What next for the UK's creative industries?
"I don't want our creative industries to go the same way as our manufacturing industries," Ivan Lewis, shadow culture minister, tells me.
We were talking shortly before his appearance at the this morning to discuss their latest paper called: .
The Work Foundation's Benjamin Reid is one of the report's authors, in which he highlights what he considers to be the imminent threats to our hitherto thriving creative industries (made up of the following sectors: advertising, fashion, film, computer software and services, music, art and antiques, drama, architecture, design, publishing, crafts, TV and radio and computer and video games).
Difficulty in securing bank loans, increased competition from abroad (China, Taiwan and Canada are investing heavily in the creative industries to drive their economies forward) and a propensity to sell off our intellectual property crown jewels (Grand Theft Auto, the Harry Potter film franchise and foreign ownership of our book and music publishers were given as examples) were cited as the major clouds on our knowledge economy horizon.
The creative industries have been doing well. This recently paints a picture of a flourishing sector that makes a significant contribution to the national economy, that has enjoyed above average growth and accounts for over 4% of all goods exported. Dizzee Rascal might not look like Alan Sugar, but when it comes to doing the business he's no apprentice.
But to who is a bank more likely to lend their money? A sharp suited businessman or a tattooed dude who's riding low and wearing a baseball cap the wrong way round? We know the answer. And that according to Benjamin Reid - and others such as the pop-star-turned-industry-voice Feargal Sharkey - it is a very big problem.
They say that the UK is in the talent business - whether that's software designers, architects or makers of pop music - and those individuals and companies need the same sort of investment and support enjoyed by other more traditional businesses.
The report also proposes that financial support needs to be met with a greater level of ambition for what the sector could achieve, or it argues the inevitable happens: the individual or business eventually succeeds and promptly does a deal with an overseas company who then own all their tax-yielding intellectual property for ever after.
Ivan Lewis had other concerns. He points to the recent arts cuts by central government and local councils and the suggestion by David Willetts that all arts and humanities funding for under graduate universities courses be cut too (the reason I gather is that they are cheap to run and therefore the newly approved figure of £6,000 tuition fees would cover the course's costs).
He goes on to say that in his opinion the government has a plan for saving money but not one for growth.
Jeremy Hunt, Culture Secretary and Ed Vaizey, Minister for Culture, have both made clear their shared view that the creative industries are a vitally important component to the British economy.
Jeremy Hunt should know, he has built a successful publishing business. But Ivan Lewis is concerned that without a cross-government group that includes (and is chaired by one of) the cabinet ministers representing education, business, culture and the Treasury then what he considers to be the necessary coherence to deliver a framework in which the creative industries can continue to thrive will not materialise.
At the end of last month David Cameron announced a that he hoped would result in a more flexible approach to IP in order to create an environment in Britain in which future companies such as Google, Apple and Facebook might develop here and not in the States.
Some who heard this announcement pointed to the fact those American companies have all done very well harnessing British ideas within the current framework and didn't need any further help.
An arts journal by 
Comment number 1.
At 14th Dec 2010, Steve_M-H wrote:Hound Dog Lewis has remembered what he's supposed to be doing then???
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 14th Dec 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:Will wrote:
"...the suggestion by David Willetts that all arts and humanities funding for under graduate universities courses be cut too (the reason I gather is that they are cheap to run and therefore the newly approved figure of £6,000 tuition fees would cover the course's costs)."
Do arts/media graduates actually need to attend a University? Can they not glean all they need from personal study and research at libraries? Is the 40 to 60 grand really a good investment for the individual or the country?
I have been asking these questions regularly at the graduations at several universities for a number of years - the question is now being made more acute. I know that this is harking back to a pre-Victorian age, but the economic question must be asked. Perhaps It might be a good idea to ask every potential university undergraduate to write five thousand words on the subject before they apply for university!
I admit that I am open to the personal criticism that I benefited from a university education but then I was not burdening my future with huge debt so the decision was easier - today's potential graduates must consider their options carefully. An analytic, inquiring (or is it enquiring - both) mind should be the aim of us all for the next generation. Creating debt-slaves will damage the essential vitality of education. It is I believe better for the country to have self-educated individuals possessed of a critical and analytical mind than 'yes-person' debt-slaves!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 14th Dec 2010, Bertie wrote:Cuts to the arts and creative industries - great - the only people who will notice are the ones in education, or those who are from the education system and still trying to earn a living from their craft, or art as it may be. On the whole they have unrealistic ideas and are stifled by a system that has so many inhibitions that its a wonder it functions at all.
Im a succesful craftsman, and have been working for myself for over 30 years, occasionaly ive touched the "official" arts and crafts world and its a world that sorely needs to change.
Reading the above, there is nothing new, no intensly creative ideas,everything linked to the same old commitees and individuals
promote your business, borrow money, apply to the government agencies get grants -----its what we are told over and over again - ahh ive made a mistake, there is something new - the verbiage.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 14th Dec 2010, Jack_O_Heath wrote:I have a distinct feeling of deja vu here. The last time was when Thatcher was in power and wanted to cut the amount of art schools in the UK. All Tory governemtns want to get rid of the creative industries because they believe they are full of anarchic marxists. What they fail to understand is that the arts earns more for this country than almost anything else. Thatcher ordered a report whose findings underpinned this. The mass closure of art schools in the 80's failed to materialise. A smart business orientated, economically aware government, which this coalition is clearly not, would realise that if they wanted to get us out of this mess they only need to support the creative industries, give tax incentives to creative companies and artists, to expand over the next 2/3 years. It would create jobs, increase tourism and export creative products that will earn back any investment 10 times over. But no. They are so blinkered that all they can think of is cuts, the easy option. Maybe artists should be politicians so that creative thinking can take place in those policy meetings, who have as much chance of coming up with progressive ideas as a business whose legs have been cut off by this bunch has in getting up and walking of into the sunset.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)