Turn on thread page Beta

B935 - Expansion of Science Parks Bill 2016 (Second Reading) watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Why is it that you take the belief that all in the house are not only ideological purists on left-right lines, but also entirely idealistic with no pragmatism, despite a great deal of evidence that neither is true?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Because this is far from pragmatic as well - as I demonstrated in the previous reading, it is entirely possible to achieve the policy of this Bill without the giant cost of the subsidy.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamestg)
    You don't create wealth by 'using the stick'. Businesses owe very little to the state, they're like plants. If you nurture them, providing the perfect conditions for them to thrive - they blossom into an elegant flower which everyone can admire and thus benefit from.

    However I think it's going to be impossible for us to agree.
    Aside from the benevolence of creating the institution of property, the retention of law and order, extremely favourable tax schemes, the significant investment in R&D, support for undergraduates, the provision of an education system in general, the creation of infrastructure and other public goods without which literally no private enterprise could exist... need I go on? Face it, private enterprise is just a massive parasite on the state for the most part.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Because this is far from pragmatic as well - as I demonstrated in the previous reading, it is entirely possible to achieve the policy of this Bill without the giant cost of the subsidy.
    Did you?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Did you?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yes, through a mixture of taxes and giving the state an interest as a result (FWIW, I would be entirely happy with this Bill if it operated as an interest-free secured loan, avoiding the use for the accumulation of capital and/or the opportunity cost of that capital - the use of money for a given period is somewhat valuable).
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I would join in but I'm busy and TDA's representing me well
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Yes, through a mixture of taxes and giving the state an interest as a result (FWIW, I would be entirely happy with this Bill if it operated as an interest-free secured loan, avoiding the use for the accumulation of capital and/or the opportunity cost of that capital - the use of money for a given period is somewhat valuable).
    You mean by making them go somewhere else instead you would be happy?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You mean by making them go somewhere else instead you would be happy?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The interest-free loan provides a sufficient advantage - and FWIW I suspect this might be contrary to EU law in any event - even if this doesn't affect us in TSRland, it does mean that these subsidies cannot be offered by any country in the EU, or Norway or Switzerland.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    Aye, not sure why it's not in division if I'm honest.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by jamestg)
    RayApparently, please could you change the following elements?

    1) Please replace the fourth paragraph with the following:
    "The average cost of a science park is around £150 million, however each can provide up to 10,000 jobs. An investment of £900 million is crucial for the UK to keep up with rival countries and to remain at the forefront of cutting-edge technology. This can be gained from both the tax payer as well as major corporations - which I am sure we will easily get considering numerous large firms including Cisco is investing £1bn in high-tech industries."

    2) Then on the section to do with 'where will the money come from' please change the title of that section to "breakdown of cost" and replace the contents of that with the following:

    "Cost of each science park - £150 million
    Corporation - £60 million
    University - £45 million
    Taxpayer - £45 million

    Total taxpayer investment of £900 million."

    3) Finally could you change "by the end of 2017" to "from 2017"?

    Later this evening I will list the locations of the science parks.
    These appear to be quite significant changes to make without another reading. Was I sent the wrong version? Also, I'd appreciate it if Life_peer could confirm if I'm to accept changes etc. from only him or from all Conservative MPs.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    The locations are the following:

    South
    Bristol, Southampton and Colchester

    Midlands
    Coventry, Sheffield, Manchester, Nottingham, Norwich

    North
    Preston, Hull, Leeds, Newcastle, Durham and Liverpool

    Scotland
    Stirling, Glasgow and Edinburgh

    Wales
    Swansea and Cardiff

    Northern Ireland
    Belfast
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by jamestg)
    The locations are the following:

    South
    Bristol, Southampton and Colchester

    Midlands
    Coventry, Sheffield, Manchester, Nottingham, Norwich

    North
    Preston, Hull, Leeds, Newcastle, Durham and Liverpool

    Scotland
    Stirling, Glasgow and Edinburgh

    Wales
    Swansea and Cardiff

    Northern Ireland
    Belfast
    Was much thought put into the locations, such as whether such facilities already exist, transport links, availability of staff locally etc or were they just pulled up as decent sized places that are not London?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Was much thought put into the locations, such as whether such facilities already exist, transport links, availability of staff locally etc or were they just pulled up as decent sized places that are not London?
    I had a look at current facilities, transport links and potential university links. All are fairly accessible by road, rail and/or air. I also ensured that it focused around deprived areas. Durham is a prime example of producing excellent students, yet they move away to the south and so there is little regional benefit IMO.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    So the two of you, who, as Labour members, presumably claim to be left-wing, are perfectly happy with public money being given directly to the private sector?
    I want development. I'd be one of the first people wanting complete transparency on where and how the money would be distributed but technological change can only really happen at the hands of the brightest and those who can reach out internationally.

    I think a major risk in the future will be a spilt between STEM careers and non-STEM careers to such an extent where it could divide communities ( look at silicon valley ). I don't think the government can and would put in the same amount of development.

    It's not about where the money would go now but more in ten, twenty years how it's " turned out ".
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by jamestg)
    The locations are the following:

    South
    Bristol, Southampton and Colchester

    Midlands
    Coventry, Sheffield, Manchester, Nottingham, Norwich

    North
    Preston, Hull, Leeds, Newcastle, Durham and Liverpool

    Scotland
    Stirling, Glasgow and Edinburgh

    Wales
    Swansea and Cardiff

    Northern Ireland
    Belfast
    They look in first sight quite good.

    Many are near uni's with great research departments (coincidentally I'm looking at universities for Computer Science and Maths so I've done some ground work ).

    As far as I know, majority have good transport links but I could be wrong.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    locations, costings, how big they should actually be, how buildings will be allocated should all be included.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by jamestg)
    The locations are the following:

    South
    Bristol, Southampton and Colchester

    Midlands
    Coventry, Sheffield, Manchester, Nottingham, Norwich

    North
    Preston, Hull, Leeds, Newcastle, Durham and Liverpool

    Scotland
    Stirling, Glasgow and Edinburgh

    Wales
    Swansea and Cardiff

    Northern Ireland
    Belfast
    I was for this bill but there aren't actually many places which don't already have a science or technology park which really need one.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    I was for this bill but there aren't actually many places which don't already have a science or technology park which really need one.
    Quite a lot of these are small scale parks, ones smaller than a school. Also a couple are just single buildings. The vast majority are not science parks with the scale and complexity of these planned. The science parks listed do not provide substantial space for large scale R&D, UTCs to name a few. The parks you listed are really just office spaces for hire.

    If the UK wants to facilitiate growth in this industry as well as provide huge numbers of hi-tech jobs that need to be distributed well - these parks are the answer. Loosely, you argument has the same principle as schools, you need to build more and bigger schools because pupil numbers are growing - you cannot say because there are already schools we don't need any more.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by jamestg)
    Quite a lot of these are small scale parks, ones smaller than a school. Also a couple are just single buildings. The vast majority are not science parks with the scale and complexity of these planned. The science parks listed do not provide substantial space for large scale R&D, UTCs to name a few. The parks you listed are really just office spaces for hire.

    If the UK wants to facilitiate growth in this industry as well as provide huge numbers of hi-tech jobs that need to be distributed well - these parks are the answer. Loosely, you argument has the same principle as schools, you need to build more and bigger schools because pupil numbers are growing - you cannot say because there are already schools we don't need any more.
    You can't say that they aren't of the scale of the ones planned when the bill doesn't give a scale for the parks.

    I would say that you are better off putting them where the parks are actually needed as opposed to where sounds good. Unless you can prove that every city on that list is in desperate need of a science park I'll vote nay. Which is a great shame because I initially loved this bill.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    You can't say that they aren't of the scale of the ones planned when the bill doesn't give a scale for the parks.

    I would say that you are better off putting them where the parks are actually needed as opposed to where sounds good. Unless you can prove that every city on that list is in desperate need of a science park I'll vote nay. Which is a great shame because I initially loved this bill.
    Actually size is given, 50-70ha

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Actually size is given, 50-70ha

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    hidden in the notes. If it isn't in the bill it isn't binding.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 12, 2016

2,606

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.