During yesterdays Prime Minister’s question time in the House of Commons, Gordon Brown signalled the end for a Las Vegas style supercasino in the UK. My home city of Manchester had won the bid to build the first supercasino in Britain only to see it blocked by a load of unelected old fart peers in the House of Lords. Mr Brown had voted for supercasinos in March 2007 but has now suddenly changed his mind on the idea? The major casino operators/investors have made it quite clear that they have had enough of Britain’s politicians and will take their business elsewhere. Below is a link from Britain’s leading conservative newspaper that has led a vitriolic two- and -half year campaign against supercasinos so expect the comments to be biased? Andy http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments
Not so super I knew you'd be posting on this subject as soon as I saw it on the news. Seems like it's not quite dead yet, but probably mortally wounded.
Manchester London Colin. You are damn right that I would post about this. For those on the other side of the pond who may be remotely interested in the background to the British supercasino saga then refer to a previous link on here. http://www.blackjacktournaments.com/bb/showthread.php?t=3203&highlight=Manchester Blackpool, the London Dome and the city of Manchester were the chosen sites to build the casino. All of the sites were picked out to regenerate the areas and create employment. Well I don’t believe that any of the Brits (including myself) on here would have bet on the winner, which turned out to be my home city of Manchester. The seaside town of Blackpool had always been the red-hot favourite. So Manchester won the bid fair and square and Blackpool lost out (forget the Dome bid which was always a non-starter). Blackpool could never accept defeat graciously so now the dirty tricks start. First of all they lobby the old farts in the House of Lords and succeed in blocking the bill for a supercasino to be built in Britain. Now the crunch comes. Prime Minister Brown walks to the dispatch box for the second time in the House of Commons ready for question time. Tony Blair was a master of Prime Ministers question time but the jury is still out over Gordon’s delivery and exchanges to the opposition parties after his previous appearance. For the moment (if ever) Gordon’s Labour Members of Parliament can only ask him questions that are not controversial to the government .The “Whips” whose job it is to keep its members in line will see to that (I bet Ken Smith wishes he had a Whip on here sometimes…lol). So unless you do not wish to further your political career, the questions for the Prime Minister question time will be decided for you. Which brings me on to that bitch Joan Humble Member of Parliament for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (sorry Ken for the defamatory language but she has wound me up). Joan Humble campaigned vigorously for a supercasino to be built in Blackpool Nothing wrong with that as she was looking out to benefit her own constituents. How surprising is it then that Joan Humble then supplies the question from the Government machine in which Gordon Brown kills off the supercasino. When Joan Humble goes to sit down she does not look particularly bothered. Gordon Brown then announces a new package of regeneration for Blackpool such as a new tramline, a museum, a theatre and a new conference centre. So Joan Humble MP is now sitting smug and says **** you Manchester and who gives a toss about the supercasino’s anymore. Well I for one do care and if she thinks that she can get away with that that then it’s time that I wrote to my Member of Parliament because I have been a paid up member of the Labour Party for the last twenty years. London Colin was right when he said I would post. Well at least the Americans can take some comfort in the fact that they are not the only ones suffering from Government legislation. Andy
They've clearly got you riled! To be fair though, public opinion, and perhaps now Gordon Brown's own views on the subject, seem to be the driving forces, rather than the influence of any dirty tricks from Blackpool. There were originally going to be forty supercasinos, but this was reduced to just one, as a trial, even before any decision was taken or voted on about the location, the public response having been lukewarm at best. Gordon Brown may have voted in favour, but it was not a free vote so that just means he wasn't so intractably opposed that he was prepared to defy the government position. Now, however, he can dictate the government position. As for the House of Lords, I thought they could only delay legislation. So if the government remained resolute it would still have gone through. And even if the Lords had voted in favour, Gordon Brown could presumably now step in and introduce further legislation to reverse that. For selfish reasons I would like to see lots of giant casinos built, but I have some sympathy with the view that the cons outweigh the pros when it comes to using gambling as a tool for regeneration. I think that was the logic behind the decision to start out by building just one and see what happens. Manchester would have been the guinea-pig for a social experiment. I feel your pain, Andy. I had similar pain when Greenwich didn't win the bid. But I do think that most of the people involved in the decision-making process (with the possible exception of Joan Humble, it seems!) probably feel they are doing Manchester a favour. And, hand on heart, I have to admit it's possible they are right. (See my sig. )
Public Opinion? As always Colin you are the voice of reason on here and I accept many of the points that you have made. But don’t let Joan Humble and her crew off the hook so lightly because they did lobby MPs and Peers against the Manchester bid. The fact of the matter is that if Blackpool had won the bid we would not be having this conversation now because the supercasino would be being built. If forty supercasinos were being built as first envisaged then even I would be worried but we are talking about one for the whole of the U.K. I really do not understand what the problem is about Britain having a large Las Vegas style casino and why a newspaper like the Daily Mail would take such a vigorous stand against it in order to influence public opinion. Why are people worried about a so-called supercasino which after all would just be a huge entertainment complex with gaming. The gambling laws over here have already been relaxed and smaller casinos are springing up everywhere in the U.K. It is not like that we are introducing alcohol to the Indians for the first time. What exactly is the problem supposed to be? I just don’t see it. Andy
