Vince Cable's paper on fiscal policy is the best, bar none, that I have read.  I've debated it here on Freethinking Economist, (with an entertaining graph for the downhearted, giving some hope that the Tories aren't going to stroll home). Now that Brown is finally out in the open, we may be getting a proper debate: Vince is leading it.

In other news, this caught my eye in the FT:

Listed companies in the climate change sector - including renewable-power generators, nuclear, energy management, water and waste companies - reached a global turnover of $534bn in 2008, according to HSBC. The aerospace and defence sector was worth $530bn, the international bank said. Revenues in the lowcarbon sector soared by 75 per cent in 2008 despite the recession.

G20 falling to bits:

the Chief Economist of Goldmans think there's no reason to coordinate anything. Meanwhile, the Chinese "scorn the focus on imbalances". So efforts to bring them to the G20 table last all of one day. The EU still can't shut up about bonuses while wanting to protect their own banks (see yesterday's post).  And no-one can doubt the seriousness of the Obama Tyre Protection act: the Economist is damning,("A protectionist move that is bad politics, bad economics, bad diplomacy and hurts America. Did we miss anything?") and I find it hard to swallow Alan Beattie's take:

"if he can use his capital to achieve universal healthcare and begin to shift the visceral dislike of trade that has gripped large parts of the American public and their representatives on Capitol Hill, it might prove worth it."

No - it might prove to them that they can use his weak control of the legislature to make him reject any aspect of globalisation that doesn't suit a strong interest group.  It sucks, period (to speak in Americanese). 

 This may matter: there is still not enough oil being dug up.  Inflation in 2010, anyone? This may complicate QE. What if we pump £500bn in and get the WRONG inflation (i.e. the non growth sort - a possibility Vince discusses)? Eh?  Come on Mervyn, let's hear you.

Nick Clegg's provocative funeral oration over centralising socialism

So the real choice at the next election is not the old red-blue/ blue-red pendulum of British politics. It is between yellow and blue. A choice between a liberal movement — led by the Liberal Democrats — that is attracting disaffected progressive voters from a Labour Party which will take years to recover, if at all; and a Conservative Party that parrots the language of change to maintain the status quo

is attracting all sorts of comment.  On Liberal Conspiracy they try to mock it as a 1981 moment. There is a wider debate going on about the future of progressive politics: I found this New Statesman article a good starter, and Nick's contribution an important element.  Jon Cruddas in the same edition of the NS was very unconvincing: a blizzard of isms ("Your 'leavepeoplealongtoDieism is not as nice as my EveryoneCanGetOnIsm").

A more powerful call for the left has come from Ed Balls, spoiling for a fight with Purnell, and the word Liberal:

Where you are on the political spectrum is ultimately defined by two things - your view of what constitutes social justice, and your view of the role of the state in delivering fair outcomes. . . . Of course, policy debates, external challenge and new ideas - in the pages of this magazine and from think tanks - are essential, especially after 12 years of government. But we don't need think tanks to work out that there is a false choice between heavy-handed statism which does not respect individual choices and a so-called progressive liberalism that sees the state as the enemy of individual freedom and is just conservatism with the label "progressive" erroneously shoved in front.

Bring it on.