[🌎 Universal GB] General Discussion

[Dave]

I'll pick freedom all day long.

For most people in the west that wasn’t a thing until the 19th century in law and 20th century in practice.

Anyway way off topic.

 

[Bowser]

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

I seem to recall the 3rd park obligation was again reduced and they have another 10+ years to commence construction so i'd be surprised if this pressures them into dropping billions on something that can't possibly be profitable, especially when they're only just starting to get the 2nd park in shape after 25 years.

More likely they'll announce major projects at the existing parks in the upcoming years such as the rumoured Avatar attraction.

I'm going to keep on hoping that Majid Sarmast's Lord of the Rings artwork for Universal Creative finally becomes real,

What's this btw and is it something you can share?

 

[rob@rar]

What's this btw and is it something you can share?

One of the Universal Creative principal designers, Majid Sarmast, published a portfolio of his work which included artwork for a themed land and attraction which were obviously based on Rivendell from Lord of the Rings. The artwork has a copyright date of 2022 marked on it, although that might be different from when he did the designs. Mr Sarmast’s portfolio is no longer available online so I’m not sure of the ethics of me posting it, as obviously I have no ownership of the work. It might mean nothing, of course, but at some point one of the senior Universal Creative designers has worked on a highly themed land and an attraction which is based on Lord of the Rings.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

But I don't think they have actually given it any serious thought.

I suspect you are depressingly accurate. MPs rarely give anything serious thought until it arrives in their inbox attached to a strongly worded letter from a local chamber of commerce or a angry constituent.

The strategy you suggest, "Support them, but support us too", is precisely the line Merlin has been feeding them for the last two years regarding the VAT cut. The problem is that the government has now effectively said: "We will support Universal with hard cash for infrastructure, but you can whistle for your tax cut." That changes the dynamic from "rising tide" to "playing favourites". Now that the SDO is laid, the reality of that disparity moves from hypothetical to legislative.

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

The SDO explicitly mandates the delivery of the specific infrastructure projects, the upgraded Wixams station, the A421 relief works, the slip roads, as conditions of the development.

We know from the government's own announcement in June that the public purse is picking up the tab for the "enabling infrastructure" to secure the investment. The SDO is the legal mechanism that allows that infrastructure to be built. By laying the SDO, the government is legally committing to the physical reality of those projects.

The reported figure for these costs is consistently, at least, £500 million.

Universal Studios UK theme park given planning permission in Bedfordshire

Attraction part-funded with £500m of public investment will be constructed on site of a former brickworks

www.theguardian.com

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.

I promise not to labour the point further, but I feel compelled to address the assertion that this is "standard procedure" and that suggestions otherwise are inaccurate.

The specific constitutional hazard I am highlighting, where the law becomes active before Parliament has had a realistic chance to object, is entirely a product of laying the Instrument yesterday, 48 hours before the Christmas recess.

If the Ministry had simply waited until the House returned in January to lay the Instrument, the 21 day convention and the 40 day prayer period would have run concurrently while Parliament was actually sitting. Scrutiny would have been possible before implementation. Choosing this specific week means they have ensured the objection window only effectively opens after the law is already active. That is a choice, not a coincidence.

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 am afraid I must be incredibly pedantic here, because words have meanings.

Framing government-funded infrastructure upgrades that primarily benefit a single commercial operator as "state subsidies" isn't misleading; it is the economic definition of the term.

Under the Subsidy Control Act 2022 (which replaced EU State Aid rules), a subsidy exists if:

1. There is financial assistance given by a public authority using public resources.
2. It confers an economic advantage on one or more enterprises.
3. It is specific (i.e., benefits a specific company or sector).
4. It has, or could have, an effect on competition or investment.

If the government spends £500m building a train station and relief roads that are required specifically to make the Universal business model viable, costs that Universal would otherwise have to bear themselves (like a Section 106 agreement), that confers a direct economic advantage. It is a subsidy.

If I build a driveway that connects your house to the main road, it is infrastructure. If I pay for it out of my own pocket, saving you the cost so you can run your business, it is a subsidy to you.

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.

I am not a dog with a bone; I am a goose with a grievance regarding due process. I have responded to questions I've been asked and to challenges to my points.

It is entirely possible to want the outcome of a world class theme park whilst simultaneously being critical of the method used to achieve it (bypassing scrutiny and using taxpayers' money). That isn't "bulldozing" or being "anti-project", it is nuance.

However, as @rob@rar suggests, the die is cast. The SDO is laid. The money is pledged. We are getting a theme park.

Let us hope that Majid Sarmast's artwork was indeed the blueprint, because if we have sacrificed half a billion pounds and local democracy just to get a Minion Land and a Fast & Furious supercharged clone, I shall be very cross indeed.

 

[rob666]

...I am not a dog with a bone; I am a goose with a grievance...

Quote of the week!

But in agreement...yes, all for it, but do it by the rules.

My usual worry of doom in all of this though.

If the massive bubble pops as expected, and the markets go hard woopsie, will this actually still happen?

 

[Jb85]

A lot to catchup on so apologies if I have missed anything and will ask daft questions.

Wonderful news this, but reading the document:

- 8-12 million visitors per annum. Surely this isn’t the park itself but the UK as a whole ?

 

[rob@rar]

But in agreement...yes, all for it, but do it by the rules.

Be confident it is being done by the rules.

 

[Josh555]

I have a question; how is it that when the London Resort wanted a similar development order, they were claiming 18 months to 2 years to get one, yet this seems to have breezed through in a matter of 8 months?

Had Universal done a lot of the work behind the scenes, do we think?

Because they never had any intention of building it so you can take anything that they claimed with a massive pinch of salt.