Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    What's happening to the state contribution? I'm not happy if it's just an outright subsidy, it should either give rise to partial ownership of the park or simply be a loan.
    It's worth it as a subsidy though, it increases economic growth and provides for jobs for people - improving their quality of life.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    It's worth it as a subsidy though, it increases economic growth and provides for jobs for people - improving their quality of life.
    Opportunity cost. Spending more on education in deprived areas has the same benefits, I'd argue to a greater extent.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Opportunity cost. Spending more on education in deprived areas has the same benefits, I'd argue to a greater extent.
    the two aren't mutually exclusive.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Opportunity cost. Spending more on education in deprived areas has the same benefits, I'd argue to a greater extent.
    Spending money on education in deprived areas doesn't make the area any less deprived. They move out to the more wealthy areas, places where there is investment.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    What's happening to the state contribution? I'm not happy if it's just an outright subsidy, it should either give rise to partial ownership of the park or simply be a loan.
    The economic benefits far outweigh the costs.

    Out of the £600 million, only £180 million comes from taxpayers. Think of the EU and how much we get of it, this is an excellent investment.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    As something that has crossed my mind since this was first proposed, when talking of them being built at what stage of construction should they be? If it is to be complete then the end of 2016 is a very unrealistic goal.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    the two aren't mutually exclusive.
    They kind of are. Every pound that is spent on thing A cannot be spent on thing B (I mean, this is a little simplistic in the context of macroeconomics where one can print money and issue bonds, but the notion holds).

    (Original post by jamestg)
    Spending money on education in deprived areas doesn't make the area any less deprived. They move out to the more wealthy areas, places where there is investment.
    Example plucked out of my arse, but the benefits to the people who receive the education are obvious and large, with significant net social benefits.

    (Original post by jamestg)
    The economic benefits far outweigh the costs.

    Out of the £600 million, only £180 million comes from taxpayers. Think of the EU and how much we get of it, this is an excellent investment.
    And the economic benefits of providing it only as an interest-free loan are even greater. Don't bring up the EU please, it provides a vast economic benefit but there are other threads to discuss this.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Aye

    (Original post by jamestg)
    Wahey!
    Spoiler:
    Show
    sorry for the unparliamentary dialect



    We'll see about that
    "Wahey" ....
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamestg)
    This is a must. However long-term, it's best for them to be built slightly out-of-town. This way there is space for housing and retail developments in the future.
    Far too many business parks and indeed supermarkets and hospitals have been built out of town and this just increases car use. It also makes it more difficult for younger people to work there and start a career in these areas.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    Far too many business parks and indeed supermarkets and hospitals have been built out of town and this just increases car use. It also makes it more difficult for younger people to work there and start a career in these areas.
    Just like every current science park, there would be bus services going to and from it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Aye
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Please, do. 2016. Thanks.
    Done.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Aye
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Done.
    Efficient as always.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    No, the bill has no costing, does not say how the industries will be attracted to the science parks, does not say where the science parks will be, and it does not say which companies agree to science parks. Legally binding the government to build things when there is no demand will lead to the government wasting money to fulfil some arbitrary criteria in a law with the right idea but no plan. The bill should include proposals for tax incentives to bring scientific companies to the country, skills investment to provide the right labour force for the companies, limits on technology that can be developed, and costings for how much the projects will cost. Life_peer We are allies, but at first I thought this bill was a government bill with the lack of detail, costing, and depth.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    No, the bill has no costing, does not say how the industries will be attracted to the science parks, does not say where the science parks will be, and it does not say which companies agree to science parks. Legally binding the government to build things when there is no demand will lead to the government wasting money to fulfil some arbitrary criteria in a law with the right idea but no plan. The bill should include proposals for tax incentives to bring scientific companies to the country, skills investment to provide the right labour force for the companies, limits on technology that can be developed, and costings for how much the projects will cost. Life_peer We are allies, but at first I thought this bill was a government bill with the lack of detail, costing, and depth.
    It does have costing, just not as clearly as in some bills

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    No, the bill has no costing (1), does not say how the industries will be attracted to the science parks (2), does not say where the science parks will be, (3) and it does not say which companies agree to science parks. Legally binding the government to build things when there is no demand (4)will lead to the government wasting money to fulfil some arbitrary criteria in a law with the right idea but no plan. The bill should include proposals for tax incentives to bring scientific companies to the country (5), skills investment to provide the right labour force for the companies (6), limits on technology that can be developed (7), and costings for how much the projects will cost (8). Life_peer We are allies, but at first I thought this bill was a government bill with the lack of detail, costing, and depth.
    (1) it does
    (2) isn't it fairly obvious? Companies will have better access and links to universities, start-ups can be facilitated and universities will have more space to expand their research. Their situation will be convenient located near railways, roads and airports to transport both goods and people. Other facilities including daycare centres, schools and small shops will increase attractiveness.
    (3)(4) it's impossible to give a list of companies, however there is demand. This is a rapidly increasing industry and the most sustainable, as countries and industries become more dependant on science and technology. The example given in the bill, Cisco, they're investing £1bn in this area. That's just one company. Scotland is growing significantly in this industry, however there is not enough investment there and so this growth will stop if we cannot facilitate it.
    (5) definitely
    (6) the skills investment is through the university link, business incubator and UTC.
    (7) why should we put limits on the technology that can be developed. The whole point is to further the UK's pursuit in this industry, and be placed at the forefront at this crucial time. As long as it's moral it's good.
    (8) there is costing
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    It does have costing, just not as clearly as in some bills

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The total area for all of these science parks will be equal to 10000000 square meters of area, or 1240 football pitches, that is a lot of land to develop when building a science park: £600m is not going to be enough to develop a total area only a little smaller than the area Heathrow Airport occupies. The lack of incentives to attract scientific companies to the UK, the lack of a fair tax system, and the lack of a skilled labour force makes it no surprise companies invest in Silicone Valley where the taxes are a lot lower than in Britain.

    jamestg Read my reply to Jammy Duel, the cost given for developing the science parks has no founding, is not referenced, and appears unrealistic when the plan is to develop an area a little smaller than Heathrow Airport for £600m, when a single Heathrow Airport terminal cost £4.2bn to build.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Each science park is going to be equal in size to 62 football pitches, or 500000 square meters, multiplied by twenty there are

    The total area for all of these science parks will be equal to 10000000 square meters of area, or 1240 football pitches, that is a lot of land to develop when building a science park: £600m is not going to be enough to develop a total area only a little smaller than the area Heathrow Airport occupies. The lack of incentives to attract scientific companies to the UK, the lack of a fair tax system, and the lack of a skilled labour force makes it no surprise companies invest in Silicone Valley where the taxes are a lot lower than in Britain.

    jamestg Read my reply to Jammy Duel, the cost given for developing the science parks has no founding, is not referenced, and appears unrealistic when the plan is to develop an area a little smaller than Heathrow Airport for £600m, when a single Heathrow Airport terminal cost £4.2bn to build.
    I personally don't think Heathrow is the best of comparisons for a couple of reasons. Science Parks tend to be fairly open with quite a bit of space which reduces the construction costs. Further, the costs for airport expansion are going to be high given the land procurement, associated work, and the nature of the work. Remember that a runway is a strip of land a couple of miles long and a hundred feet wide that needs to take hundreds of tons in a small area moving at high speed with high temperatures.

    However, whilst looking for a cost for Cambridge Science Park I did come across one of the recent developments there being £17m for a 80,000 sq ft building.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I personally don't think Heathrow is the best of comparisons for a couple of reasons. Science Parks tend to be fairly open with quite a bit of space which reduces the construction costs. Further, the costs for airport expansion are going to be high given the land procurement, associated work, and the nature of the work. Remember that a runway is a strip of land a couple of miles long and a hundred feet wide that needs to take hundreds of tons in a small area moving at high speed with high temperatures.

    However, whilst looking for a cost for Cambridge Science Park I did come across one of the recent developments there being £17m for a 80,000 sq ft building.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The figure taken was for the Terminal development cost, it did not include land, nor runway construction, however, the £17m figure you have provided would give a total cost for developing the total area at £22.8bn. Not all of the land in the science parks will be developed but for £600m, the figure you provided will develop 261600 square meters of the science parks, or 2.6% of the total area being legally available for science parks.
 
 
 
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: February 29, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.