[🌎 Universal GB] General Discussion

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Off topic @GooseOnTheLoose but with all your notes on how things work from planning permission and such which is all detailed from what you've all said, I want you as my lawyer haha!

Flattery gets you everywhere. You are my new favourite. Unfortunately, I find that horsehair wigs tend to slip off my small bird head rather easily, so I'd be a rather useless lawyer.

Yes, I think that's true. My final point, there is nothing unusual about the timetable for this SI, it's the same as the majority of Made Negative SIs. If the Opposition wanted to challenge the government I think it would make not one jot of difference that the SI had come in to force, nor if diggers were already digging.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on the political optics of this.

I maintain that there is a vast gulf between an Opposition voting to block a proposal, and voting to cancel an active, multi-billion pound investment project where contracts have been signed and diggers are in the ground. One is scrutiny, the other is painted as economic vandalism.

The government has successfully utilised the "standard" procedure for mundane administrative updates to push through one of the largest planning decisions of the decade, ensuring that by the time Parliament wakes up, the cement will already be pouring.

Whether that is standard procedure or sharp practice depends entirely on your level of cynicism. Mine, as ever, remains high. Though I am happy that an early Christmas present has been delivered to many a Thoosie out there.

🪿

 

[Quantum]

BBC still pushing LOTR as one of the IPs coming to the park. I wonder if we will see an updated artist impression in the next few years, I'm sure certain parts have been kept under wraps.

 

[dave___]

Wonder when the Bedford Landgrab for Hotels / Shops / Restaurants etc will start.

I might be wrong but I’m sure one of the premier/travelodge/holiday inns already has plans for a place not too far away.

Anyone who owns brownfield development sites nearby I imagine will be doing their best Smaug impression with them now it’s actually confirmed.

 

[Dave]

The MP for the constituency where the park is going to be actually raised a point of order about the notification today in parliament because he wasn’t told, but found out it was approved from the Facebook post of the Labour MP in the constituency next door.

He’s supporting of it all anyway but party politics already in play it seems.

That’s related to the fact the house should be told first, the last few governments have often been a bit naughty and announced stuff in the media before telling the house which is against the rules.

It’s less party politics and more a gesture of “remember Parliament is the boss” for Hansard.

 

[Osaka12]

Freedom and privacy, liberty and law. This is what built the west.

 

[Dave]

Freedom and privacy, liberty and law. This is what built the west.

One out of those four is true….

 

[Bowser]

BBC still pushing LOTR as one of the IPs coming to the park. I wonder if we will see an updated artist impression in the next few years, I'm sure certain parts have been kept under wraps.

They’re just recycling the same source from the start of the year, I don’t think they have any new information and I’m sceptical of the original source.

 

[jon81uk]

Given the SDO status, the development has escalated from a mere local level of importance to a national one. I would imagine that the MPs for Staffordshire Moorlands, Kingston and Surbiton, Windsor, Runnymede and Weybridge, Tamworth, and Blackpool South (among others) would appreciate the full and proper window for proper parliamentary scrutiny, to analyse how the project could affect businesses in their constituencies.

Have any of these MPs voiced any concern in the past?

I get your overall point that the timeframe for them to actually annul the legislation is poor, but there doesn't seem to be much evidence that any MP has any appetitle to reject the proposal? the MP for Bedford has published letters regarding his disappontment that the government didn't mention the project at other times. But my internet search doesn't seem to show any letters from the Staffordshire MP voicing concerns?
Do you actually think those MPs are concerned, or are they considering that the rising tide raises all boats maybe?

 

[rob@rar]

We are going to have to agree to disagree on the political optics of this.

If you want to talk about the politics of this, can you please explain to me where the opposition to the Universal proposal is actually coming from? The political reality is that only the Official Opposition stands a chance of succeeding in a prayer motion against a made negative SI, almost certainly working with the other opposition parties. But there has been no opposition to the Universal proposal in any meaningful form, from any political party at local or national level. In fact, the opposite is true, there has been wholesale support of Universal making a multibillion dollar investment in Bedford. So I don’t understand what you are advocating for, because there is no political appetite for what you are concerned is missing from this process.

I’m all in favour of effective scrutiny of the government, not least because I worked for seven years as a policy adviser to a House of Commons Select Committee doing just that. But I’m not in favour of parliamentary nonsense disguised as high principle slowing down the effective governance of the country. To me, what you are asking for is for the normal operation of the Statutory Instruments process to be subverted under the excuse of high principle, but with the only possible outcome being unnecessary delay. If there had been some concerted opposition to Universal’s plans over the last 12 months I think you’d have a fair point, but there simply hasn’t been. I think the only cogent argument against the theme park‘s development is your point about the scale of the public investment, but (a) that’s entirely outside of the planning application process which is what we’re discussing here, and (b) no politician has actually expressed that concern.

 

[Osaka12]

One out of those four is true….

I'll pick freedom all day long.

 

[rob@rar]

That’s related to the fact the house should be told first, the last few governments have often been a bit naughty and announced stuff in the media before telling the house which is against the rules.

It’s less party politics and more a gesture of “remember Parliament is the boss” for Hansard.

To be fair, the Secretary of State has not told the media of these plans before he informed Parliament. His first action was to Table the Statutory Instrument in the Commons and the Lords in the usual way. As far as I can see there has not been a media release or briefing of any kind so far. The Secretary of State also wrote to a local MP to inform him the the SI has been Tabled in Parliament, I suspect because that MP has been extremely active in badgering that government department for many months about this issue.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Have any of these MPs voiced any concern in the past?

I get your overall point that the timeframe for them to actually annul the legislation is poor, but there doesn't seem to be much evidence that any MP has any appetitle to reject the proposal? the MP for Bedford has published letters regarding his disappontment that the government didn't mention the project at other times. But my internet search doesn't seem to show any letters from the Staffordshire MP voicing concerns?
Do you actually think those MPs are concerned, or are they considering that the rising tide raises all boats maybe?

The "rising tide raises all boats" aphorism is a lovely sentiment often trotted out by economists in boom times. In the saturated, cost of living crisis riddled UK leisure market, however, a rising tide tends to just swamp the smaller dinghies.

Do I think Karen Bradley (MP for Staffordshire Moorlands) is lying awake at night worrying about the profit margins of Merlin Entertainments? Probably not. Does she worry about the single largest employer in her constituency potentially facing an existential threat from a state-subsidised competitor in Bedford? She ought to.

The reason you haven't seen angry letters to the Times from these MPs yet is twofold.

Until today, Universal was a "potential opportunity". Opposing "potential investment" makes you look like a Luddite. Many people here possibly think that I am a little bit of one. Opposing a specific Statutory Instrument that grants half a billion pounds of state aid to a US competitor while your local hospital crumbles? That is a different political beast entirely.

Publicly, other players such as Merlin, have been very clever. They have welcomed Universal with open arms, using the threat / promise of their arrival to lobby for their own goals (specifically the VAT cut for tourism). They have played the "we welcome the competition" card to try and get the government to lower the drawbridge for everyone. Now that the government has seemingly lowered the drawbridge only for Universal (via infrastructure spending), I suspect the tone of the private lobbying in Westminster tearooms might shift rather abruptly.

Whether they will object is up for debate. My point is that the government's scheduling has cynically ensured that by the time they realise they should, it will be too late to do anything about it.

If you want to talk about the politics of this, can you please explain to me where the opposition to the Universal proposal is actually coming from? The political reality is that only the Official Opposition stands a chance of succeeding in a prayer motion against a made negative SI, almost certainly working with the other opposition parties. But there has been no opposition to the Universal proposal in any meaningful form, from any political party at local or national level. In fact, the opposite is true, there has been wholesale support of Universal making a multibillion dollar investment in Bedford. So I don’t understand what you are advocating for, because there is no political appetite for what you are concerned is missing from this process.

I’m all in favour of effective scrutiny of the government, not least because I worked for seven years as a policy adviser to a House of Commons Select Committee doing just that. But I’m not in favour of parliamentary nonsense disguised as high principle slowing down the effective governance of the country. To me, what you are asking for is for the normal operation of the Statutory Instruments process to be subverted under the excuse of high principle, but with the only possible outcome being unnecessary delay. If there had been some concerted opposition to Universal’s plans over the last 12 months I think you’d have a fair point, but there simply hasn’t been. I think the only cogent argument against the theme park‘s development is your point about the scale of the public investment, but (a) that’s entirely outside of the planning application process which is what we’re discussing here, and (b) no politician has actually expressed that concern.

I defer to your seven years of experience in the corridors of power. It certainly explains your comfort with the darker arts of the legislative sausage making process.

You ask where the opposition is. It is currently dormant because, until this morning, it has been fed a steady diet of press releases promising "billions in investment" without seeing the bill attached.

It is incredibly easy for an MP to support "growth" and "jobs" in the abstract. It is significantly harder for them to explain to a constituent why their local bus route has been cut, or their council tax hiked, while the government writes a cheque to build a dedicated train station for Shrek. Now that the SDO is laid and the financial commitments are real, the political calculus shifts from fantasy to finance.

You argue that the subsidy is "entirely outside" the planning process. While technically true in a siloed Civil Service flowchart, politically they are the same beast. The SDO enables the infrastructure. The infrastructure requires the subsidy. You cannot build the station without the permission, and you cannot get the permission without the station. They are symbiotic.

You call my concern "parliamentary nonsense" disguised as high principle. I call it the difference between a legislature that scrutinises and one which rubber stamps. If the case for the project is as watertight and universally supported as you claim, if it truly is the golden goose of growth, then surely it could withstand 40 days of sunlight without the government needing to hide it behind a Christmas turkey?

Let us not forget that this morning's economic news, before this announcement, was dominated primarily by the stalling of the governments US-UK tech / AI trade deal, and ]unemployment rising to a four year high of 5.1% before budget. The government are incredibly invested in getting the Universal project through, seemingly at any cost and with minimal disruption. They are incentivised to use any tricks they can to have this sail through. It would be politically disastrous for them for this project to fail.

I am not advocating for the project to be blocked. I am thrilled it is happening. I am simply noting that the government has pulled a very slick, very cynical move to ensure that if opposition does materialise once the hangover clears in January, it will be powerless to stop it.

 

[Benjsh]

BBC still pushing LOTR as one of the IPs coming to the park. I wonder if we will see an updated artist impression in the next few years, I'm sure certain parts have been kept under wraps.

Please please please please let this be true.

I suspect it will be Potter though in the end but im still holding out some hope.

 

[jon81uk]

Do I think Karen Bradley (MP for Staffordshire Moorlands) is lying awake at night worrying about the profit margins of Merlin Entertainments? Probably not. Does she worry about the single largest employer in her constituency potentially facing an existential threat from a state-subsidised competitor in Bedford? She ought to.

I think if she genuinely did think the threat of a new entrant to the UK is an issue to her constituents she could raise concerns without looking like a luddite - "While I welcome the governments support of Universal opening in Bedfordshire, I would like to remind the Prime Minister of the 45 year old theme park in my constituency and would like them to be considered as favourably as a new entrant to the UK" or something like that. Doesn't seem like a bad thing pointing out that your constitiants have a vested interest in the existing business? But I don't think they have actually given it any serious thought.

Opposing a specific Statutory Instrument that grants half a billion pounds of state aid to a US competitor while your local hospital crumbles? That is a different political beast entirely.

Where in the SDO document does it guarantee half a billion pounds?

 

[rob@rar]

You ask where the opposition is. It is currently dormant because, until this morning, it has been fed a steady diet of press releases promising "billions in investment" without seeing the bill attached.

There's nothing in the SI that wasn't in the planning application proposals. If individual MPs or opposition parties have concerns they would have been able to articulate them through the proper consultation process earlier this year, as well as expressing more general concerns throughout this process. But there has been no such criticism. To me that suggests that elected politicians or all colours, local and national, are broadly content with this proposal.

The government hasn't pulled a fast one with the timing or the process for approving this SI. It's simply following standard parliamentary procedures. Suggestions otherwise are simply not accurate.

But enough of going around this particular loop. It's going to happen, which I'm quietly celebrating. Never imagined I'd have a world class theme park close enough to make day trips to. Rather than fretting about parliamentary procedures I'm going to keep on hoping that Majid Sarmast's Lord of the Rings artwork for Universal Creative finally becomes real, and will be built in the town where JRR Tolkien did his officer training for World War I. To me that would be a nice connection when illustrating Tolkien's genius with immersive lands and innovative theme park attractions.

 

[xtpower]

I do think framing 'infrastructure upgrades' as state subsidies is deliberately misleading. Sure, you might argue that Universal should be paying for those infrastructure upgrades themselves, but that doesn't make them state subsidies. Goose, you talk alot of sense but the Government funding the infrastructure upgrades for that area has truly got your hackles up, to such a point that you routinely bring it up to cast the project in a less than favourable light.

I know you have said you support the project multiple times, but it doesn't feel like it alot of the time. Like today, you've gone after the whole 'rushing through the SI' bit like a dog with a bone. Very little of the negative consequences you've cited will happen or has any evidence to back them and you have bulldozed through any argument that tells you such.

 

[rob@rar]

Why is my post Number #814 awaited Moderation? Did I say something wrong?

 

[MattBTP]

Quite interested to see what Disney's response will be. Wondering if we will see a 3rd park announcement in the not to distant future

 

[Squiggs]

Why is my post Number #814 awaited Moderation? Did I say something wrong?

I'm not entirely sure. Something in that post clearly made the forum's built-in auto-moderation tools kick in, but I can't see anything obvious that would have triggered it.

I've approved it now, anyway.

 

[Johnny_5]

Probably more to do with the fact that this is real, being proposed by a real company with real experience in building theme parks I suspect.