• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

Potential New Universal UK Park

Today, the leaders of six local authorities; Bedford Borough, Central Bedfordshire, Luton Borough, Milton Keynes City, North Northamptonshire, and West Northamptonshire, have sent a letter to the Prime Minister to express their combined support for Universal Destinations & Experiences’ potential theme park project in Bedford.
Click to expand...
From the latest email update from Universal UK.

Here's the letter:
 
I'm in the middle of the "Tales from the Towers" book and it's amusing to come across the plans from Tussauds for a new theme park in Bedfordshire in 1989 only for the council to reject it! How times change.

Also interesting to see how many major theme park developments have been proposed and failed over the years! Pretty much been 35+ years since we've had one succeed and even then wasn't from the ground up. If Universal materialises it really will be a groundbreaking moment in UK theme park history.
 
jmc said:
The local MP is throwing his weight behind the project and has written to the newly appointed Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport to prioritise giving it the green light.


From: https://x.com/yasinforbedford/status/1815357268029804614?s=46&t=dckI_I5WLKu7y2LACEkERw



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

Interesting tid bits in there and at least one takeaway.

The previous Conservative government, usually incredibly pro-business and willing to throw money at corporate giants and lend their support to potential white elephants, couldn't come to a happy agreement / financial package that suited Universal. How much are Universal looking for here?

This project clearly doesn't have the carte blanche support from "absolutely everybody" that some people think.

The letter is asking the minister to give in to whatever Universal want, to get this project over the line. This makes sense as a local MP, it's an easy win and will secure lots of investment and employment. On a national level though, there are clearly some more concerns and questions which need answering, or some possible considerations which need to be addressed, before the government will grant full approval. At least this is my read given the previous lot's approach and with them usually being "pro-business", almost at any cost.

This echoes some of my concerns, outlined earlier in this thread, about the possible worst way to conduct this deal. The area needs it, but we shouldn't be bending over backward to secure it no matter the cost. It's a bit of a game of chicken, but we shouldn't cave into their demands first.
 
GooseOnTheLoose said:
Interesting tid bits in there and at least one takeaway.

The previous Conservative government, usually incredibly pro-business and willing to throw money at corporate giants and lend their support to potential white elephants, couldn't come to a happy agreement / financial package that suited Universal. How much are Universal looking for here?

This project clearly doesn't have the carte blanche support from "absolutely everybody" that some people think.

The letter is asking the minister to give in to whatever Universal want, to get this project over the line. This makes sense as a local MP, it's an easy win and will secure lots of investment and employment. On a national level though, there are clearly some more concerns and questions which need answering, or some possible considerations which need to be addressed, before the government will grant full approval. At least this is my read given the previous lot's approach and with them usually being "pro-business", almost at any cost.

This echoes some of my concerns, outlined earlier in this thread, about the possible worst way to conduct this deal. The area needs it, but we shouldn't be bending over backward to secure it no matter the cost. It's a bit of a game of chicken, but we shouldn't cave into their demands first.
Click to expand...
Were the previous Conservative government pro-business at absolutely any cost? They gained a massive reputation for being NIMBYs and at least in the industry that I follow (film and TV), projects regularly would get shuttered because of lack of Conservative support for the projects.

The section of the letter that you're referring to as well seems to imply that the financial package is for supporting infrastructure projects, which the Conservatives also gained a reputation of being unable to handle:
1721653784169.png

They flubbed HS2, downgraded East-West Rail, cancelled Crossrail 2, etc etc

So, yeah, I do think that absolutely everybody relevant so far in this government are showing support and I hope that the infrastructure could be supported for this to be built. Would seem to be a massive shot in the foot if the party who won with the 'Get Britain building again' slogan couldn't help with the infrastructure needed for this.

Just for added context here, the station for Disneyland Paris (Marne-la-Vallée) cost 126m euros, and Disney paid for 38.1m of the total cost.
 
Last edited:
benpicko said:
Were the previous Conservative government pro-business at absolutely any cost? They gained a massive reputation for being NIMBYs and at least in the industry that I follow (film and TV), projects regularly would get shuttered because of lack of Conservative support for the projects.
Click to expand...
I suppose with 5 Conservative Prime Ministers, each with their own approaches on white elephants or projects of interest, you can't be a generalising as I was. A project like this under Johnson, for example, could possibly have had a dumper truck pulled up to the back of Number 11 for the Chancellor to start throwing bullion in. May was notoriously tighter with the purse strings.

MPs are normally NIMBYs, but governments don't tend to be. You've got this awkward push and pull between what the government wants and what's in the interest for the MP locally (especially if they have any sway or power within their party).
benpicko said:
The section of the letter that you're referring to as well seems to imply that the financial package is for supporting infrastructure projects, which the Conservatives also gained a reputation of being unable to handle:
Click to expand...
Conservative governments have argued with the decisions made by previous Conservative administrations over many infrastructure projects, the most famous being HS2. Approved by Cameron, cancelled by Sunak.

These tend to be projects for national infrastructure though, not to directly assist the needs of corporate projects. If we were to look at this, the building of relief roads or connections to new warehouses and improvements around those areas, we can see that they're more willing. It tended to boil down to "Is this a project for the public?" = "We don't have the money and can't support it, there's no direct / immediate economic benefit" / "Is this a project for the benefit of corporate need?" "We can give money to support it, because we can see a direct return of investment".

If the previous government couldn't justify, or agree a support package, because they couldn't see the return investment case; what level of support are Universal looking for, how much do they need?
 
It’s likely that Universal saw the way the wind was blowing when it came to the last government (I.e. they weren’t going to be around much longer).

Makes business sense for them to have dug their heels in and say whatever they offered wasn’t good enough in the knowledge that the real negotiation was going to be with the new lot. This can then become the new starting point for infrastructure negotiation.

I’m sure it can be worked out.
 
Josh555 said:
Is there not a chance that they were unable to agree to any proposal because there was a general election on the horizon?
Click to expand...
Once the election was called, meaningful and substantive official talks would have stopped, government departments essentially going into caretaker mode until the start of the new Parliament. This was mentioned on this thread shortly after the election was called, during a discussion about how the Purdah period would effect any decision or announcement, with a government unable to agree to, or announce, any new spending commitments.
 
GooseOnTheLoose said:
Once the election was called, meaningful and substantive official talks would have stopped, government departments essentially going into caretaker mode until the start of the new Parliament. This was mentioned on this thread shortly after the election was called, during a discussion about how the Purdah period would effect any decision or announcement, with a government unable to agree to, or announce, any new spending commitments.
Click to expand...

Yeah I did see that, hence that may be the reasoning behind it rather than there being unreasonable or un-agreeable demands in place.
 
benpicko said:
www.bedfordindependent.co.uk

Universal "surprise" at new Government but things are still "going very positively" - Bedford Independent

A senior officer at Bedford Borough Council has said that the general election and forming of a new Government has taken...
www.bedfordindependent.co.uk www.bedfordindependent.co.uk

This article also does seem to suggest that talks with Lisa Nandy have already been ongoing (though does weirdly suggest that the election being called was a surprise to them?).
Click to expand...

It was a surprise to most given how the tories were polling at the time it was called - the result once it was called was the unsurprising bit.
 
Yeah I don't think anyone saw a July 4th election coming with the polling data, seemed like Sunak was potentially gonna wait it out til the autumn (think he'd have definitely called it before the US elections happen). But he did have until mid December to call an January 2025 election.
 
One thing to note is that one of the public infrastructure projects paired back by the Conservatives, East-West Rail, would have been of great use to Universal, and I dare say it may even have been factored into their plans.

Could the Conservatives’ lack of support for East-West Rail have been a turn off for Universal?
 
Matt N said:
One thing to note is that one of the public infrastructure projects paired back by the Conservatives, East-West Rail, would have been of great use to Universal, and I dare say it may even have been factored into their plans.

Could the Conservatives’ lack of support for East-West Rail have been a turn off for Universal?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't have imagined so, because all they (Conservatives and Universal) care about are links to London and, specifically, Heathrow. East-West Rail won't have factored.
 
Matt N said:
One thing to note is that one of the public infrastructure projects paired back by the Conservatives, East-West Rail, would have been of great use to Universal, and I dare say it may even have been factored into their plans.

Could the Conservatives’ lack of support for East-West Rail have been a turn off for Universal?
Click to expand...
Conservative government was well known for saying alot and doing very little. It sounds like the whole deal will hang on what the government will contribute in terms of infrastructure and finessing the application through the planning process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top