When all the sums are added together, rather than $1,100bn, the new commitments appear to be below $100bn and most of those were in train without the G20 summit.

This is the breakdown.

– $500bn of new money for IMF

Japan and EU separately pledged a total of $175bn before the summit. China offered $40bn at G20. The remaining $285bn is covered by a generalised pledge to establish a new financing scheme. Aspiration to make progress by the Spring

–  $250bn increase in IMF Special Drawing Rights

The boost to the IMF’s own currency amounts to creating money. All new — indeed fresh off the global printing presses. But no country committed their money.

– $250bn in trade finance

The vast majority is an “aspiration”. The G20 annexe notes that new money committed is not $250, but around $3bn-4bn.

This is classic Gordon Brown.

When I was growing up in London we had the Notting Hill riots in the 1970s, the Brixton riots in the early 1980s, riots in Liverpool, all the disorder linked to the miners’ strike, the Poll Tax riots at the end of the Thatcher era. If you want to go a lot further back, you could mention the Gordon Riots in 1780; the Chartist riots in the mid-nineteenth century.

And that’s just Britain. Obviously, the French have an even livelier tradition of social disorder and street riots. And just before 9/11, it began to look as if no meeting of European leaders would be complete without being set against a background of anarchist demonstrations. In July 2001, I went to an EU summit in Gothenburg where most of the city seemed to have been trashed by the “black blocs” of assorted European anarchists.

But, after 9/11, all this seemed to have stopped for a while. Maybe security was tightened up; maybe even the anarchists felt that protests against globalisation were no longer quite the thing. Whatever the reason, for several years things have gone quiet. Of course, there were big demonstrations against the Iraq war - but they had a coherence and a focus that the anti-capitalist demos lack.

So, while it is tempting to hail the street protests against the G-20 as signalling some sort of new political era of protest, I think it is the opposite. It’s back to business as usual.

What is the Brown trick? Add up all the measures. The prime minister has always been a fan of big, round numbers. My rough calculation is that the international finance pledges and the existing levels of fiscal stimulus (£2,000bn?) would add up to something approaching £3,000bn. That will depend on whether “significant” progress is made on the IMF funding and SDR front, which seems very likely. Cue the biggest financial stimulus the world has ever seen.

The big question is whether this is new money. Most of the trade finance will be reallocated from various countries export guarantee budget, we think. The IMF funding will depend on the mechanism used, which is still a live issue. Far too early to be cynical, but watch out for the details.

Some other important details to report. Downing Street have confirmed that there will be a veggie option (possibly for the Indian premier?) There is no exchange of gifts as part of the bilateral but the heads of delegations will tomorrow receive a “selection of produce that highlights British talent”. The trip was worth it then.

“It’s been a bit boring. I’d have liked to have seen more smashed windows,” said a 33 year-old artist who said he goes by the name Morganic. “I remember the poll tax riots - that was much more fun.”

A designer who took his three year old son, Cosmo Granet, along to the climate camp protest in Bishopsgate, said: “I thought it would be interesting for him to see. I did a bit of them ( protests) in the old days but have obviously just stayed on the peripheries today.”

Some taking part were former city workers.

Daisy Cross, 24, previously worked in insurance but has been unemployed for a year.

“This is the first big demonstration I’ve been to. Its been quite civilised. The police have been quite relaxed about it.”

Alistair Gray is a reporter for the FT

Protestors clash with police in the City of London

Listening to three of the people who will be sitting around the table at the summit tomorrow, I was struck that maybe the leaders are arguing about the wrong issues. At the moment, the big controversies are about regulation and fiscal stimuli. But the three leaders I am referring to made the same point: this crisis is not going to end, until the banks have been cleaned up. As one of them argued, until the banks balance-sheets are cleaned up, more government money is just “pouring money into a bucket with a hole in it.”

Unfortunately, there is little confidence that we yet have a handle on the problem. The British claim to be confident that we have stabilised our own banking system. But there are still big worries about America. And the problem area that is shooting up everybody’s list is Central and Eastern Europe. Fiscal or banking crises there would then have a knock-on effect on western Europe, given the exposure of Austrian, German, French and sundry other banks.

But whilst it is the banks that are on everybody’s mind, the headlines are still dominated by the arguments over regulation and fiscal stimuli. The politics of this seem to have got worse over the last 24 hours - with strong statements coming out of Japan and France. The line-up of countries even reminds me faintly of the run-up to the Iraq war - with France and Germany allying against the Anglo-Saxons on both the spending and regulation issues. Merkel and Sarkozy are due to hold a joint press conference later today. All it will need is for President Medvedev to turn up, and it will be just like 2003 all over again.

The French president told French radio that the “projects” on the table “satisfy neither France or Germany”. He warned that he would “not associate” himself with “false compromises, not dealing with the problems that keep us busy”. His ultimatum is a more stringent crackdown on financial services.

This may be empty grandstanding, some low politics to push up his poll numbers, or an unflattering translation (I haven’t seen the French transcript). But Sarkozy is definitely revelling in being the troublemaker at the “unity” conference. All this from the leader that Brown appeared to be closest to in Europe. What happened to the “entente formidable”?

Here is an alternative translation of his comments from Reuters:

“I will not associate myself with a summit that would end with a communique made of false compromises that would not tackle the issues that concern us.”

“Regulation is at the heart of the debate that we are going to be holding during these hours,” he said.

“As of today, there is no firm agreement in place. The conversation is going forward, there are projects on the table. As things stand at the moment, these projects do not suit France or Germany.”

“The empty chair policy would mark a failure, which would be that of the summit.”

“I do not want to think that we will come to that. I had (German Chancellor Angela) Merkel on the telephone again late last night. We are on exactly the same wavelength. We have and we will carry a European view on values which are those of Europe.”

All this is noticeably different in tone from Brown’s rhetoric a couple of months ago. British officials have always been sheepish about setting precise goals or discussing the type of trade-offs that would be required. So you can imagine how they felt as their prime minister did some serious, and very public, stargazing.

Brown took every opportunity to raise expectations for the summit as high as they could go. Just in case he tries to deny it in coming days, it is worth looking back at Brown’s top six G20 hits in full. No one can deny that Brown passed the “ambition” test with flying colours. And who could accuse him of cynical expectation management? But, as Rachel Sylvester argued in the Times, the more canny Tony Blair would have probably avoided some of the fallout from hopes being dashed.

We are fashioning for the future a global deal, a grand bargain where each continent accepts its responsibility and its obligations to act to deal with what is a global problem that can only be solved with a global solution.

We believe that a global new deal, a global bargain between all the major countries is possible.  We believe that is one way that we can restore confidence in the world economy as it moves forward and we believe that there is a willingness amongst the countries that we have talked to, to make these decisions.

The old orthodoxies will not serve us well in the future.  We have got to think the previously unthinkable, we have got to do what was previously un-doable, the cooperation that is needed round the world is not something that has been achieved before but I believe it can be achieved to meet the needs of our times.

Every part of the world must be part of the stimulus to the economy, giving support into the economy with new investment, getting interest rates down as much as possible and I believe that one of the features of our discussion at the G20 meeting on April 2nd is how all countries can come together to do that.  Some may have to do more on interest rates; some may have to do more on fiscal stimulus.

The world lacks a proper early warning system…we have never given anybody sufficient teeth so that their views are treated so seriously that people will immediately have to act when that early warning is given.

Let us agree at our G20 summit in London in April rules and standards for accountability, transparency, and reward that will mean an end to the excesses and will apply to every bank, everywhere, and all the time.

For the record, here are the five tests:

Restore growth to emerging market economies

“Clean up” the global banking system

Do whatever is necessary to bring about the resumption of growth

Kick-start global trade and resist protectionism

Ensure the economic recovery conserves the environment for the future