It’s too early to tell whether this is all true, or even if it’s that good… but this is definitely big news

14:09 GMT: Let’s see what we know so far. First, it looks like there’s been an agreement to triple IMF funding to $750 billion – it was previously thought to be only being doubled. This effectively menas that surplus countries like China will be helping to fund a massive spending boost for the world’s economy, which will particularly aid the struggling developing countries, who can be bailed out by the IMF if they get into trouble. Further, it looks like around $200 billion dollars will be provided to boost struggling world trade. Finally, there’s something that’s being called the “global equivalent of quantitative easing” – a fantastically complicated scheme called ’special drawing rights’ that is being funded to the tune of a $250 billion. Basically, in really simple terms this is how it works:  the IMF creates the money for a”cheap overdraft facility”, whereby countries who can’t afford to lend in normal markets get to lend at really cheap (American) interest rates from the IMF. This cheap overdraft facility is being mainly funded by America and China, who will get a lot of the money back through a complicated system of loans. For more on all of this, see BBC business editor Robert Peston’s blog and the blog of the BBC economics editor Stephanie Flanders.

13:52 GMT: After Canadian Premier  Steven Harper was caught in the toilet for the first official photo, Italian PM Berlusconi went and missed the second one! And the Saudi King didn’t turn up either! This is getting pretty funny…

13:46 GMT: I don’t want to sound patronising, but I can’t help but wonder what some of the protestors today hope to achieve. I’m referring specifically to those protesting about climate change or ending war etc… These issues, though important are very much not on the table today  – and they were never going to be, because we’re in a devastating economic crisis. And as for the people protesting about the Congo; a crucial and scandolously overlooked issue, I grant you, but in terms of recognition you could not have picked a worse day! Come on people. This is basic PR…

13:38 GMT: Okay, I want to briefly look at the subject of rating agencies – one of the not-so-exciting but still crucial issues on the table today. Basically, ratings agencies are responsible for giving a grade to the financial instruments of banks – so, for example, a premier investment bank would expect to be given a triple A rating for its bonds and other securities. The better your grade, the less risky a financial institution used to be perceived. The problem was, since banks could choose their rating agencies,we had the situation where the agencies themselves were loathe to downgrade the ratings of banks, lest no-one want to use them. Thus high grades were given to what was essentially junk and no-one knew it was junk till it was too late. Hopefully today we will see a solution to this problem, whether this be government controlled agencies or randomly assigned agencies…

13:11 GMT: Emily Buchanan of the BBC had a good line, saying the summit meeting was like the “Challenge Aneka” of global politics. She also pointed out that each world leader effectively had eleven minutes to make their case… (though presumably someone could always get some more time by nicking the eleven minutes of, say, Australia or South Africa…)

13:06 GMT: Reports flying around of breakfast discussions with finance ministers in which they’ve agreed that tax havens need to be named and shamed through some kind of published list – but when will it be published? Also, it looks like $250 billion dollars of drawing rights have been created for the IMF. This is very complex, but it’s sort of like saying to the IMF: create some new money for us! It’s good news anyway…

13:04 GMT: The canadian prime minister Steve Harper was in the gents while the official photograph was taken. Hahaha

12:52 GMT: Mark Bailey, from the comments, in response to my mention of news of a further meeting:

The second summit will probably be what was going to be the Sardinian G8: check out Andrew Rawnsley’s funny evocation of probable Berlusconian irritation about being upstaged: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/29/gordon-brown-g20-andrew-rawnsley

12:46 GMT: For the sake of my personal safety, I just want to clarify that I think that’s a bad thing…

12:42 GMT: Just been looking at the official photograph and was struck by something: the 29 most powerful people in the world and only two are women!  I don’t want to make too big a deal out out of this, but even so!

12:33 GMT: As of now, this is what’s on the respective news channels – CNN: coverage of G20. Sky news: coverage of G20. Bloomberg: Coverage of G20. Euronews: Coverage of G20. NBC: coverage of G20. BBC: Coverage of G20. CNBC: Coverage of G20

Fox news?: Coverage of a baby deer coming out of a cat flap, under the heading of “Things we like”…

Says it all, really, doesn’t it?

1231 GMT:   While I was ranting about the police, the BBC were interviewing British Chancellor Alistair Darling who seemed pretty convinced that concrete action on tax havens was going to be agreed upon.

12:18 GMT: For more on the police’s tactics, see George Monbiot’s blog post in the Guardian. As you might expect from Monbiot, it’s a particularly devastating riposte. In particular he makes the great point that the police seem to create the violence they react to: in other words police violently entering a peaceful protest with riot gear suddenly find themselves with a riot on their hands

12:17 GMT: Let’s talk about the police for a moment. There’s no doubt that a small minority of protesters were acting up yesterday, for example the rather obviously choreographed smashing of the windows of a branch of the Royal Bank of Scotland. But the vast vast majority were just, you know, protesting – and yet all we seemed to see yesterday were riot police in their ridiculous armour, beating the living sh** out of anyone in front of them. There’s something genuinely scary when you see, in a supposedly democratic country like the UK, police in full, “I’m going to a medieval jousting session” riot gear wantonly whacking people with their shields and batons as a form of crowd control. Note to the police: a whack to the head with a potentially lethal object is not the equal and opposite reaction to a few taunts and a bit of shoving.

12:00 GMT: Just been watching the Fox News coverage, such as it is, of the G20 summit. As you might imagine it’s uniformly terrible, hopefully we’ll get some particulatly hilarious ignorant quotes later on.

11.47 GMT: FTSE 100 opens above 4000 following G20 optimism. Okay, so I get why this is technically good – optimistic markets are better than falling ones – but why do we focus so much on their daily upticks? As economist Dean Baker has pointed out, if a country today announced a massive tax hike for the poor or middle class, then that country’s markets would rally impressively, even though this policy would still be disastrous for their economy. In other words, the markets are not inherently sensible- they respond to what is good for bankers, not necessarily what is good for people. Can we stop obsessing over their ups and downs, please?

11.43 GMT: Reports coming through of an agreement in the draft to give $500 billion to the IMF. This is good news. Japan, in particular, is putting up around $100 billion. Go Japan!

11:40 GMT: BBC police source quoted earlier saying that the reason not that many protestors are out in force yet is because anarchists tend to get up pretty late in the afternoon. Boom boom! Surely, the anarchist would reply, this is merely a result of the state’s arbitrary working hours? No?

11:29 GMT: Some journalists are pointing out that there’s probably going to be a commitment in the finished agreement to meet again later in the year. This is good news – a commitment to meet in the near future will help make any summit promises seem more tangible and immediate – there’s nothing leaders like more than yet another summit to aim at. Also, note that a provision saying this is included in the supposed draft leaked to the Financial Times. (paragraph 24) Does this mean we get to do this all again? Go live-blog!

11.25 GMT: It’s worth reflecting for a moment that, though it’s good to see that we’re probably going to get strong, moral regulatory reform coming out of this summit, it’s nevertheless a massive shame that there probably won’t be any concrete commitments for an increased global stimulus. I touched on this in my post Fiddling while Rome Burns: Britain’s missing stimulus (in particular in the comments section of that post) but briefly, and at the risk of over-simplifying the arguments of  leading economists, here’s why the argument against more deficit spending is wrong: Europe – Germany in particular – is against more stimulus because they are worried about a) inflation and b) the cost of future debt incurred by big stimulus packages. a) is silly, however, because we are facing a deflationary environment rather than an inflationary one and while future inflation can be warded off, current deflation is much more dangerous (indeed, we actually need inflation in the short term – this is the point of many of the current monetary measures currently being put in place) b), meanwhile, doesn’t make sense because though an increase in goernemnt debt should always be of concern, it’s nowhere near as big a concern as an extended global downturn which is what may happen if sufficient fiscal stimuluses aren’t put in place . Basically European leaders have been suffering from long-termism: in other words, they’re ignoring short-term relief in order to focus on long term interests even though if they don’t look after their short term interests then they won’t get the chance to enjoy their long-term ones.

11.15 GMT: Over at the American Prospect, another good intro/summary article about the G20: How Obama should approach the G20

11:00 GMT: Lewis Hamilton should count himself lucky: the announcement that he will be stripped of last week’s third place in the Melbourne grand prix could not have come out on a better news day…

10:54 GMT: Gordon’s introductory remarks, lots of reference to paragraphs in the draft that all the leaders have in front of them. Emphasis on the paragraphs about protectionism, a real concern for Brown and one of the more controversial areas. This is a great time, by the way, to link to what is claimed to be a leaked draft of the summit’s agreement in the financial times. More on this  later…

10:49 GMT: Everyone now sat round an impressive table. Obama next to Brown. U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to Obama’s right; Geithner has recently announced plans to regulate hedge funds that won’t be so dissimiliar from the plans in the summit today. He’s also announced controversial plans to give the american government power to take over any failing american financial institution. Geithner is very much leading the pack in terms of global regulation…

1038 GMT: UK business secretary Peter Mandelson’s comment that Gordon is being excessively ambitious – in a good way – is getting a suprising amount of play. Of course he is being ambitious! He’s expecting thirty world leaders to come to an agreement to fix the world’s economy and regulatory systems in just two days! The fact that this is probably going to happen is a real testament to his organisational abilities and his vision. He may be a doomed Prime Minister, but this is a real, monumental achievement – he will never in his life have another day like this.

10:34 GMT: Gordon Brown will be addressing the summit shortly. What a momentous moment for Britian’s prime minister…

10:32 GMT: World leaders gather for the official photograph… Angela Merkel wearing a very bright red dress. Um, not much else to say here…

10:26 GMT: Jamie Oliver’s meal for the world leaders at Downing Street last night came in, so he claims, at £12.50. Great…

10:22 GMT: A couple of good articles on what we can expect to come out of the summit: Will Hutton in the Observer last Sunday and a good introductory article from the Economist.

10:15 GMT: The BBC is reporting that there are rumours that a strict crackdown on executive pay will be announced. Meanwhile, the BBC’s business editior Robert Peston (who, by the way, is a pleasure to watch) is reitirating the things that aren’t quite agreed: decisions on trade, funding for the international monetary fund and exact numbers of aid to the poorer countries in crisis. Again, it’s worth emphasising that though many of the details have already been sorted out by finance ministers days ago, the exact numbers – and we’re talking billions here – have yet to be decided.

9:55 GMT: It’s worth pointing out how incredible it has been seeing around thirty of the world’s most powerful people hanging round together for two days – sometimes in the same room. For a great example of this, check out the video coverage of yesterday’s reception with the queen. (hat tip Mark Bailey) My favourite bit is when the camera focuses on German premier Angela Merkel chatting with the Queen of England while in the background you can hear US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton joking with French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Incredible…

9:41 GMT: Thousands of protestors are expected back in London today. Yesterday, 86 were arrested, 4 were charged and around 4,000 were brutally beaten by the batons of riot squads. (that last figure’s more of a rough estimate)

9: 37 GMT: Short version of what I’ve been saying over the past few minutes: Draft agreement written weeks ago. Boring! But potential for lots of last minute changes… Exciting!

9:29 GMT: Media fiction: France and germany are going head to head with Britain and the US! Merkel and Sarkozy don’t want a global fiscal stimulus, while Brown and Obama are worried about the extent of Europe’s regulatory demands! Who will win? We just don’t know! Will Sarkozy walk out? Will Gordon get his stimulus? Who knows!!!

Reality: Most of the details have already been prepared. Everyone’s in tandem on most of the regulatory reforms, while the global fiscal stimulus stopped being a possibility weeks ago – France and Germany have won that argument, though we might get a vague agreement on some kind of stimulus. But on everything else, everyone’s in tandem.

That’s not to say that there aren’t still issues of contention. The main things that still need to be hammered out include the somewhat controversial details of any plans re. tax havens and how much to give to the IMF. But in general, the framework is already in place.  See BBC economics editor Stephanie Flanders’ excellent post for more.

9:11 GMT:   The BBC’s business editor Robert Peston has a couple of great posts up on his blog about travelling to the summit this morning and the sheer scale of the summit’s interior. He also makes the great, albeit rather grumpy, point that Sarkozy helped Gordon Brown immensely yesterday in the sense that his concerns made it look like everything hasn’t been agreed to, even though it, uh, has. Having said that, there are still some potential disagreements to be ironed out but it cannot be emphasied enough that the agreement is mostly in place already.

9:00 GMT: By the way, feel free to leave your comments on this live-blogging thread, especially if you think at any point I’m talking rubbish (which, given the marathon nature of this live-blogging session, is very probable)

8:54 GMT: Here’s a quick look at the likely substance of any agreement made today, bearing in mind that, despite what the media likes to claim, most of it has generally been agreed – though there a few minor disagreements to be sorted out and details to be finalised, the skeleton framework is essentially in place.  I’ll be looking at these in greater detail throughout the day:

1) A massive boost to the International Monetary Fund’s budget, the exact amount to be agreed (think $500 billion) 2) An agreement to provide aid to the those ailing, poor economies that need emergency rescues – think Eastern Europe 3) Agreements on trade, in particular a conviction to steer away from protectionism 4) Bringing shadowy tax havens into the sunlight 5) A regulatory system for hedge funds and any other financial institutions that need closer regulation 6) Some kind of proper trading market for the kind of deadly financial instruments that helped to exacerbate the crisis (think credit default swaps) 7) An agreement to reform the bonus/compensation culture 8) A global regulatory system to monitor the big banks, control systemic risk and ensure they don’t start doing stupid stuff again 9) New regulation for  stricter leverage and capital requirements for banks, along with a better ratings system for financial products 10) A vague commitment to some kind of potential, perhaps, for some kind of agreement to put in place, maybe, some manner of  global fiscal stimulus, at some point in the indeterminate future. (Me? Skeptical? Never!)

8:35 GMT: Just been looking at last night’s seating plan (see below); lest you should think that not much thought went into it, bear in mind that Gordon Brown was sat next to the Chinese premier (keeper of the world’s debt) and the king of Saudi Arabia (keeper of the world’s oil). Also, surely no coincidence that Obama was sat next to German premier Angela Merkel – Obama perhaps was laying out the case for a global stimulus to a skeptical Merkel. I’m sure you can find some more logic to the seating…

8.33 GMT: Sarkozy just arrived and as usual looks like the most entertaining guy in the building…

8:30 GMT: Quote of yesterday? Gordon Brown citing the President of Brazil, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva: “‘When I was leader of the trade unions, I blamed the government, when I became leader of the opposition, I blamed the government, when I became the government, I blamed Europe and America.” In other words, it’s a global problem, stupid…

7:56 GMT: By the way, if anyone was wondering what the seating plan was like for the Downing Street dinner for the world leaders last night, then take a look for yourself. Fascinating stuff…

741: GMT: World leaders arriving at Londond’s dockland, where the talks will take place… and here is Barack Obama, in the ridiculously large armoured monster known as “The Beast”…

7: 33 GMT: Hello! Welcome to Entangled Alliances’ live-blogging of the G20 Summit, at the ridiculously early time of 7.30 am. Today should be very exciting; we should hopefully be seeing nothing less than an agreed framework for a complete renovation in the global regulatory system. Either that or a Nicolas Sarkozy walk-out. Either way, things should be interesting and we’ll be there every step of the way… (well, through the medium of television and the internet. We won’t literally be there. Sadly…) Unless otherwise stated by the way, this is Edward live-blogging.

Right now, London is a hip compromise between the nonstop newness of Los Angeles and the aspic-pre-served beauty of Paris, sharpened to a New York edge. In short, this is the coolest city on the planet.

photo credit: *spud*

Thirteen years later, Stryker is back with an altogether more despondent vision.  Looking back over the Blair-Brown era, he casts back to the millennial optimism of the 1997 Labour victory and London’s world leadership in fashion, the arts and architecture.  The contrast, and it’s a stark one, is with a modern-day London heading into deep recession – the symbols of its former glory now insistent reminders of its current predicament:

Glitzy restaurants and cutting-edge fashion that used to be signs of welcome creativity reek of excess in a time of belt-tightening. Heavily mortgaged homes that looked like brilliant retirement nest eggs when property prices were soaring year after year now just look like basket cases. Construction sites and street works that once raised expectations of things to come now seem like major inconveniences. 

Interestingly, McGuire’s comparisons are not just historical, but allude to a Britain in decline while other countries rise from the ashes of their own recent past and, as a corollary, to a Prime Minister engaging in “Jeeves” diplomacy, evidently desperate to bask in the Obamian glow for a chance of electoral salvation.  This, we understand, in contrast to the optimistic verve of the Clinton-Blair “special relationship” (of which we are reminded by this weekend’s Progressive Governance Conference, a Clinton-Blair brainchild of 1999, and the announcement of a new Peter Morgan film).  Today, no more British bridge between the indispensable American nation and an idealistic integrationist Europe, but a country trapped in outdated alliance frameworks while Europe looks inward and America looks East (as the positioning before this week’s G20 summit has shown).

All in all, this is a fascinating article which is worth reading in full.  Its vision of British malaise is not quite as downbeat as The Economist’s notion of Reykjavik-on-Thames, but it does, I think, capture a pessimistic national spirit and the sense of drift not just of an economy, but of culture and a political system to boot.  This tone is manifested in phenomena as diverse as “Olympic regret”, the “summer of rage” and the return to headline dominance of political sleaze – always a sign of political decay.  In many ways, it is redolent of the “crisis of confidence” which Jimmy Carter identified in his ill-advised 1979 malaise speech (ill-advised, because it was a gift for Reagan to trumpet the indomitable American spirit – Britons, I suspect, are more accustomed to self-doubt).

If there’s cause for optimism, though, it can be found in McGuire’s original 1996 piece.  Marvelling at London’s reinvention and deliberately cautioning Londoners against hubris, he reminds readers of the city’s peculiar flux and of its rises and falls that, like inexorable market cycles, never cease to eschew the possibility of relaunch just around the corner:

The fun won’t last, of course. London swings violently between booms and busts. It was stuffy in the 1950s, when you couldn’t find a decent meal in the place; it was “swinging” in the 1960s, when pop music and Carnaby Street injected a dose of classless style. It was almost destroyed by grandiose redevelopment schemes in the early 1970s, then rescued again by the entrepreneurial energy of punk. In the early 1990s the city was mired in a deep recession. Now it’s back. Nobody planned this; nobody ever has.

photo credit: vaviolino

Remember the old Chinese curse “may you live in interesting times”? It’s worth keeping in mind as we head towards April and the meeting of the 20 richest nations in the world: London’s G20 summit is going to be very interesting indeed.  As Mark Bailey reported in his recent post “G20 Preview: Gordon and Goliath”, Gordon Brown and Barack Obama are both calling for a global fiscal stimulus. The likes of France and Germany, however, are rejecting talk of more stimulus, choosing to focus solely on bank regulation – specifically the regulation of hedge funds and tax havens.

Now I like a good campaign against hedge funds and tax havens as much as the next man, yet it must be said that Gordon is completely right to demand that global stimulus packages be pursued at the same time as international bank regulation. As far as Europe is concerned, a large influx of government public spending would work  particularly well, as thanks to the free trade policies of the European Union any stimulus one country puts in place will immediately benefit their neighbours. This, however, is what concerns the likes of France and Germany: the fear that heavy national spending will simply leak out and end up as international spending.This particularly irks Germany who are already gritting their teeth at the prospect of having to bail out the troubled states of Eastern Europe (who, it turns out, are just rubbish at that capitalism malarkey).

But what the likes of Sarkozy and Merkel are forgetting is that with more and more Europeans losing their jobs, governments are facing lower tax revenues and higher welfare costs. The higher cost of paying benefits is particularly onerous on European governments, as unlike America the welfare systems of Europe are commendably generous (Britain excepted). Large stimulus packages, therefore, are essential to get people back to work and kick start Europe’s economy.

However, though Gordon Brown’s logic is sound his pan-European ambitions are leaving a bitter taste in the mouth – well, in my mouth anyway – because, despite his calls for a global stimulus, Britain has hardly had one worth the name. Indeed, so far the only “stimulus” we’ve had is last November’s £20 billion scheme, the majority of which went on a much derided cut in VAT. Let’s compare this with other countries, shall we?

First, let’s compare the quantity of our stimulus package with that of other countries. According to the International Monetary Fund’s figures, the United States’ stimulus works out, over two years, at 3.5% of its GDP. Germany’s stimulus package works out, again over two years, at 3.2% of its GDP.  And Britain’s? A measly 1.4% of GDP for 2009… and nothing in 2010, since it doesn’t actually stretch that far. Great.

Now let’s compare the quality of our stimulus. We got a demonstrably ineffective cut in VAT which did very little to kickstart the economy and get people back to work. Compare this with America – their stimulus package included everything but the kitchen sink – progressive tax cuts, infrastructure funding, higher unemployment benefits, investment in education and health services,  funding for renewable energy… If you want a fairer, European comparison then consider Germany: their stimulus package – all 50 billion euros of it – included money for roads, schools, public transport and hospitals as well as tax cuts for the poor and a generous payout to anyone who traded in their old car for a new, more environmentally friendly one (yes that’s right, the country that invented the automobile is more green than us).  Fair play to Germany then – they may be putting a spoke in the wheels of Gordon’s sensible plans, but at least they’ve already passed a proper stimulus.

But it gets worse. Not only has the British government failed to put in place a proper stimulus, but the Chancellor Alistair Darling appears to be trying to convince the U.S. that the one we did put in place was actually da bomb. As the Times’ political blog ‘The Red Box’ reported on Tuesday, Darling has rather suspiciously changed his estimate of what percentage the stimulus is of Britain’s GDP from around 1% – his estimate in November’s pre-budget report – to last Monday’s claim of 3.4%, which, if you were paying attention earlier in this article, you’ll realise is roughly the same percentage of GDP as America’s stimulus package. How has he done this? By including the money lost from the government’s coiffers as a result of less people paying income tax and more claiming benefits. Yes, that’s right – he’s including money that should be being paid out anyway as part of a stimulus. Why has he done this? It’s hard not to come to the conclusion that this has been done to prove to America that we don’t need more stimulus and thus reduce the pressure on Darling to include another one in the forthcoming budget.  I think maybe Gordon needs to have a few words with his Chancellor, don’t you?

One thing that’s very clear is that while Darling plays with the statistics,  more and more people are becoming unemployed and as a result overstretched job centres are losing the ability to actually get people back to work. Here’s Polly Toynbee in The Guardian yesterday:

Insiders in Jobcentre Plus offices tell of the pressure from a surge in new claimants. A manager of a Jobcentre Plus in Essex tells me, “forget personalisation”, echoing others who have contacted me. Claimants just get the next adviser on the taxi-rank. First interviews are cut from 40 minutes to 30 minutes, and the “better-off calculations” have been dropped because they are taking too long: new claimants know they’ll be better off working. The fortnightly signing-on review has been cut from 10 minutes to seven minutes – and other areas report as little as five minutes…

“What used to be meaningful interviews have turned into fantasy conversations when you both know there are no jobs,” the Essex manager says. These interviews will grow more perfunctory with every passing month.

It’s clear, then, that we need a proper stimulus now. Actually we needed one months ago,  but let bygones be bygones, eh?  All will be forgiven if our number-fiddling Chancellor can pull off a massive stimulus in the forthcoming budget. What kind of stimulus are we talking about? Let’s see… investment in green technology would create lots of new jobs while also aiding in the fight against global warming and saving us money in the long term. A radical overhaul of our pitiable roads and trains will create even more jobs and also reap benefits further on down the line, since our pathetic transport system costs us millions every year. Higher investment in education will both create jobs in the short-term and enable kids to get jobs in the long-term. Raising the threshold at which people start paying income tax from the current £6000 to more like £10,000 – as suggested by the chairman of the Treasury Select Commitee back in January – would help those hit hard by the recession to get back on their feet. As for those hit hardest by the recession, there should be a significant boost to the job seeker’s allowance – do we really believe in this day and age that 60 quid can last you a whole week? In the long term this wouldn’t even cost the government anything if it was done at the same time as giving job centres more resources so they can actually, you know, put people back to work.

Those are just some ideas. I’m sure you can think of some more – god knows many have been floated by commentators more clued in than me , though whether the government’s listening or not is anyone’s guess. At any rate, one thing is economy-crushingly clear: Gordon Brown may be on the right side of the debate with his G20 call to arms, but so long as his strategy back home is in glaring contradiction to his strategy abroad how can he expect anyone to have faith in his ambitions? And here’s something he might want to consider: while a doomed effort to convince a stubborn Europe to take the right path is still admirable, even in defeat, sitting by while your people are crushed by a catastrophic economy is unforgivable. Over to you, Gordon…

photo credit: World Economic Forum

The London Summit, which will be held on one fateful day, April 2nd, is a follow-up to a session held last November in Washington D.C. – a session in which rather little was decided, except vague assurances about cutting taxes and increasing government spending.  The Prime Minister’s zeal was already clear at this stage.  He declared that the summit  was “the road to the new Bretton Woods. It is absolutely clear that we are trying to build new institutions for the future.”  For him, London is where the deal will be sealed.   His agenda is extraordinarily ambitious.  As the Economist sardonically put the issue:

The summit should not only stimulate the economy and renounce protectionism, but also bolster the IMF and other international financial outfits, revamp regulation, create an early-warning system for crises, and save the poor. It was as if Mr Brown thought the ailing economy would yield to an act of governmental will, if only it were colossal enough.

The Economist, ever pragmatic, argues that such overreach risks undermining the immediate necessities of global government stimulus and a united front against protectionism.  This pessimism seems to be borne out by the unenthusiastic noises coming from G20 capitals and an emerging transatlantic gulf in attitudes.  Below the fold, I look at the opposition to Gordon Brown’s plan for new financial institutions, and the implications for his domestic political fortunes.

The United States: A Familiar Refrain?

Predictably, in the US opposition to Brown’s “New Bretton Woods” is founded on unease about sovereignty, and a national tendency to distrust international institutions.  These worries, perhaps masked by the unflinching politeness which American representatives show to visiting leaders, was detectable in the lack of ovation with which Brown’s references to new institutions met when he addressed Congress.  Republican Congressman Jeff Fortenberry tweeted, for example:

UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown addressed joint session of Congress. Proposed global New Deal.  Serious concerns about additional financial global interdependency.

But it’s not just the GOP.  Obama himself was pretty reticent to commit to the Brown plan during the “press avail” in the Oval Office earlier this month. Moreover, as the man to whom the whole world is looking for messianic leadership, he seems unlikely to leave the show to Brown.  For the Economic Times (of India):

Gordon Brown went off to Washington to make double sure that Mr Obama would actually show up, and get involved in the discussions. Well he has, and how. His administration has blown the Summit agenda apart even before the first photo-op, proving that US, down or not, is still pretty much the biggest elephant in the room. 

 Ironically, however, given the respective reputation of the US and Europe, the biggest gulf between the two is over stimulus.  Obama wants more money to go to the IMF, more government spending, and more stimulus packages (specifically, a fiscal stimulus worth 2% of GDP this year and next).  Blaming the problem more on hedge funds and tax havens that the banking system itself, it’s big-spending Europe that this time is reluctant to throw more money at the problem until it sees concrete results from first efforts.

Europe: Against Global Fiscal Stimulus

Last week, the Guardian reported that, perhaps disastrously for Brown, Merkel and Sarkozy had come out against his calls for global stimulus:

After talks at Chequers to prepare the way for next month’s G20 summit in London, Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, ruled out ordering another “fiscal stimulus” in the short term, and made it clear that if more action were to prove necessary in Germany it would be for Berlin to decide, not the G20.

photo credit: Chesi – Fotos CC

Her comments were echoed by the French finance minister, Christine Lagarde, who was attending a meeting of G20 finance ministers in Horsham, West Sussex. As ministers tried to agree a way forward, Lagarde said she was optimistic the meeting could make progress, but added that nations needed to “evaluate the remedies already put in place by each of us” before ordering huge extra spending on top of that already sanctioned.

This attitude seems at odds with the traditional British perception of a Franco-German alliance pushing for common EU policies  at the price of national sovereignty and should serve as a reminder that global stimulus is not the only option on the table.  It is also discrepancy which reflects the inevitable result of incommensurate political and economic integration.  As Paul Krugman argues in his NYT column today:

The economies of Europe’s many nations are almost as tightly linked as the economies of America’s many states — and most of Europe shares a common currency. But unlike America, Europe doesn’t have the kind of continentwide institutions needed to deal with a continentwide crisis.

This is a major reason for the lack of fiscal action: there’s no government in a position to take responsibility for the European economy as a whole. What Europe has, instead, are national governments, each of which is reluctant to run up large debts to finance a stimulus that will convey many if not most of its benefits to voters in other countries.

[...] Europe, in other words, is turning out to be structurally weak in a time of crisis.

Add to the gulf between the Brown-Obama axis and Franco-German feet-dragging the Asian insistence that if any new financial institutions are to be created, emerging economies should have more of a say in how they are run (and FCO indiscretion about “two-tiers”), and the prospect for consensus in April looks small.

Brown Feeling Blue

Having staked so much political capital on the London Summit, we are left asking what Gordon Brown’s fate will be if it fails.  Doubtless, the Tories will leap on the issue as another chance to demonstrate Brown’s failure to lead, but it seems unlikely that they have a convincing narrative against the merits of international financial action.  A lot depends on how the media cover the summit (and whether alarmist predictions of a “summer of rage” launched at the same time do indeed come true).  In truth, failure at the G20 would probably not directly affect Gordon Brown’s domestic popularity, which seems stuck at around the 30% level.  What it could do, though, is damage his claim to international leadership, and potential ambition to head up any newly-created financial institution.  Gordon Brown clearly enjoyed signing autographs for members of Congress on the House floor; whether he has the chance to do so again could well be decided by April 3rd.