This is based around allowing local councils to retain their business rates, subject to top-ups and top-slicing to ensure an equitable spread across more or less prosperous business areas around the country.

More importantly, it is based around making it easier for local councils to 'borrow' against future income from these business rates.

This is the fabled 'Tax Increment Financing'. We've known about this intention for some time but the detail is now here.

Half a cheer because the options available could still involve Mr.Pickles's ample fingers sticking in the pie. One of the options has Mr.Pickles effectively approving centrally every investment and instrument made under the scheme!

And, only half a cheer because Mr. Pickles still doesn't see a role for local councils or local financial infrastructure in actual investment in businesses themselves.

The response only talks about the use of prudential borrowing (Gordon Brown's influence still persists) against a future income stream in business rates, and borrowing only for capital for 'infrastructure projects'.

But to limit this to capital-based infrastructure projects is the big mistake which limits my full-throttled cheer.

I am reminded of Kevin Costner's great film 'Field of Dreams'. The ghosts of baseball's yesteryear hauntingly commission Costner 's washed-out, injured player to build a baseball stadium in the middle of nowhere with the imploring, faith-based counsel, "If you build it, they will come". The ghosts of Baseball players did indeed come to Costner's great stadium. But they were ghosts.

We could end up with an awful lot of infrastructure with very few businesses rattling around in said infrastructure, however strong, beautiful and efficient it is.

Some infrastructure building is obviously, and in some cases urgently, needed to attract and sustain new and established businesses. But only some.

Build businesses, invest in businesses first, I'd say, and respond to their infrastructure needs flowing from that.

The problem here is the Freudian slip in Pickles's (and Brown's) terminology: the word 'borrowing'. And its converse: 'lending'.

Actually, to get literary, 'Neither a borrower nor a lender be'. Instead, issue instruments and invest.

I have to admit, I did get excited when I saw the chapter heading 'Supporting local economic growth through new instruments' and thought Eric had had a Damascene experience.

But it turns out to be a let-down as a policy because it really only involves one instrument: tax increment financing. When, really, a diverse range of instruments is what is needed.

In particular, municipal bonds based around future income streams to councils. And bonds to buy equity in Birmingham businesses and build infrastructure.

The interest on the bonds can be linked initially to the tax increments in business and other local taxes; later on, the bonds can be self-funded though the returns on the investment in infrastructure, yes, but also the return on equity, and then sale, of equity of direct investment in real successful businesses.

They will also allow future ongoing issues of municipal bonds. This can be the other incremental financing stream - it doesn't have simply to be a one trick, future business rates pony.

These are the instruments which could empower local councils and LEPs. The Brummie Bond for the Brummie LEP, perhaps?

If you look at the policy response document, when it talks of 'prudential borrowing' it refers mainly to such from banks and bankers. It talks of how the system has to be set up to ensure that it can have bankers' confidence. It is completely missing the point to make this system banker-led.

A new set of instruments to invest requires also a new set of investors.

I have written frequently of the importance of, like Captain Kirk on the Star Trek's Enterprise, seeking out new life and new civilisations when it comes to investment sources for this city.

Confident acts of economic self-determination are what are needed. The UK banking system is an old life and an old civilisation - which, I suspect, will implode pretty soon anyway.

First, and foremost, the trillion pounds or so of UK Pension fund assets (mainly, and massively, public sector, by the way) is my oft-repeated starting point - local sourcing of local wealth to invest in UK regional investment in business and infrastructure.

Instead it swills around the world's capital markets ultimately benefitting God knows who. UK pension fund wealth invests in infrastructure projects in Australia, Italy and the Far East. This is significantly and ridiculously less so here in the UK for lack of the instruments through which it can be done.

Municipal and regional bonds are part of the standard instrumental and investment furniture the world over, but not here.

But also the sovereign wealth funds of the world are in need of secure, long term investment and will accept lower interest payments. Because we simply don't have the economic pathways from them to us in Birmingham, they invest elsewhere and ignore us.
When it comes to China - its state capitalist profile in the global investment world involves direct ownership of businesses, yes, but its far more powerful arm comes in its investments through its very wide range of sovereign wealth funds.

And municipal bonds are homes to China's (and the Middle East's and Scandinavian) investments around the world.

We are, through lack of an instrument, shut out.

Instead of relying on a visit to Birmingham by China Premier Wen Jiabao to announce pretty limited foreign direct investment in Birmingham, we should have been getting him to get invested in our bonds - then we are actors, not the audience.

Don't just invest in our businesses, invest in our bonds.

We don't need one instrument, Mr. Pickles, we need an entire orchestra.