Apply Yourself

Another week; another speech about innovation. Today Jeremy Hunt set out his “long-term vision to grow the economy” at Bloomberg. The Chancellor struck the right tone, but there was nothing particularly innovative about his speech. He may have dropped his four 'E' priorities: 'Enterprise, Education, Employment and Everywhere', but no new policies.

We have more than a few policies ready and waiting for him, his colleagues and his opposition, for that matter. On the education front, we had a report out this week with Young Enterprise on the value of Applied Learning – that is, the value of the education system simulating real-life contexts, with their relevance made obvious to young people.

Our Head of Innovation Research, and author of What Applied Learning Really Looks Like, Dr Anton Howes, makes the case in an article for CapX:

“We obviously want kids to be literate and numerate, and to have at least some knowledge of how the world works. And we often encourage them to demonstrate some capacity for analysing and evaluating arguments. But very often it can seem like our ambitions for schools have narrowed, with more and more effort going into teaching less and less.” 

It's worth reading his article in full, but I'll take a bit of a step back to situate it in our canon of work on entrepreneurship and enterprise education.

Back in 2018, I wrote about enterprise education at universities. The main thrust of the report argued that enterprise/entrepreneurship education shouldn't be siloed in business schools. After all, many degrees taught outside business schools – for example, psychology, architecture or veterinary medicine – are likely to lead to self employment or starting a business. Universities should prepare them for this.

Our next report was Educating Future Founders, which made the case for teaching children as young as eleven the basics of running a business. It looked at the international evidence, citing a number of organisations already making a difference, including the Junior Achievement's Company Program, VIVITA and KidsMBA, that are doing just this.

Following this we published ​​Future Founders: Understanding the Next Generation of Entrepreneurs, which was built around polling over 1,500 representatively selected British young people (aged 14-25). The headline finding was that over half of them have thought about starting (or already have started) a business. A further third (35%) say they have not thought about it but are open to the idea.

Crucially, respondents who have thought about starting or had started a company are more likely to have a family member or friend who is a business owner, while a surprising 57% of young people could not name a single entrepreneur who inspires them. The education system should be better supporting this growing demand.

More recently, we put together a report for the APPG for Entrepreneurship, which makes the case for properly integrating entrepreneurship in the curriculum. And in October we released Tomorrow's Entrepreneurs, which surveyed young entrepreneurs, and found, among other things, that the more money a business turns over, the more likely they are to agree that their primary aim was to tackle a social or environmental problem.

So what does this all add up to?

First and foremost, we aren't claiming that education should just be about teaching children to start businesses, or even just to be more entrepreneurial.

And yet, you don't need to read all our reports to know that our schools are missing a trick. As Anton argues, we aren't nurturing attributes like confidence, initiative, character, and more general attitudes to learning. Clearly doing this at scale through the education system is hugely complex, and as was mentioned at the launch, you need a strategy for different schools based on their capacities.

All this doesn't mean entrepreneurs shouldn't look to change things themselves – whether that's through Young Enterprise, or the many other organisations supporting enterprise education. As one of the young entrepreneurs who attended our launch event said, as well as all the skills that he has learned from the Company Programme, he also said something too many lose sight of in the education system – he said it was incredibly fun. I didn't do Young Enterprise and can count on my hand the number of times I had fun while learning at school. Maybe there's a lesson in that.

EX 23
We're teaming up with the Small Business Roundtable, Intuit, Enterprise Nation and the Federation of Small Businesses for a half-day symposium that aims to advance entrepreneurship on a transatlantic level.

EX23 will bring together small businesses, entrepreneurs and government leaders from the United States and the United Kingdom, and subject matter experts from across the globe for a discussion exploring entrepreneurship policy, industry trends, national and international economic development, the future of small business, international trade, and much else besides.

It will take place on Thursday, 16 March. I'll share more details of the coming weeks, but if you're particularly keen you can register now.

Summit Special

In Davos this week, the Business Secretary Grant Shapps announced that the UK will launch a Scale-Up Summit “to bring together key frontier tech, development and finance figures who have accelerated tech businesses from start-ups to scale-ups.”

Shapps wants to hear from those in the UK and beyond – from California to Tallinn – who have achieved high growth, unicorn status and experienced multiple exits, to “build networks and share expertise.”

It’s still in the planning stages. We’ll be sharing our advice on how to make this successful, but I have some initial thoughts based on my experience of attending conferences (even though I tend to avoid them).

First, the agenda should be acutely focused on particular challenges and opportunities. For example, I hope his mention of Tallinn is a reference to Estonia’s impressive digital state. After all, it’s estimated that their reforms collectively save Estonian business owners around 12 million hours every year. What we need now isn’t a vague session about the benefits of such innovations, but a concrete blueprint of how we implement them. Many of these innovations were created and are being developed by Estonian entrepreneurs, who could simply be hired to do the same here. We shouldn’t be wasting lots of taxpayer money reinventing the wheel.

Second, each session needs to be attended by the relevant ministers across government departments and top-level civil servants. For example, if there’s a session on the space industry, it’s no good just having the business department and the UK Space Agency in attendance. Depending on the focus, the likes of the MoD, DCMS, Transport, DIT, Defra, Ofcom, and the Civil Aviation Authority may need to attend. Where there are sessions which involve civil servants from multiple departments, these same civil servants then need to share ideas and potential actions with each other. 

Third, to get the best people from around the world it will need to be a hybrid event, but the networking component (for want of a better word) – whether online or in-person – is where a lot of the added value can be created. One technological innovation that makes conferences more useful is the ability to see profiles and request one-on-one meetings. Ministers, MPs and civil servants should be included in this.

Beyond Davos and conferences, it’s worth taking a step back to acknowledge the Business Secretary’s speech in the round. When I started The Entrepreneurs Network nearly a decade ago, the language of entrepreneurship was alien to politicians. The Coalition had launched the Startup Britain campaign a few years earlier, but their thinking didn’t scale beyond encouraging more small businesses.

That’s all changed, with MPs across all parties keener than ever to understand and talk about entrepreneurship. This is an opportunity and challenge to politicians to live up to their rhetoric.

I’m sure many of you have more experience of what makes for a successful summit. So why don’t you let me know and we’ll do our best to amplify your views.

Choice Questions
Our friends at Coadec have launched a survey for founders to share their views on the UK's immigration system. They want to know about any barriers you might have faced when hiring from abroad, and whether you find the UK’s immigration system easy to understand and navigate. There are just seven multiple-choice questions, so if this is a policy area where you want to see change, it’s worth spending a few minutes to respond.

Only a Number
Adviser to the network Jarmila Yu alerted me to a media opportunity that I think one of you will be able to help with. The BBC’s Felicity Hannah is making a documentary about very young entrepreneurs: “Would love to hear about children or very young people who have launched their own businesses (but, like, actually – not businesses that their parents really run).” You can get in touch with her via Twitter. Do share far and wide.

Blockchain firms with a female founder are more successful

City AM recently published an article about the gender gap in venture capital. They cover a new study from the Vienna University of Business which claims that female entrepreneurs are held back by a false “prototype” of what a real start-up founder looks like. The article then mentions the research that we did with Barclays, where 72% of high growth female founders agreed that it would have been easier to raise cash if they were men and 59% said they had been discriminated against because of their gender.

The Vienna study identified 107 blockchain-related start ups from Crunchbase and found that 15 of the teams were all-male, 92 were mixed gender, and none were all-female. They controlled for team size, education level, industry experience, managerial experience and start-up experience and found that all-male teams were less successful than the teams with some women on them. And majority female-founded teams were again less successful than the mixed teams.

This is similar to what we have found in our own research. Female founders are just as likely to receive follow-on funding and female-founded companies have the same return on investment as male-founded companies, but female founders struggle more when raising their first rounds of equity investment.

However, the press release of this study claims much more than this . According to the study’s author “while female founders need to be as different as possible in order to stand out from the competition, the study suggests that being female already deviates too much from the normative standard. As a result, female founders are not able to prove themselves in the first place because they are simply denied the chance, or the investors’ funding, to do so, regardless of their education or experience.”

Their evidence does not support this broad claim. For one, blockchain businesses are not going to be representative of startups in general. A lot of the interest in blockchain has come out of online sub-cultures interested in libertarianism and crypto-currency. These cultures skew very heavily male, and are often accused of being quite misogynistic. Data gathered based on blockchain cannot be generalised to represent the culture in, say,  healthtech or green technology.

The hypothesis being tested by the study is that the more deviation from the “prototype” of a typical entrepreneur (who is assumed to be male), the less investors will support the company. They then tested this hypothesis with the method described above, and were surprised to find that companies with some female founders outperformed the all-male companies. Despite finding evidence that contradicted the initial hypothesis, the rest of the study and the press output continues with the same argument as before. With little, if any, alteration based on their results.

From my own research, their hypothesis that women find it harder to be entrepreneurs because people are not used to female entrepreneurs seems plausible but their method of investigating this question does not give much evidence either way.

This represents a broader trend in academia (and, to be fair, in think tanks) where the pressure to publish eye-catching research means twisting the results of a study into something more sensational. Very few people will read the paper, so where’s the harm, they think, especially if what you’re saying may be broadly true? But it comes at a very real cost. We need good quality research about the tough problems that we face collectively, and this means being clear with your audience about what you found.

I would have been perfectly happy to see a news article saying “Researchers find that blockchain firms with a female founder are more successful than all-male blockchain companies.”

Clouds on Horizon

This week the Science Minister George Freeman set out the UK’s Global Science Strategy beyond Horizon Europe. His speech was sensible and necessary, but highlighted the challenge the UK has in crafting science policy in an uncertain environment.

Freeman was optimistic, but pragmatic. Pinching Boris Johnson’s phrase, he said; “I think we can have our cake and eat it: I think we can be a domestic powerhouse, a European player and more of a global player.”

He isn’t closing the door to our involvement with Horizon Europe just yet though – quite the opposite. He is “​​continuing to push actively for association.” But the speech also says we need a good ‘Plan B’, which would make it “more likely that the EU will pick up the phone and ask us back in.” Last June he gave the EU an ultimatum for last Autumn, which has come and gone.  So we’re getting to a point where there really is no alternative.

There are risks in going it alone. Only this week the UK’s attempt to become the first European nation to launch satellites into orbit ended in failure. The final frontier is prone to setbacks no matter the nation or group – with recent delays to the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Ariane-6 project and the grounding of Italy’s Vega rockets. But there are risks that eclipse one failed launch, with space funding being illustrative of more general post-Brexit institutional challenges.

The UK remains a leading contributor to the ESA, which as I wrote in a paper for the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Entrepreneurship is to be welcomed. However, with space becoming an ever-increasing geopolitical concern, power and funding is moving away from ESA and into core EU institutions which, of course, we are no longer part of. So even being part of ESA and other pan-European agencies is no bulwark against the UK and its entrepreneurs being sidelined.

In space, we are diversifying our relationships, with agreements like the UK-Australia ‘Space Bridge’ – in which the UK’s and Australia’s Space Agencies are cooperating to improve space related trade, investment, research and business collaborations. However, as Freeman acknowledged, we can’t match the US, China or EU science budgets. Instead, we “will need to carve out a realistic role which draws on our historic strengths”, focusing on specific research challenges where we can lead multinational consortia. He mentioned things like polar research, space, biosecurity, synthetic biology, agritech and gene editing of crops, and research into the growing sector of functional food. He calls on the UK to become “a global testbed”, echoing ours for the UK to become a “Testbed Nation”.

On the Northern Ireland Protocol, relations are thawing, with the UK this week agreeing to allow the EU access to its trade IT systems. The dispute over post-Brexit trade rules clearly needs resolving before the Commission will let the UK rejoin Horizon Europe. 

Rather than having our cake and eating it, you might think we’re stuck between a rock and a hard place. Or you may be optimistic about Freeman’s vision of becoming a testbed nation. Either way, what's the alternative?

Heart of the Matter

“The change we need is to put innovation at the heart of everything we do.” So said Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on Wednesday as he set out his priorities for 2023. 

He said all the right things: “Let me tell you why innovation is so important. Over the last 50 years, it was responsible for around half of the UK’s productivity increase. New jobs are created by innovation. People’s wages increased by innovation. The cost of goods and services reduced by innovation. And major challenges like energy security and net zero will be solved by innovation. The more we innovate, the more we grow. And the world is seeing an incredible wave of scientific and technological change, so right now, the most powerful way to achieve higher growth is to make sure the UK is the most innovative economy in the world.”

The Prime Minister claimed to already be doing this by: increasing public funding in R&D; seizing the opportunities of Brexit; making sure entrepreneurial and fast-growing companies get the finance they need to expand; and spreading a culture of creative thinking and doing things differently across every part of the UK.

I’ll take each in turn.

First, while successive governments should be commended for their commitment to R&D spending, in the Autumn Statement the government cut R&D tax credits for smaller companies. This coming April, the credit for companies claiming through the SME scheme will be reduced from 33.35% to 18.6%. As Wayve’s CEO Alex Kendall says: “We’ve seen really strong rhetoric from the government being pro-innovation, pushing the UK to be one of the best environments if you want to come and start a company. [The credit reduction] feels like a U-turn on that rhetoric and that strategy, which is disappointing to see.”

I’m not sure what, if anything, has been seized so far post-Brexit. As the TIGRR report and a succession of Regulatory Horizons Council reports show, there are opportunities, but they haven’t been a priority. Philip Aldrick is to the point: “Sunak, a Silicon Valley acolyte, believes in tech, ideas, innovation and capital. Thrilling stuff, but he might get bigger rewards simply by delivering on his promise to get the Northern Ireland protocol fixed.” However, George Freeman MP (co-author of the TIGRR report) remains optimistic for some regulatory reforms.

On access to finance, we will wait to see whether he can unlock the institutional investment that we’ve long called for. I’m particularly interested to see more detail on the Long-term Investment for Technology & Science (LIFTS) initiative, which is designed to catalyse investment from pension schemes and other institutional investors into UK science and technology businesses.

When it comes to impacting culture, much of this is frankly outside the power of government. However, as we have argued, the Great Exhibition of 1851 managed to inspire a generation of innovators and we could do so again. This would be the opposite of last year’s failed Unboxed festival, which was described by the DCMS committee as “vague and shape-shifting”.

Stupid Economy
We don’t know what the biggest story of the year will be because there’s no accounting for a deranged world leader like Putin, or a pandemic like Covid. But even if they don’t turn out to be the biggest stories, we know that the Government will have to deal with the strikes, a recession and the impasse of post-Brexit trading arrangements in Northern Ireland. 

Local elections will be held in May. Most don’t expect a general election until 2024, but last year nobody predicted three Prime Ministers. Even without an election, the campaigning will start gearing up in earnest.

The economy will be front and centre. Of 101 leading UK-based economists polled by the Financial Times, more than four-fifths expect the UK to lag its peers, with GDP already shrinking and set to do so for much or all of 2023. Professor Ricardo Reis concludes: “The UK suffers from an energy shock as bad as Europe’s, an inflation problem . . .  as bad as the US and a unique problem of lack of labour supply from the combination of Brexit and the NHS crisis.” You can read the full responses here.

Bloomberg’s economic predictions are equally bleak – including a significant drop in house prices (even at a time of gross undersupply when it’s most needed). The Office for Budget Responsibility expects a 9% decline and many others are predicting even more. This would hit business creation as house price growth is strongly correlated with entrepreneurship, and there is a strong positive effect of home equity on the probability that a non-business owning household will switch to entrepreneurship in the future. 

Kitty Donaldson is “on the lookout for Keir Starmer to try and recreate some of the cultural groundswell of enthusiasm for a Labour government that Tony Blair managed to create in the mid-1990s.” Perhaps a drill remix of Things Can Only Get Better? While Cool Britannia 2.0 is an overstretch, Starmer (as Blair was when he was favourite to enter Downing Street) will be asked to set out a more detailed policy platform.

Elizabethan Order
Back in 2021 our Head of Innovation Policy Anton Howes and Ned Donovan called for the creation of a new order of chivalry – an Elizabethan Order – to raise the status of innovators, entrepreneurs, engineers, and scientists. Part of the reason is that the current Order of the British Empire fails to do this, with on average only 6.7% of the awards being given for those activities. Instead, it largely goes to philanthropists, civil servants, or people who are already famous for sports, acting, and music. With the 2023 New Years Honours, we had hoped for some improvement, but this year it’s actually fallen a little, to 6.2%. Still, it’s incredible to see Anisah Osman Britton, chair of our Inclusive Innovation Forum, and Alison Cork, member of our Female Founders Forum, both awarded an MBE. Both richly deserved.

So, Last Year

This will be the last newsletter of the year. I won’t pick over the political malarkey and machinations of a year with four Chancellors and three Prime Ministers – many others will do a better job of that. Instead, I want to just share what we’ve been up to. The tl;dr is: we’re bigger and better than ever, producing more reports, hosting more events, and, most importantly, having a greater impact on policy.

Thanks to all our sponsors, Patrons, Advisers and Supporters. We wouldn’t – and couldn’t – exist without your support.

If you would like to get more involved, you can join us here. Or, if you’d rather have a chat, book 15 minutes in my diary for early next year, or just drop me an email.

Q1
The start of the year was packed with events – mostly online for obvious reasons – with our various forums on green entrepreneurship, female founders, and small businesses. We also hosted online events with leading VCs through our Something Ventured project with FieldHouse Associates, on the future of immigration with Kingslety Napley, and when things opened up we got back to private dinners with our Advisers with FTI.

In February we released Strong Foundations, written by our Head of Policy, Aria Babu. It makes a forceful case that entrepreneurship is being dampened in our most productive cities due the high cost of housing and office space. The Telegraph published our open letter signed by 64 entrepreneurs and campaigners, Aria wrote on how high housing costs are sapping growth, and if you’re still not convinced I wrote about it for Forbes.

In March we released Access All Areas: Finance. The report made the case against an Online Sales Tax (which is thankfully now dead in the water) and extending the EIS, SEIS, and VCTs schemes (which thankfully isn’t).

March also saw the launch of the Inclusive Innovation Forum project with Morgan Stanley. It focuses on funding for underserved founders – a topic that we’ll focus on in more detail next year. 

Q2
May saw the release of our Procurement and Innovation report which identified key issues with the current public sector procurement process and put forward 14 ideas for improving it. 

In June the APPG for Entrepreneurship released a report on Entrepreneurship Education in the House of Lords with support from FinnCap. The report highlighted the lack of a specific entrepreneurship education strategy and made the case for why it should be embedded across the curriculum. Many of the UK’s leading entrepreneurs signed a letter backing the report, and this week BGF’s Stephen Welton is the latest to back our proposed our reforms. 

We also released True Potential, which argued for the expansion of the High Potential Individual Visa to include universities with more successful graduates (as decided by real-world labour market data from Glassdoor) than those already on the government’s list.

Q3
Building upon our Procurement and Innovation report, in July we released another report with Enterprise Nation on how government can fix procurement for small businesses which included new data from Tussell about how which departments spend more with SMEs and are meeting the government’s overall targets.

In August we published A New Model for Science with the Tony Blair Institute and Convergent Research. It made the case for investing in Focused Research Organisations, which undertake projects at the intersection of cutting-edge-science and entrepreneurship that are too big for a single academic lab to do; too complex for a loose, multi-lab collaboration; and not directly profitable enough for a venture-backed startup or industrial R&D project. Aria has written a useful explainer for those new to the idea.

In the same month we released ​​Tech Startup Manifesto 2022 with our friends at Coadec (incidentally, do take their survey on the upcoming reduction in value of R&D tax credits for SMEs). We called on the new Prime Minister to do everything in their power to support our ideas. Liz Truss did, but we all know what happened next, though it's great to see the current PM retaining many of the bits of the Truss agenda we campaigned (while scrapping those we didn't), and Labour also backing them in its Startup Review.

In September the APPG for Entrepreneurship released a report with the support of the Space Applications Catapult on supporting Space Startups and Scaleups. In Q3 we also hosted four Female Founders Forum roundtables focused on the UK’s fastest growing businesses, a virtual roundtable on accessing talent, an event on the future of sustainable businesses, and an Inclusive Innovation Forum virtual roundtable on public policy.

Q4
In October we launched Tomorrow's Entrepreneurs in the House of Lords with Youth Business International (YBI). The report shows that attitudes towards entrepreneurship have shifted, with young people seeing entrepreneurship as a way of changing the world instead of simply a way of making money (although pleasingly we also found that founders who want to change the world for the better are also more profitable). Read my thoughts about the report in Forbes.

In November we released another report with Enterprise Nation on the importance of  access to the right people so entrepreneurs can meet their growth ambitions. It makes a series of recommendations to boost the supply and quality of the labour force, including reducing the cost of visas, reforming the Apprenticeship Levy, and widening the scope of tax breaks for training.

November also saw the release of One in a Million with Barlcays – the culmination of a year of roundtables, interviews and surveys with female founders who have raised over £1m. It’s a sizeable report, covering everything from attitudes in the media to division of chores at home, but read Aria on the impact of the ‘chore gap’ and childminding regulations.

In December we released Supporting SMEs Successfully with Virgin Money in the House of Lords. It found that while existing interventions are well intentioned, and in many cases working well for the businesses using them, more could still be done to ensure they are as effective as possible. Eamonn Ives, our new(ish) Head of Research, wrote about the report in CapX.

In Q4 we started hosting more private dinners, something we’re hoping to do more of in 2023 (get in touch if you’re keen to host). We hosted Lord Clement-Jones CBE in Drummonds to discuss how to make the UK the best place in the world for artificial intelligence. With Evelyn Partners we hosted two, one on tax reform and another on increasing the quality of people in public life.

We’ve worked closely with Labour on their Startup Review, hosting two of their eight roundtables, to talk about economic growth and female founders respectively. We definitely managed to make some impression, as they quoted our second report on procurement in the final document. We also hosted a fireside chat with The Office Group on business funding for 2023.

Again, thank you to everyone who has supported us this year. We look forward to continuing to do what we do in 2023, championing entrepreneurship and making the UK the best place to start and grow a business. 

Remix To Ignition

Nuclear fusion was ‘always thirty years away’ – until it wasn’t. This week we learned that researchers at the US National Ignition Facility have achieved ‘ignition’. Nature has a useful primer on the science, but to cut a long story short, the facility reaction released roughly 54% more than the energy that went into the reaction. You don’t need to be Ernest Rutherford to understand this is significant – world-changing, in fact. 

When, not if, the technology is commercialised, it will make reversing climate change and humans’ wider negative impact on the planet a cinch, as our Head of Research explained a few years ago.

But that’s just the start. As Eamonn also explains, grand projects like terraforming Mars and interstellar exploration will become economical – possibilities will open up that are so incredible they could even tempt Elon Musk away from Twitter. Perhaps the most incredible thing will be the way nearly free energy would ripple throughout the economy, reducing the cost of just about everything. Entrepreneurship and innovation would reach new heights, as the cost of energy, a major blocker between imagination and action, is destroyed.

I’m getting ahead of myself though, and it's worth pointing out that others, including The Economist, are less bullish than I am. After all, first, it needs to be commercialised. 

Given its potential to make us all wealthier, healthier and happier (if ending absolute poverty doesn’t make you happy I don’t know what will), I jumped at the chance to visit First Light Fusion, the Oxford-based fusion pioneer, to see a 'shot' in action earlier this year.

I was there to meet Nick Hawker, its founder and an Adviser to The Entrepreneurs Network. The good news for Nick is that First Light uses the same physics that has now been proven by the National Ignition Facility. They take a different approach though – using a projectile instead of a laser.

As Nick says, while this “proves that the core process works, First Light has a different wrapper around that process that we believe has a much more rapid path to electricity generation.” Nick believes his method can be commercialised more quickly.

Whether laser or propulsion is the first to crack the commercialisation of inertial fusion, this is a case study in the importance of funding fundamental science over a long time scale (there were complaints the US National Ignition Facility was a waste of money), thinking seriously about how we can better at spinning out more technologies from universities, and why we should be unapologetically optimistic about the potential for progress.

Cut it Out
In not entirely unrelated news, as reported in the Financial Times (paywall), more than a dozen leading UK start-ups have appealed to the Prime Minister to rethink proposed cuts to research and development (R&D) tax credits.

“We’ve seen really strong rhetoric from the government being pro-innovation, pushing the UK to be one of the best environments if you want to come and start a company,” said Alex Kendall, co-founder of Wayve, who coordinated the letter with tech investors Form Ventures. Kendall’s rebate will drop from 33% to 19%, while Ochre Bio is projected to lose half its projected £3m rebate in 2023 and 2024.

Both these companies are producing exactly the sort of innovative research that R&D Tax Credits were made for: Wayve is a London-based startup creating autonomous driving technology based on computer vision and machine learning, while Ochre Bio is developing therapies that regenerate poor quality donor livers, so more people have access to better quality organs.

Entrepreneurs should get in touch with me to share your experiences of the scheme. This won’t be the last you read about this here.

Help Yourself
Less than one thousand Help to Grow: Digital vouchers have been redeemed by SMEs. That’s why the Government is scrapping it in two months. “The scheme has supported businesses to grow, but with take-up lower than expected, the government cannot justify the continued cost of the scheme to the taxpayer.” 

The Help to Grow: Digital programme was designed to give 100,000 SMEs free and impartial advice on how technology can help their business and vouchers worth up to £5,000 to cover up to 50% of the costs of buying pre-approved software.

This comes on the back of a campaign we backed pointing out the failing of the scheme, and our recent report for the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Entrepreneurship (APPG) that was critical of the scheme and the failure of the officials to release data on the number of business owners who have taken up the scheme. We now know why they were so reticent to let us know.

While it would be easy to say we were right, as with any experimentation, we need to accept that government schemes will also fail, and we should actually commend the government, both for starting and scrapping it and looking to deploy the money in a more effective way. However, for policy experimentation to work, we need to learn from mistakes, so BEIS should investigate why it failed so that future governments can do better next time (or not do it at all).

Start-Up, Scale-Up

This week, Labour’s much-anticipated Start-Up, Scale-Up Review was released. It’s a solid piece of policy work – although we might be biased, having hosted two of the eight roundtables for dozens of entrepreneurs and experts who all fed into it.

First, I’ll shamelessly share our reference in it:

“It is clear from responses to the review that procurement can play an important part in supporting innovation. One of the main ways in which the Government can support start-ups and small businesses to gain access to a market is by being an anchor customer of their goods and services at an early stage.

“However, evidence suggests that the proportion of public sector procurement spending going to small businesses has decreased since 2016, from 25% to 21% in 2021. Evidence from Tussell for The Entrepreneurs Network also captured the variation across government. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport devotes 37% of its budget to small businesses, whilst the Department for Transport devotes just 2%.”

The report being referenced is Access All Areas: Government, which we worked on with Enterprise Nation. 

The Review also suggests that Labour “assess the case for making pre-market engagement mandatory for all government buyers.” As we argued in Procurement and Innovation, “procurement regulations in the US require agencies to employ pre-market engagement to identify and acquire potentially useful commercial off-the-shelf solutions. While in Canada, procurement managers are encouraged to use off-the-shelf products unless a bespoke solution is operationally necessary.

“The government should adopt the same approach here by creating a requirement for public bodies to explain why they have sought a bespoke solution over off-the-shelf solutions. This must not become a box-ticking exercise, but rather be part of a long-term shift to greater pre-market engagement. Data on the share of bespoke solutions, relative to off-the shelf solutions, should be published on an agency-by-agency basis and the worst offenders should be required to invest in greater pre-market engagement.”

It should be noted, however, that this isn’t a significant break from Conservative Party policy. In fact, the Procurement Bill is slowly making its way through the sausage factory that is Parliament.

Another area where Labour are aligned with the Government is on tax breaks for investing in startups. As stated: “Through the call for evidence for this review, and the various roundtables that we have held, it is clear that there is strong evidence as to the benefits of both the SEIS and the EIS schemes in stimulating investment and entrepreneurship. Labour should commit to maintaining the incentives provided by those schemes and should commit to continuing the EIS and VCT incentives beyond their 2025 sunset.”

But it goes further, recommending that Labour reviews the “scope, scale, and design of both EIS and SEIS to ensure they are providing adequate incentives.” That means that limits, caps and the qualifying period could all be on the table.

This review also recommends that Labour ensures that the “R&D tax credit system continues to adequately incentivise investment and innovation by high growth firms, including SMEs.” The review is also live to our (and others’) complaints about delays: “One response noted that they had received numerous reports that R&D Tax Credits had become increasingly hard to access with payments often taking months to come through, resulting in some eligible businesses not applying.”

On the issue of female founders, it was good to see the report acknowledge that “a prominent factor cited for many women was the affordability and availability of childcare.” It’s something that my colleague Aria Babu has been leading on – both in our latest Female Founders Forum report with Barclays, and in many other places, including to the Work and Pensions Select Committee. 

Finally, the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Entrepreneurship gets a shout out, through Erika Brodnock, who is one the group’s Advisers: “Her journey in trying to fundraise for her previous start-up between 2012 and 2019 was so challenging that she reached the conclusion she would need to install a white male CEO to ever raise funding. Furthermore, from many conversations she has had, and the research generated through Extend Ventures, it has become clear to her that Black founders seeking investment face an uphill battle.”

We will continue to undertake work on this policy agenda through the Inclusive Innovation Forum we launched this year with Morgan Stanley, who run a really impressive Multicultural Innovation Lab. You can read the write-up of our latest newsletter here, and we will be holding an event to discuss some of the themes of the review in a virtual roundtable on 24th January at 3pm. Drop us an email if you’re keen to get involved.

There is a lot more in the report. Check out the proposed ‘founder-track’ option for spinouts where universities would only take a share of equity at or below 10%; the call to give the British Business Bank more independence; the call for a British ‘Tibi’ scheme to bring together institutional investors and VCs; and to explore ways to foster the provision of Long Term Asset Fund (LTAF) products for ISA investors.

Well done to Julie Devonshire, Tom Adeyoola, Alex Depledge and Lord Jim O’Neill for keeping all this to a pithy 28 pages. We would really value your thoughts on anything in the document, as we’ll continue to be engaging with Labour – as we do with all major parties.

Supporting SMEs Successfully
This week we launched a new APPG for Entrepreneurship report in the House of Lords in partnership with Virgin Money: Supporting SMEs Successfully. The foreword was penned by Bill Esterson MP, Shadow Minister for Business and Industry, with Selaine Saxby MP, Officer of the APPG for Entrepreneurship and Chi Onwurah MP, Shadow Minister for Science, Research & Digital speaking at the launch.

It focused on the flagship Help to Grow schemes, which, following a call for evidence, Eamonn Ives – our Head of Research, and the report’s author – found could do with some changes. On ‘Help to Grow: Digital’ Eamonn makes the case for cutting bureaucracy to get more innovative software on the platform. On ‘Help to Grow: Management’ the call is for more flexibility and experimentation.

Check out the APPG’s Twitter thread for a succinct summary of the findings, read Eamonn’s article in CapX, or read my article in Forbes.

Million-Pound Questions

In the House of Lords on Tuesday, we launched One In A Million: our sixth major report of the Female Founders Forum, which we run with Barclays. The title comes from the fact that there aren’t as many female founders of high-growth firms as there could, and should, be: just 32%. We don’t need to look far to find countries where there is a higher percentage of female founders. Switzerland, the US, Canada, and the Netherlands are all doing better. 

One In A Million shares the success stories of many of the most successful of that 32%. Over the last year, Aria Babu, our Head of Policy, has interviewed 59 female founders who have raised over ​​£1 million. As the report reveals, just 16% of equity finance goes to companies with a female founder or co-founder. 

Entrepreneurs buck the trend – even their own stereotypes. As the report shows, there is no such thing as a typical female entrepreneur. But there are important questions to ask in the dividing lines, lessons to be learned even from outliers, and, ultimately, concerning trends across the experience of many female founders that require action from government, the finance industry, our education system and society at large.

First, 59% of our sample feel that they have been discriminated against because they are a female founder, and 72% believe that it would have been easier to raise finance if they were a man. If you have any doubts that this is still a problem read the case study of Kim Nilsson, founder and CEO of PeripherAI: “Very few founders ever get concrete proof that they have been discriminated against, although many have stories of when they suspect they had been. Kim is the exception. She said that once, after an Angel investing pitch, one of the investors reached out to her and said that he had made a mistake. ‘He emailed me afterwards and said that he had given money to the other team because they were men and they seemed so much more confident. He told me he regretted that decision.’”

Nevertheless, 76% of the female founders we polled said that they thought there were advantages to being a female founder. As Raissa de Haas, co-founder of Double Dutch says in her case study: “It helps you to stand out. If you’re in a group of ten colleagues, the rest of whom are men, people are more likely to remember who you were.” And Hannah Philp, co-founder and CEO of ARC Club said: “There is an advantage. I feel like there’s less of a prototype for what I have to do. I don’t have a dress code, for example. I don’t have to fit a mould.”

Just over half, 54%, of the founders Aria spoke with think that the media positively portrays them. As Saascha Celestial-One, co-founder of OLIO says: “You get more PR. That’s usually helpful.” But as Elsie Rutterford, co-founder of Bybi says: “The fact that we are both women often poses itself as a PR opportunity. But the story that gets penned could do with work. The stereotype of a female founder is quite cliched. There are only so many stories that get told about women in positions of power. There are only so many things you get to be.” Yet the majority, 79%, still think that the framing of “female founders” is helpful. 

Every time I write about our Female Founders Forum reports, I get a couple of emails from men asking why we focus on female founders. Here’s one compelling reason: of those living with a partner, only 18% say that their partner does more housework, while 38% do more housework; the gap is wider for those with children: 12% versus 48%. This points to why childcare is such a big issue for the female founders in our community – as well as for women and households more broadly.

I suggest you read the report (or at least skim it), read a write-up in The Times (paywall), read Aria on how the ‘chore gap’ is still holding female founders back, or read the speech Aria delivered at the launch.

Happy Mondays
Getting the right funding for your business is such an ever-present challenge that there is always the risk we overlook it. That’s why we picked it as the topic for Monday’s event with The Office Group, who we work with (and out of). 

You’ll hear from Julia Elliott Brown, founder and CEO of Enter the Arena, member of the Female Founders Forum and author of RAISE: The Female Founder's Guide To Securing Investment; Henry Whorwood, head of research and consultancy at Beauhurst, who we’ve worked with on a number of reports; and Patrick Newton, ​founding partner at Form Ventures, who back companies in UK startups with public policy exposure, and who we regularly chat to about what the regulations their portfolio companies are struggling with.

We’re a lean operation, so wouldn’t stretch to anything as profligate as a public Christmas party. However, most of the team will be there if you want to pop along and say hello before and after the event, and raise (if not some funds) at least a festive glass.

Inclusive Innovation Forum: Access to Funding

Welcome to the third newsletter of the Inclusive Innovation Forum. The first and second roundtables and newsletters considered how founders of colour can access funding, the different paths they can follow, the barriers they face, and what can be done to unlock their potential.

In the third roundtable we focused on understanding the role of public policy and how it can support founders of colour. At The Entrepreneurs Network we will use these insights of this project to inform its policy work and lobbying efforts, including:
- Ongoing discussions with government departments;
- Engagement with policy makers outside government, e.g. the Labour Start Up Review
- Upcoming conversations with the British Business Bank;
- Scoping out a briefing paper to impact policy.

Roundtable Insights

The roundtable opened by summarising the findings from the Report of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, which analysed different areas, including employment and enterprise. As Tony Sewell, Chair of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, said in his opening remarks: “There are disparities in terms of who gets money from venture capitalists for their startups, and these disparities are also rooted in peer groups and families."

There was agreement that a barrier for underrepresented communities to start an entrepreneurial journey is the lack of access to capital. Marquis Caines, partner at Diversity-X, explained this problem: “Typically, in the black community, we can not do family and friends rounds. When we try to leave the ideation stage, most of us do not even have the capital to develop the idea of a product, which is a necessary first step before approaching venture capitalists.”

It was suggested that this situation should be addressed by the government:

"Public policy, especially within the pre-seed investment space, should include more vehicles to promote more equitable access to capital." – Dama Sathianathan, Partner at Bethnal Green Ventures.

“I don’t think that mentoring and outreach is good enough, because the question is not how do we discuss ideas, but how do we turn the idea into a business.” – Ahana Banerjee, Founder & CEO of Clear.

Mark Neild of the University of Bristol said: “People from underrepresented communities often can’t access Start Up Loans because credit decisions are based on whether the applicants have money and if they can pay it back.” He believes that credit decisions should shift to be more about the prospects of the business rather than the founder's already existing wealth.

The discussion, additionally, revolved around whether entrepreneurship can be promoted by shifting mindsets and encouraging people to convert their day jobs into a business. Mark Neild thinks this may be particularly important for excluded groups that may not be able to access employment and may be better suited to selling directly to the public rather than selling their skills to an employer.

Another major topic of conversation was around if entrepreneurs should focus on selling to their own communities or look to expanding their market beyond them. Many of the attendees said that an advantage of selling to their own communities is that they understand what their specific needs are that have not been solved by others.

Moving on, the discussion covered the importance of promoting minority-lead accelerators and other organisations that provide startup support. More diverse organisations that support startups could be game-changing.

Eni Timi-Biu, Founder & Director, Create Your Table, said: “The opportunity to design and deliver programmes can be monopolised by quite a few organisations who often mirror some of the biases that exist in the entrepreneurship ecosystem.”

Ahana Banerjee, Founder & CEO of Clear stated some of the key institutional blocks for underrepresented founders:
- There are too few ethnic minority investors in senior positions (with decision-making power) at VC funds;
- Companies tackling problems faced by underrepresented founders are often built by those minorities. These areas may be less familiar or less well understood by most investors, resulting in even more unknowns and an increased perceived risk;
- Many investors will not respond to cold communication, thus, the ability to fundraise is often tied to one’s network. Most people in VC come from a finance, tech, or a startup background; these are also white male-dominated fields.

It was agreed that something has to be done to overcome those institutional barriers and this is something that the private sector can help with. “Corporate-led programmes such as the Morgan Stanley Multicultural Innovation Lab, which focuses on actively investing in improving access and opportunities for diverse founders, are critical. We find that there is a strong business imperative to invest in diverse founders, given the resilience and innovation they bring to the table” said Sanghamitra Karra, EMEA head of multicultural client strategy at Morgan Stanley.

Finally, it was agreed that it would be valuable to have a better evidence base to, as Tony Sewell put it “gain a better understanding of what works and use this as a model to move forward.”

One in a Million

This week we released our sixth annual Female Founders Forum report One In A Million with Barclays. Unlike in previous years, where we have repackaged and drawn out themes in other people's data, this year we have created our own new data set. We talked to members female entrepreneurs, who have raised at least £1m in equity finance, and asked them about what it is like to be a female founder in Britain in 2022. Here is what we found:

• 72% of our founders believe that it would have been easier for them to raise equity finance if they were a man;

• 59% of our founders report having been discriminated against because of their gender;

• Female founders are much better educated than the general population. They are twice as likely to have have a degree and ten times more likely to have a postgraduate qualification;

• The chore gap for female founders is the same as it is for other working women. Half the founders who are mothers say they take on the majority of housework.

I hope that has whet your appetite because there is much more in the report. If you'd like a condensed version you can read our Twitter thread or the coverage in the Times. And if you're interested in the chore gap for female founders, and ways we can make childcare cheaper, I have written about that here, here, and here.

We launched the report in the House of Lords. Thanks to everyone who made it there. There was so much energy and passion in the room and it made such an excellent event.  We had the support of Baroness Jenkin, who is a great champion of women in politics and who, before entering politics, founded a business and Maria Caulfield, the Minister for Women and a great advocate for women's empowerment. Below is a version of the speech I gave.

First of all, I need to say thank you to all the founders who helped put the report together. There are only about 2000 women who have raised at least £1m in equity finance, and about 5% of them have been a part of this project in some way. We have been running the Female Founders Forum for several years, but until now we’ve been reliant on general data from the business literature. The vast majority of people who start businesses are not high-growth founders and I think people face very different interests when they run very different businesses. The policy issues for women who run kitchen-table businesses because they are trying to work less and spend more time with their children are very different to those who are trying to revolutionise banking or green energy. As a result I feel honoured that such a small and thinly stretched group has been so generous with their time and attention.

But let's go back to basics. Why should we care about female entrepreneurs? I think to some it may feel like this is a luxury issue – when we’re talking about founders we are talking about a. tiny portion of the population and often (but not always) quite a privileged portion of the population.

But I think they're of critical importance. First, barriers that thwart female entrepreneurs are barriers to our own economic growth. In the UK we have significantly fewer female founders than similar countries like Switzerland, the Netherlands, Australia, the US and Canada. Young companies are engines of growth and we’re losing out on about £200bn of economic output because we are behind our peer countries.

Second, founders have influence. By starting a company and creating new products you have a disproportionate influence over the world. You can determine what gets sold and how it works, and you set the cultures in your companies and industries. The systematic underrepresentation of women in decision making roles has created a world that is not built for women.

Here’s a small example. I had a meeting the other day in a VC firm’s offices and I had to sign in on a screen and then it took a picture of me for my pass. I’m 5ft3 – which is the average height of a British woman, and I think my arms are a pretty normal length. But I couldn’t reach the screen and stand in range for the picture at the same time.

This is obviously just a minor inconvenience but it is illustrative of a broader issue. How many of us take aspirin or paracetamol? How many of us are a woman of 'childbearing age?'. Well, until 1993 the US FDA banned clinical trials on women of childbearing age, meaning that many of us regularly take medicines that were approved before they were properly tested on people with our biology.

It’s damaging to women to exclude us from the decision making processes. This is why it is so important to increase the number of women in politics, and in business, and in STEM fields. And, as we have seen an increase in the number of women in senior roles, we have seen more and more products made for women by women.

Just look at the very first case study in the report. Irene McAleese makes bike lights that gather data on people’s cycling habits. She’s passionate about the health and lifestyle benefits of cycling and wants to help close the gender cycling gap. With the bike lights she’s found some really interesting differences between how men and women cycle and she’s using this data to help policy makers make more women-friendly urban design choices.

And third, female founders face the same issues that all women face. How do we navigate careers with the ingrained expectations about household labour? I was shocked to learn that despite being incredibly successful, 46% of the female founders who are mothers say that they do the majority of the housework. Only 12% say that their partners do more. These are similar numbers to the rest of British mothers who work full time.

And discrimination is something we all deal with. Founders talked to me about how they were ignored in meetings, about how male investors don’t take them seriously, and about how they are generally believed to be less competent and worthy than their male counterparts. Still only 16% of equity finance goes to companies with a female founder. 72% of our founders believe they would have found it easier to raise equity if they were men.

The interests of high-growth female founders should be all of our interests too. Discrimination and poorly built systems are making all of our lives worse and it’s time we addressed these issues head-on.

We have a series of recommendations in the report. I have a whole list of ways that we can make childcare more affordable. We need to address the fact that girls, despite being as talented in maths and science, do not feel as though they can continue onto careers in these fields. We need to change the culture in the media and how the press discusses female founders. And we need investors to stop investing in people who are like them and already in their networks.

Even if they don’t care about inequality, it’s bad for business. 

Best wishes,
Aria

P.S If you would like to keep up to date with what we're doing with the Female Founders Forum, make sure you subscribe to our newsletters and follow The Entrepreneurs Network on Twitter. We're trying to raise the salience of these issues and raise the profile of female founders (on their own terms) so that they are viable role models for all the women who have a business in them but haven't made the leap yet. To that end, please to share the report and the Twitter thread on any platform that you have.

Rhyme or Reason

Hot off the press! As part of our Access All Areas project, this week we released our third report with Enterprise Nation on Access to People.

The report focuses on small businesses, but many of the ideas would help businesses of all sizes. I’ll focus in detail on two recommendations, but I think all eight deserve serious consideration.

First, we should allow the self-employed to get tax breaks for learning new skill sets, even if they aren’t relevant to their immediate work. Currently, if someone wants to access training courses that help them start a new business, or expand into new areas of business, including anything related to their current business, they aren’t allowed.

Of course, there are limits to this policy. We probably shouldn’t be giving tax breaks to learn calligraphy – although it didn't do Steve Jobs any harm. Either way though, it is easy enough for the Government to decide what’s permissible, as is the case in the majority of other OECD countries.

Second, we should allow employers that pay the Apprenticeship Levy – which is 0.5% of an employer’s wage-bill if they pay more than £3m of wages in a year – to transfer even more of their funds to smaller companies down their supply chain, and consider replacing the Apprenticeship Levy with a Skills Levy.

I’m not going to pretend that lots of companies will make use of transferring more of their funds to smaller companies, but it’s nevertheless worth doing for the small percentage that do.

Replacing the Apprenticeship Levy with a Skills Levy would be more transformative. Despite the initial success of apprenticeships, they have fallen sharply across all age groups even with the Apprenticeship Levy. To increase uptake, the government could widen the scope to include other forms of accredited training. It’s an argument that has already been made by the likes of the British Retail Consortium, CIPD, and the Learning and Work Institute – particularly in trying to refocus training on young people.

The report also looks at changes to visas and immigration. In a week where record levels of migration have been announced, it might seem politically naive to call for more of it. But someone needs to to fight the good fight, if only to help shift the Overton window. 

The main cause of the spike is humanitarian. As Oxford’s Migration Observatory notes: “the largest single factor is the introduction of visa routes for Ukrainian refugees and Hong Kong British Nationals (Overseas) status holders. Together these two routes contributed 45% of the 467,000 increase in visa grants between 2019 and the year ending June 2022." The rest is the result of students (39%) and work visas (23%). "Skilled workers, particularly in the health and care sectors, were the main factor behind the increase in work visa grants."

So most of this immigration is both temporary and necessary. Not necessary, of course, in an absolute sense, but certainly in a moral sense. The public agrees, overwhelmingly backing asylum for those fleeing the likes of Putin, and they are massively in favour of letting in doctors, nurses and care workers to tend to our sick and elderly.

The British public also likes international students, but that isn’t stopping the Prime Minister from exploring plans to only allow ‘top universities’ to accept immigrants. Gone is the previous target of boosting the value of Britain’s education exports to £35 billion per year by ensuring we have 600,000 foreign students by 2030 – a rarity in government targets in being met early.

Time to reread Made in the UK, our 2014 report with the NUS, which was prompted by Theresa May's crackdown on international students. History never repeats itself, but it does often rhyme.

Whether Forecasts

Our chickens are coming home to roost. There is no getting away from the incredibly weak economic forecasts in the Autumn Statement. In five years' time, the average household will be poorer than they were before the pandemic.

Many readers won’t be the average household, and entrepreneurs can be successful in the midst of a recession. Even during the Great Depression, and in Communist states for that matter, entrepreneurs found a way. But it’s harder – not least because their consumers are poorer.

But forecasts aren’t destiny. This is no comment on the smarts and credibility of the Office for Budget Responsibility, but an acknowledgement of the limitations of forecasting and known (and unknown) unknowns. Of course, these predictions may just as likely be optimistic, but I think there are things we can do to turn things around: things that we know would work.

But first, the Autumn Statement. As Eamonn Ives, our Head of Research, summarised, it’s a familiar mix of the good, the bad, and the let’s wait and see. We have a thread outlining the main announcements relevant for entrepreneurs.

I won’t go over everything, but focus on a few things that are important to entrepreneurs.

It was pleasing to see the online sales tax being ruled out (again), which we most recently argued should happen in our Access All Areas: Finance report with Enterprise Nation.

Perhaps it’s only ever raised as a possibility in each Budget so organisations like ours can pat the government on the back for not doing it (like taxing pensions). I think the threat is real, with powerful voices, including successive Tesco bosses, calling for an online sales tax. And while the Treasury will push back because the economics don’t add up – a bad tax only takes one bad decision to implement. They then have a tendency to prove hard to ditch – Stamp Duty being a case in point."

We were delighted to see the planned changes to EIS, SEIS and VCTs will be retained. It’s impossible to have a roundtable without our entrepreneurs proselytising about the value of these schemes to any politicians who will listen. That’s why we’ve long-supported them to fix a clear market failure.

In fact, we’re in the process of working on a report with the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Entrepreneurship on the value of these tax breaks. While the Call for Evidence is now closed, please feel free to reach out to Aria Babu, our Head of Policy, if you’ve got something you think we might miss.

The Chancellor also pledged to bring forward a bill to provide new powers to the ‘Digital Markets Unit’. In its previously planned iteration, we identified significant risks to competition, innovation and entrepreneurship. The wording we have in the Autumn Statement is unclear – focusing on laudable things like introducing measures to prevent subscription traps and fake reviews – but devil, or not, will be in the detail.

Jeremy Hunt also promised to ensure regulations are fit for purpose. While there are limits to divergence from the EU and other markets, I think there are some emerging technologies where we can carve out a niche as a testbed nation.

There are many other announcements that you’ll find on our thread, covering NICs, VAT, R&D, Catapults and business rates that I’ll pick over in the coming weeks.

Snap back to reality. So what next?

Yesterday I was at a talk on ‘Why do liberal democracies feel stuck?’ at King’s College, London, chaired by Munira Mirza (see below for our event with her) and featuring the economist Tyler Cowen. In short, Cowen argued for optimism, asking the audience to weigh up all the problems we see in the world against the immense talent we now have. With new technologies like vaccines and nuclear fusion, for Cowen, the latter always outweighs the former. And that’s where entrepreneurs come in. With or without government, entrepreneurs will find a way.

Even outside of the Autumn Statement, the UK Government can speed up this process – whether that’s immigration (in fact, OBR analysis accompanying the Autumn Statement revealed that Jeremy Hunt is relying on a surge in net migration to more than 200,000 people per year to help deliver economic growth – don't tell Suella Braverman), planning policy and procurement (which is already happening) or childcare reforms (which we will cover in our forthcoming Female Founders Forum report).

Another area the government should push ahead with is infrastructure. Sam Dumitriu (formerly of this house), is getting stuck into fixing our slowdown of building stuff with Britain Remade. As it says on their website: “We built the world's first railway, the world's first coal-fired power station, and the world's first commercial nuclear power station.”

Their first finding is that we aren’t necessarily a nation of NIMBYs, with polling revealing that wind farms and solar fields do have popular support – especially if they bring a discount on fuel bills – even if built near people's homes.

In his speech, the Chancellor reminded us of his entrepreneurial roots, stating his ambition to “turn Britain into the world’s next Silicon Valley.” What is the Government waiting for?

Back to the Civic Future

There are lots of first-rate Members of Parliament – including, of course, the many MPs reading this to keep abreast of what entrepreneurs need to succeed. But as I’ve argued for a long time, we could do better. In fact, there are strong arguments to suggest that things have been getting worse. But beyond diagnosing the problem and suggesting we pay them more, I haven’t heard of any practical solutions. Until now.

This week, Munira Mirza, the former director of Boris Johnson’s No 10 policy unit (until she resigned), launched Civic Future. She thinks that too few of our most capable citizens aspire to enter public life, and Civic Future is her non-partisan answer to that problem.

Munira set out her stall in The Times and on the Today Programme (50 minutes in). Civic Future will be launching a fellowship next year: a one-year programme to provide participants with the knowledge, skills, and support needed to become great public leaders – regardless of their politics. (People from Labour and the Liberal Democrats are also involved.) Through evening seminars, weekend residential events, and overseas trips, fellows will discuss the most important moral, technological and governance issues of our time and meet senior figures in government, industry, and society. The programme is designed to be conducted alongside a full-time job.

This isn’t just about becoming a politician – public life is much broader than that, including those chairing and sitting on the board of public bodies. I know many of you reading this are incredibly civic-minded. Despite the mischaracterisation in too much of our media, entrepreneurship isn’t red in tooth and claw, but a collaborative endeavour.

Entrepreneurs aren’t the only group who Munira is targeting, but I think they should be a key one. She agrees, so we will be hosting a dinner with her soon. I have a long list of Advisers and wider entrepreneurs in my head who will want to attend this, but do let me know if you’re interested. You should also take a look at their website for more public events and sign up to be kept updated.

Getting good policies is more than just good ideas. We also need leaders in public life who can put them into practice. Both through Civic Future and other mechanisms, we want to ensure that some of the UK’s latent entrepreneurial talent is applied to the public sector.

Crisis of Care
The cost of childcare in the UK is prohibitively expensive. As Aria Babu explains in an article today, this is due to a number of factors:

“We force children into excessively regulated, formalised care; childminders and nursery teachers face a heavy-handed and bureaucratic curriculum that requires taking several weeks out of paid employment to learn; and we have the strictest adult to child ratios in Europe. Considering these factors, it is unsurprising that we face childcare shortages and spiralling costs.”

This is a problem that disproportionately impacts women, which is why we hear about it so often from the many of the female founders in our network. It’s a tough nut to crack. Childcare suffers from Baumol's cost disease (the rise of wages in jobs that have experienced little or no increase in labour productivity), but that shouldn’t leave us hopeless. Instead, we need to redouble our efforts to find sensible policy changes – such as those Aria maps out.

Western Front
We got a shoutout in Parliament! In a debate on the contribution of international students, Matt Western MP cited our research which found that half of the UK’s fastest growing companies have an immigrant founder. This report was kindly sponsored by a successful immigrant founder: Sukhpal Singh Ahluwalia. I think it's time we updated the statistic, so if there are other similarly civic-minded entrepreneurs or companies who want to support an update, do let me know.

In related news, a new paper provided yet more evidence of the benefits of immigration to an economy – the authors found that immigrant-founded startups in the US are 35% more likely to hold a patent than those founded by US natives.

Like & Subscribe

Given this Government’s poor polling, it’s hardly a surprise that entrepreneurs are suddenly interested in engaging with His Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition. This week we held a couple of roundtables as part of Labour’s Startup Review and to be frank, everyone in attendance assumed Labour is now the government in waiting.

Of course, Labour supporters (or those that just want a change) shouldn’t be adding up their poultry any time soon, but more importantly, we shouldn’t be unambitious for the next two years.

There are limits on what can be achieved – particularly in a polycrisis. The Tories can’t even keep Matt Hancock from 'the jungle' to “deliver important messages to the masses” and/or bag £400,000 and/or gamble on rebuilding his public reputation. As James Forsyth writes in The Times (paywall): “​​he has taken the view that if he is not at the top table, he may as well do his own thing, even if he loses the whip. This shows how unbiddable former ministers can be and there are now dozens of them on the Tory benches.”

Forsyth is a Tory insider who knows which way the wind is blowing. It’s telling that in the same article he thinks education is an area where the party can make a difference. He’s particularly optimistic about ​​Gillian Keegan, the new Secretary of State for Education and first degree-level apprentice to enter parliament. Beyond school, college and university, Forsyth thinks Sunak will also focus on in-work training: ”He has long bemoaned the fact that British employers spend barely half the European average on training their workers.”

It’s ironic that such a potentially short premiership may focus on a policy area that even if executed impeccably would take years to pay off. It’s also one that has suffered from so much chopping and changing that if you were to ask anyone in the education sector their top priority it would likely be for stability.

Nevertheless, as The Times Education Commission findings show (only partially paywalled), we can, and must, do better. For our part, we think there are tweaks to support the entrepreneurial instincts and ambitions of young people. As we argued in our latest All-Party Parliamentary Group report, entrepreneurship education in schools is not currently integrated into the curriculum and England, unlike many other European economies, lacks a specific entrepreneurship education strategy.

On adult skills, one simple shift would be allowing the self-employed to benefit from the same tax breaks for training as employees. While all employer-funded work-related training is tax-deductible, the self-employed can only benefit from tax breaks for training directly related to their current work. This is something we explore further in a forthcoming report with Enterprise Nation, who, relatedly, are looking for volunteer mentors to support the Government’s Help to Grow: Management scheme.

In the book Thatcher and Sons, Simon Jenkins's convincing thesis is that there was a lot more continuity between Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown than many of the party faithful would care to admit. However long Sunak remains in power (well, perhaps not if it’s just 38 days), he has the opportunity to leave a lasting legacy. He’ll need to be a lot more ambitious than just focusing on education, but our six reports on the topic – and another two on the way – prove there are policy ideas ready and waiting for him.

The Time is Now
We’re an open network. If you’re an entrepreneur or passionate about supporting entrepreneurs you can get involved in our work.

To keep the network open we don’t push people too hard to give us money. This is both because we don't like asking for money, but it would also backfire as without our dynamic network of over 10,000 entrepreneurs we would lose out on key insights and our authority would be diminished. When we advise politicians and special advisers of a policy change they are much more receptive when we're being backed by entrepreneurs saying the same thing.

Having done this for around eight years, I think it’s fair to say that we are the UK’s leading think tank for entrepreneurs. Time and again, our research has led to policy changes that at the margin have made the UK better for entrepreneurs. I’ll still be doing this in eight years.

All this is a preamble to ask for one of four things:

1. If you’re an individual who appreciates our work and comes to our events, consider signing up as a Supporter or Adviser.

2. If you or your company has the capacity to sponsor research or host our events, then get in touch with me so we can see if there is any crossover.

3. If you know of anyone else who you think I should chat to about either of the above, then feel free to make an introduction.

4. If you are already a Supporter, Adviser or sponsor, please ignore this (and thank you)!

Not Rocket Science

New week; new Prime Minister. This time it’s Rishi Sunak’s turn.

Back in February I wrote here about Sunak’s Mais Lecture: Capital. People. Ideas. I was cautiously optimistic about his priorities then, and as Eamonn Ives, our head of research argues in an article this week, perhaps we can afford a note of optimism that he wants to “make Britain a science and technology superpower”. To achieve this he vowed, among other things, to increase the amount of lab space available, ensure we have access to the best talent, and improve and speed up the research grant process.

We have solutions for all three.

Becoming a science superpower will be impossible without adequate lab space. As reported in FT Sifted, a lack of lab space is holding back Britain’s biotech founders. “We are at risk of losing some of these companies to the states or to Europe, if there’s nowhere to actually put them,” explains Jacob Nathan, founder of Epoch Biodesign which recently raised an $11m seed round.

We identified this problem a while ago, with Aria Babu, our head of policy, writing in Strong Foundations on the impact of planning policy on entrepreneurship (which politicians should be read and heed as a clarion call):

“We seriously lack lab space, and analysis of planning data shows there are few plans to build more. To put this scarcity into perspective, according to Savills, London has only 90,000 sq ft of available lab space, while Manchester has 360,000 sq ft available. By contrast, New York has 1.36 million sq ft available. The current trend is for research teams to custom install their own lab space into generic office buildings. But labs often need bespoke design, e.g. higher ceilings to allow for fume hoods, ventilation systems, or an unusual layout of corridors. For example, ‘dirty corridors’ between labs mean that researchers do not need to ‘gown-up’ and ‘gown-down’ as they do when they’re working out of a traditional office building.”

When it comes to ensuring we have the talent to be a science superpower, we have an idea that is as close as you get to a silver bullet: expand the High Potential Individual (HPI) visa. With Immigration hawk Suella Braverman back in the Home Office, any calls for reforms to immigration are going to have to be carefully crafted. As such, now is the time to push through this hyper-targeted liberalisation to ensure entrepreneurs can access the talent they’re crying out for and the best scientists in the world can move here with ease. I’m quietly optimistic. After all, Sunak’s a fan of quoting our finding that half of our fast growing companies have an immigrant founder.

Yesterday we hosted a roundtable with Lord Clement-Jones CBE and some of the UK’s leading AI entrepreneurs. It covered a lot of ground, including the challenges of grant funding. One thing was clear – bureaucracy and delays are hindering our best entrepreneurs. The same goes for R&D Tax Credits.

As set out in the Way of the Future, we need novel funding mechanisms and a bigger appetite for risk and experimentation. Speeding up the delivery of funds is about putting more resources into fighting fraud. The relative cost is minuscule compared to the at least £132m burden being foisted on businesses by delays.

Sunak won’t have a lot of time before the election, but if he gets his priorities right, win or lose, he could leave a lasting legacy.

Import of Exporting
I’ve never been convinced by many of the policy ideas put forward over the years on how to support exporting. In part, this is because they're usually framed in mercantilist terms, despite Adam Smith teaching us otherwise, and in part because they’re weak on academic or real-world evidence.

But there may be room for high-quality interventions. After all, companies that export are typically more productive than those that don’t – around 20% more – and the academic evidence suggests this isn’t just because more productive firms are more likely to be exporters. Exporting makes firms more productive.

So where should the government focus its limited resources? Our friends at the Enterprise Research Centre shed a bit more light on this, recently putting out a report showing that the benefits of innovation support measures to stimulate exporting are greatest for firms that already have a technological advantage in the UK: “This suggests that identifying companies which are domestic market leaders but not exporting and targeting these firms for export support may create the greatest productivity improvements through greater and faster returns on their innovations.”

This may not matter as much when looking at exporting into less developed markets, where less radical innovations can still be novel. Something that’s particularly relevant given Conservative governments’ post-Brexit trade strategy and a Brexit-voting Prime Minister.

The report also finds that smaller firms may be in a better position to translate lessons from export markets into innovations, or at least benefit more from those lessons, and that export promotion policies would be most cost-effective if they encourage sustained engagements with export markets.

We’re looking to inject some economically sound ideas into this policy area, working with Enterprise Nation as part of our Access All Areas project. To that end, on Wednesday lunchtime we will host a virtual roundtable on this topic. If you have views about exporting, it would be great if you could join us (we may even use you as a case study in the report).

How will Labour's Fair Pay Agreements affect Entrepreneurs?

In all the excitement of Liz Truss resigning and the starting pistol being fired for yet another race to become Prime Minister, many people have overlooked a speech by Keir Starmer in which he set out some substantive policies. Speaking to the Trades Union Congress on 20th October, Starmer committed to a series of labour market reforms. These include banning zero-hour contracts, extending parental leave, strengthening entitlements for flexible working, creating stronger protections for pregnant women, creating a single “worker” status for all but the most obviously self-employed, getting rid of one-sided flexibility, creating statutory sick pay for all, repealing 2016 restrictions on unions, and enforcing mandatory reporting on ethnicity pay gaps.

It’s a long list, and many of the ideas will be unsurprising. They’re the sort of things that Labour leaders often promise. But Starmer also committed to a new and radical idea, to create sector-specific “Fair Pay Agreements” (FPAs). As Starmer explains, FPAs would entail unions and industry representatives getting round the table to negotiate industry-specific minimum wages and minimum worker entitlements, which would then be applied to the rest of the sector – regardless of whether the sector’s other workers were represented by those unions at the negotiating table, and regardless of whether the sector’s other employers were represented by the industry bodies that took part.

The implications of such a policy, as you can imagine, are profound. If applied across all industries, they would empower both unions and industry bodies to set the terms for all workers and firms in an industry. If it passes, we might expect the membership of industry bodies to grow, in order for businesses to get any say in the matter. But unions may well dwindle because workers would gain regardless of whether they are actually members. This may or may not be what Labour intends, but many on the left have long dreamed of the UK becoming more like other European countries, where such agreements are common. Labour is also following New Zealand’s Labour party, which is currently shepherding the same reforms through Parliament.

We don’t yet have all the details from Labour, but New Zealand’s plans for FPAs give us some indication of what to expect. FPA agreements, when made, would become secondary legislation, so that breaches of the agreement would mean breaking the law rather than just a contract. The FPAs would also last for 3-5 years, after which they can be renegotiated. Unions are able to initiate FPA negotiations when they gain the support of either 1,000 employees or 10% of the workforce in a given sector – whichever is lower. And when an agreement cannot be reached, the government can step in to command one. Interestingly, unions would not be allowed to strike to achieve an FPA, but could take industrial action if employers fail to keep to the agreements.

Just as in New Zealand, Labour’s first target for FPAs is the social care sector, in which half a million workers are paid less than £10 an hour. But where it may get more troublesome is in how it gets applied beyond that. The plan for New Zealand is for FPAs to cover either occupations or industries, with overlaps defaulting to whichever provides the best coverage. But if the proposals are taken beyond social care, we can probably expect a lot of legal disputes down the line as to how industries or sectors are defined. 

And Labour should take into account how larger firms may use the process to hurt their smaller, newer competitors. It is not uncommon for small start ups, without much money now, to offer their employees equity or a particularly flexible or dynamic work culture to offset lower wages today. It’s already challenging enough for entrepreneurs to come up against large incumbent firms, but if those large firms have a seat at the table and their competitors (or potential competitors) do not, there’s a very big risk that larger firms able to swallow much higher labour costs may use FPAs to bury the firms that are less able to do so. This anticompetitive process – of big businesses pushing for higher and more costly regulations to benefit themselves – may ultimately benefit big businesses and hurt workers’ bargaining position in the long run. So Labour should pay close attention to how it designs FPAs in order to prevent it, or find ways to offset it. Otherwise, an economy dominated by big business will not lead to the dynamism, growth, and rising opportunities for employment that Labour envisions.

Every Cloud

It would be easy to stick the boot in. After all, even her strongest backers have turned against her. But while Liz Truss’s mistakes and shortcomings are clear and present, there are two things from her briefest of times leading the country (well, sort of) that her successor should keep.

First, Truss was right to focus on growth. We live incredibly privileged lives compared to previous generations, with entrepreneurial endeavours taking humanity from subsistence to relative affluence. I want to stay on this ride, raising the long-term living standards of the current, next, and future generations. And I think you should too.

Obviously all past and future Prime Ministers will say they want growth. But most have and will fail to prioritise it. Who knows if Truss would have been true to her ‘three words’, and while the concoction of unfunded tax breaks, spending commitments and unconvincing promised cuts clearly weren’t the right choice to get there, this doesn’t mean we should give up on growth.

I’m optimistic about the future though. With the advent of Progress Studies – which is investigating “the combination of economic, technological, scientific, cultural, and organisational advancement that has transformed our lives and raised standards of living over the past couple of centuries” – we have a growing intellectual base on which to build the right policies. Whoever comes next may want to pick a synonym for growth, given the short-term damage done to it, but the underlying intention is correct.

Second, the disastrous Mini Budget did nevertheless contain some good ideas. I’m not talking about the headline announcements that spooked the markets and have already been rolled back on, but the micro changes that a broad coalition of organisations, including ourselves, campaigned for. I’m talking about the increase in Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme, reforms to employee options and reforming the pensions regulatory charge cap. These are uncontroversial ideas that any pro-entrepreneurship government should back.

Fair Pay to You
You may have missed it, but Keir Starmer gave a big speech to the Trades Union Congress this week. In it he committed to a series of labour market reforms entrepreneurs should be aware of, including banning zero-hour contracts, extending parental leave, strengthening entitlements for flexible working, creating stronger protections for pregnant women, creating a single “worker” status for all but the most obviously self-employed, getting rid of one-sided flexibility, creating statutory sick pay for all, repealing 2016 restrictions on unions, and enforcing mandatory reporting on ethnicity pay gaps.

Starmer has also promised to create sector-specific “Fair Pay Agreements” (FPAs). As Anton Howes, our Head of Innovation, writes: “FPAs would entail unions and industry representatives getting round the table to negotiate industry-specific minimum wages and minimum worker entitlements, which would then be applied to the rest of the sector – regardless of whether the sector’s other workers were represented by those unions at the negotiating table, and regardless of whether the sector’s other employers were represented by the industry bodies that took part.”

The devil will be in the detail, but as Anton argues: “there’s a very big risk that larger firms able to swallow much higher labour costs may use FPAs to bury the firms that are less able to do so. This anticompetitive process – of big businesses pushing for higher and more costly regulations to benefit themselves – may ultimately benefit big businesses and hurt workers’ bargaining position in the long run.”

£132m+ Problem
Anton has also written about the shocking state of R&D tax credits. It’s an issue we’re increasingly hearing from entrepreneurs. Approval windows have increased from 28 up to 40 days, and tax credit payments are painfully slow, creating major cashflow problems for startups.

Many businesses are having to take out loans using the expected credit as security. Based on the interest rates, Anton has done the sums:

“For 2020-21, HMRC paid out £6.6bn in R&D tax relief support, so we are looking at a total market for R&D tax credit loans of about £5.28bn (80% of that figure). The loans themselves often vary in duration, but typically charge a loan facility fee of about 2.5-3% followed by an interest rate of 1.25% per month. Given this monthly interest rate, and generously assuming that total delays have averaged only an extra two months, the total cost to UK startups and small businesses is in the order of £132m – and probably higher, especially if they have been forced by delays to take out new loans to tide them over, incurring more rounds of loan facility fees.”

This is a very conservative (with a small ‘c’) estimate. It’s time for a Conservative (with a big ‘C’) to sort this out.

The Cost of R&D Tax Credit Delays

All is not well in the world of business. Forget the headlines about a new Chancellor, or even the U-turns on Corporation Tax. One of the biggest problems for many of the most innovative UK startups has been a dramatic increase in delays receiving their R&D tax credit payments.

Since July 2020, HMRC has been looking a lot more closely into the merits of R&D spending claims. Although their aims are laudable – to fight fraud and save taxpayer money – civil servants have been spending a lot more time checking the applications of all businesses, both bad and good. The approval windows have increased from 28 up to 40 days, which is already a major problem. But it’s actually even worse than that, as even when approvals are given, HMRC has been painfully slow at actually issuing the tax credit payments.

This has created major cashflow problems for startups, sometimes even forcing layoffs. After a company’s financial year has been completed, it can submit an application to HMRC for a R&D tax credits. These then typically took 28 days to process, with the payment made within just a few weeks. From spending on R&D to receiving the tax credit payments can thus take over a year.

But even the smallest delays can be critical for startups, because many of them take out loans using the expected credit as their security, in order to help their cash flow. As such, both HMRC’s own processing delays, along with post-processing delays in receiving payments from HMRC – some reportedly delayed for up to five months – create a very real cost to businesses in terms of the interest payments they must continue to pay for their loans. And in cases where HMRC decides not to pay out the full amount being claimed – often with minimal warning or communication – it can be game over for a startup.

What is the cost of these delays to startups? We can estimate this with a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation by taking the typical interest rate offered on R&D tax credit loans, and treating this as a proportion of about 80% of the total amount awarded in R&D tax credit payments each year – roughly the amount that most R&D tax credit loan providers seem to be willing to give. Not all startups will actually take out the loans of course, but the market interest rate tells us the opportunity cost faced by all startups who partake in the scheme. Just because they don’t always actually take out the loan, doesn’t mean they don’t also suffer costs from the same lack of cash flow.

For 2020-21, HMRC paid out £6.6bn in R&D tax relief support, so we are looking at a total market for R&D tax credit loans of about £5.28bn (80% of that figure). The loans themselves often vary in duration, but typically charge a loan facility fee of about 2.5-3% followed by an interest rate of 1.25% per month. Given this monthly interest rate, and generously assuming that total delays have averaged only an extra two months, the total cost to UK startups and small businesses is in the order of £132m – and probably higher, especially if they have been forced by delays to take out new loans to tide them over, incurring more rounds of loan facility fees.

Tomorrow the World

I won’t be writing on today’s events. Between hitting send and it landing in your inboxes there’s every chance the Government will have u-turned yet again. But as luck would have it, I can distract you from it all with a new report we released this week in the House of Lords: Tomorrow’s Entrepreneurs.

It’s in partnership with Youth Business International (YBI), a global network of expert organisations in over 40 countries supporting young people to turn their ideas into successful businesses, creating jobs and strengthening communities.

The report is built around polling of young entrepreneurs (under 35) and not-so-young entrepreneurs (35+). We find that young entrepreneurs are twice as likely to say their business’s primary aim is to solve a social or environmental problem (39% to 18%), as well as caring more about things like the ethics of the ​​suppliers, diversity, and ​​helping employees live fulfilling lives outside of work.

Crucially, we found that trying to solve environmental or social problems was not incompatible with pursuing growth. In fact, according to our polling, the more a business turns over the more likely they are to agree that their business’s primary aim was to tackle a social or environmental problem, with close to half (47%) of entrepreneurs turning over £1m+ each year agreeing.

Unfortunately our report shows that access to entrepreneurship isn’t universal. Young entrepreneurs are more likely than older entrepreneurs to come from a privileged background. They are more than three times as likely to have attended a private school compared to the general public (20% vs 6.5%), more likely to say they had help through personal connections to get their business running than older entrepreneurs (45% vs 38%), more likely to have successfully raised finance than older entrepreneurs (43% vs 31%), and less likely to have attended a comprehensive school than older entrepreneurs (49% vs 63%).

There are a lot of policy levers that need pulling to fix this, but we focus on three. First, we want to bring back the Enterprise Allowance. Not the half-baked New Enterprise Allowance that was recently scrapped, but the full-throttled policy devised by Lord Young under Margaret Thatcher, which properly helped unemployed people who set up their own business.

Second, we want better support systems for young entrepreneurs to help them make connections: providing them with information about how to set up and run a business, linking them up with mentors, and ensuring they have opportunities to network with people who could support their businesses, especially potential investors. This may sound trite, but it’s no less important.

In practice, this means working with the grain of successful interventions that are taking place in the private and charitable sectors. Too often the Government intervenes, disrupting and crowding out established support, before pulling out with a new Minister or Government joins who wants a headline or two – or some spending cuts.

Third, we want the broader use of Challenge Prizes and Advanced Market Commitments to give young people, who are trying to innovate solutions to big problems, more certainty that their work will become profitable and attract more investors to pro-social companies. This is something we were calling for to fight Covid, with great success, but it could and should be applied to more of the world’s biggest problems.

It would be great to chat with anyone who wants to help us take any of these (or other) ideas forward. You’ll see that this report sits nicely into our large and growing body of work on supporting young people. We’re also keen to look at how we can support older entrepreneurs, of course.

(For those of you who are not just sick of politics, but policy too, the report also uncovers six entrepreneurial tribes: Mission-Driven Founders, Industrious Entrepreneurs, Modern Artisans, Established Founders, Independent Entrepreneurs, and Socially-Conscious Solopreneurs – take a look to see which sounds most like you.)

Give Growth a Chance
Whatever happens over the next few years, month, days or minutes – let’s not give up on growth. To this end, check out the latest edition of Works in Progress for thoughts on getting energy that is so abundant that it’s almost free, the risks of not taking risks, finding out from J. Storrs Hall where your flying car is, and much else besides.

Sign up to me Friday newsletter here.