Interviewed recently on Radio 4’s Today about the possibility of Gordon Brown heading the International Monetary Fund, the PM made his opposition clear. Brown “didn’t think we had a debt problem in the UK”, he said, so “might not be the most appropriate person to work out whether other countries have debt or deficit problems.” Instead, Cameron suggested, someone from outside Europe should take the job.

It suits Cameron to paint Brown as an utter idiot who left the coalition with a disastrous fiscal mess – but our problems aren’t unique: try telling Ireland or the USA that their debts are Gordon’s fault. And while Brown did allow the City to go quietly mad, when the credit crunch hit he took a leading role (while Cameron’s Tories were advocating a hands-off approach) in brokering a unified, international economic rescue package. As Number 10 permanent secretary Jeremy Heywood has told CSW, Brown played a “very, very important role” at the crucial G20 conference, “forcing other leaders to face up to the gravity of the situation” and brokering “a very ambitious set of announcements and agreements” (p6, CSW 9 March). Those skills, plus the international reputation Brown built at that crucial G20 conference, would be a real boon to the IMF.

And there’s another issue here. Would the UK (which may one day need the IMF’s help) benefit more if the IMF chief is a former British PM, or someone from Brazil or China? Would our international standing, influence on global financial matters, and relationship with the fund be stronger if Brown is IMF chief, or if he loses out to an Indian politician? The answers to these questions are obvious.

With the Department for International Development’s Minouche Shafik lined up as the next IMF deputy MD, the UK will already have a strong presence; it’s pushing it to ask for the MD’s role too. But Cameron is scotching any chance we have – and the smell of party advantage is stronger than any sense that our PM is working in Britain’s interests.

Written by Matt Ross, CSW