See I'm right, planners do see the planning system as a brake on economic growth!

****

I commented the other day on how planning was ipso facto a brake on economic growth - whatever the President of the RTPI may say. Seems that the top planner from the Town & Country Planning Association thinks this too:

"The definition in today's announcement places economic growth as the driver, undermining the principles of sustainable development which sought to integrate economic development, environmental concerns and social justice.

There you have it folks - planning is bad for economic growth and when the Government (sort of) makes it less so the planners don't like it!

....

“Nice economy you got there. Shame if anything should happen to it.”

Bankers and Government in discussion

The Buttonwood column in the Economist this week asks about the reason for the decline in living standard in the developed world - a decline continuing despite the beginnings of growth. Possible answers lay in Marxism - although the writer reminds us that Karl has "some confusion in his analysis", in the idea beloved of Mervyn King that we became "too dependent on consumption and had to switch to an export- and investment-led model" and in the decline of trade unions in the private sector.

But the favoured answer was very interesting as it points the finger at the financial sector and especially the unhealthy relationship between that sector's interests and the policies of central bankers:

One factor that should perhaps get more emphasis is the role of the financial sector. Central banks have repeatedly cut or held down interest rates over the past 25 years in an attempt to boost bank profits and prop up asset prices. With this subsidy in place, is it surprising that earnings in finance have outpaced wages for other technologically skilled jobs?

Attempts to remove that subsidy are met by threats from international banks to move elsewhere. This is a little reminiscent of the protection rackets run by the gangsters in Mario Puzo’s “The Godfather”. It is as if the finance sector is saying: “Nice economy you got there. Shame if anything should happen to it.”

...

How open for business is Britain?

Today, with great fanfare, a new "Start Up Britain" campaign is launched:

Prime Minister David Cameron is launching a new private-sector business initiative today called Start Up Britain. It is aimed at encouraging people to set up their own businesses and will be a major part of the governments attempt to encourage economic growth through private enterprise. New businesses will be able to apply for help worth around £1,500 in areas such as internet advertising and IT training.

And the Government has roped in some big businesses - mostly those with a real interest in small business that extends to wanting to sell something to these new businesses!

O2, Virgin, Blackberry, Google, Experian, Barclays and AXA - all signed up and ready! Ready to sell mobile phone services, credit checking, insurance, banking and technology hardware. Not much in the way of philanthropy here - just some big businesses scamming government for a few nice sales opportunities.

And let me tell what the problem is for small businesses - it isn't the cost of IT training or the expense of internet advertising, it's the endless barriers to getting going. Here are a few examples:

Try setting up a bank account. You thought you just walked into the bank with some cash, filled out the forms and bingo, a shiny new bank account! Nope, you need the forms, photo ID, a meeting with a "business advisor" and evidence that the business is established. And if you try to open the account with a grand in cash there's a further pile of questions and forms related to money laundering and heaven knows what else

Then you'll need some insurance. Pretty easy to obtain and you have to have it even if you're only employing yourself. And if you're planning to bid for public contracts there's a whole load more rules - you'll need to spend at least a grand on assorted insurances.

Now find an angel investor. Ah, problem here. The investor will want equity - that's how it works. And regardless of how you and he choose to structure the equity, it has a load of negative tax implications for that investor. Change it to a loan? Oh no, the tax man's wise to that and will still nobble the investor.

So it's a loan from the bank? For a start up business, who're you trying to kid! The banks won't be taking that risk any time soon - unless of course you want a loan on crap terms that the bank insist on treating like a personal loan? Limited liability - that's a laugh isn't it!

I could go on - talk about VAT, about business rates (watch out for double taxation when you work from home), reporting rules, accountancy fees and a host of regulations specific to different types of business. And this is before we get to the burden of actually employing people - you know the "creating jobs" bit! That opens up a whole load more costs and rules - national insurance, PAYE, assorted employee rights (maternity, paternity, sick pay, holidays and so forth).

As my old boss, Judith Donovan put it in commenting prior to the recent budget:

“I passionately believe SMEs are the engines of growth; this Government so far is paying lip service to that concept while cuddling up to big business; we don’t need schemes and incentives and special favours.

“Yorkshire folk will do it for themselves if given a level playing field; lift the ridiculous and onerous employment law burdens for businesses employing under 10 people and the Yorkshire economy will fly; I should know. I built an SME to over £10m turnover and I sold because of these appalling laws and I would never start another business while they persist.”

Setting up a business is a pain - sometimes it's the only option but no-one enjoys it, there are huge bureaucratic barriers and costs before you can do anything, let alone start making some money!

There are plenty of people who would love to start a business. They don't bother because, right now, the cards are stacked up against the start up - regulation, tax, more regulation, more tax, controls, dictats, instructions, all things of no point, value or purpose to the businessman or woman.

That's what has to change - not lending us a tenner and getting Google to provide some second rate IT training.

....

We need copyright to prevent censorship and promote freedom

Much of the debate surrounding the current Digital Economy Bill focuses on the dissemination of popular culture and the mechanisms to make that culture available – music, film and software. However, there is another business that will be profoundly affected by these proposals – academic publishing. These are some of the world’s oldest businesses – Cambridge University Press was founded in 1534 and Elsevier, the biggest academic publisher in 1580. And to understand the significance of copyright to this industry (a major contributor to the UK’s economy) we must go back to the origins of copyright law in 1709, The Statute of Anne.

Although the official title of this act was, “An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned", in truth it was intended to curb the claim of perpetual copyright claimed by publishers under common law (since the previous provisions – registration with the Stationers’ Company - had lapsed). However, the two sources of copyright provision – the 1709 Act and common law – continued side by side up to 1774 when the House of Lords ruled perpetual copyright invalid (Donaldson vs. Beckett). This ruling included this important definition of ‘property’ from Sir Peter Wedderburn, the Solicitor General:

“Literary property had, by those who spoke before him, been said to be so abstruse and chimerical, that it was not possible to define it. The interpretation they had put upon the word, 'property' was, that it implied something corporeal, tangible, and material... He begged leave to differ from this opinion, and to point out how common it was for terms to be misapplied as to their import. The word 'property' had, by the ablest writers, been called 'jus utendi, fruendi, disponendi;' it was therefore. evident that any idea, although it was incorporeal in itself, yet if it promised future profit to the inventor of it, was a property.”

Plus the scoping to the bounds of copyright itself:

“It was absurd to imagine, that either a sale, a loan, or a gift of a book, carried with it an Implied right of multiplying copies; so much paper and print were sold, lent, or given, and an unlimited perusal was warranted from such sale, loan or gift, but it could not be conceived that when 5s. were paid for a book, the seller meant to transfer a right of gaining 1001.; every man must feel to the contrary, and confess the absurdity of such an argument.”

And if a copyright is a property, then we have to recognise the right of that property’s owner to make use of it as he wishes – including the right to sell. Or as we know with academic publishing to give away in exchange for editing, peer review and dissemination – plus of course protection of the author’s interests vis plagiarism. This is the publishing process and it is essential to academia however funded. Under the established – copyright protected – model there is no cost to the author as the subscriber pays. There are open access models based on authors paying for publication but these only work where there is significant and substantial public funding available (e.g. PubMed).

This is an important debate – personally I support only some of the campaigners arguments but the manner in which the bill has been captured by producer interests should concern us (although phrases like “Formula One” and “fox hunting” do spring to mind at this point). Let’s be clear, however, that despite the wonders of the web the publishing process remains important – maybe not to a new Indie rock band from Scunthorpe but certainly to the advancement of academic understanding.

If we enter into a free-for-all on copyright we run the risk of killing the goose laying the golden egg – and I don’t mean Bono creaming off a few more millions for crappy stadium rock. Without copyright there is no basis for publishers to operate – it is a simple as that. We return to the situation prior to the 1709 Act where protection is fought for in the Chancery Court or using common law or where there is protection for some censored publishing but not for uncensored publishing. And, if we deem copyright to be property, we have a duty as a society to enforce the rights to that property whoever they may be held by.

The question for Governments should be to ask what is appropriate, what can be enforced and where the bounds for the protection of copyright actually lay. In my view, the onus should lie with the owner of the copyright and his agents to take action. Government should make it possible for such action to be taken but not through the agency of a Whitehall Department.

....