Scrapping super-casinos?
Wow. Gordon Brown has just signalled the scrapping of plans to build super-casinos. He announced a review of other ways to regenerate towns and cities. I understand that this review will include the decision to grant the first licence to Manchester.
Expect a rave review from the Daily Mail tomorrow despite another less than sure-footed clash with David Cameron.
UPDATE 1340: A Whitehall source has confirmed my instinct on hearing Gordon Brown by telling the 91Èȱ¬ that super-casinos are "dead in the water".
The only reason that many people in the Labour Party supported the idea of super-casinos in the first place was the prospect of money and jobs to inner-city Manchester, run-down Blackpool and other parts of the country. Gordon Brown knows that - and he is signalling that he will look for other ways to do the same job. This has brought an angry reaction from those who were banking on getting a casino. Graham Stringer - Labour MP and former leader of Manchester City Council has described the decision as "weak and bad" and said it's "insulting" and "risible" to suggest that the City hasn't looked at other ways to revive the city.
This is a victory for an alliance of some on the right (the aforementioned Daily Mail), some within the Labour Party, and a coalition in the House of Lords - remember, it was , not in the Commons, where the government suffered a defeat on this issue which forced them to reconsider the plans.
The puzzle is why he's done this and overshadowed his own "Not the Queen's Speech". My guess is that having seen David Cameron gain a lot of good publicity for his musings on the issue of a "Broken Society" Team Brown thought they'd trump him with an announcement to scrap super-casinos.
I'm 
Comments
Notice all the awkward questions about the democratic defecit etc?
He will get a 'spot the jock.' jibe every time from now on because he has no answer
On the contrary ken, i think the questions about english votes for english laws (which are designed to do as you say) are backfiring on the tories and making them look out-of-touch and obsessed with westimnster rather than the cares of everybody else.
I think DC will be trying to get them to stop soon
I think this will draw positive response from wider than the Daily Mail.
The problem with the casino proposal was always, "why do we actually need these? Who asked for them?"
It was a proposal born out of lobbying by the industry and really was a daft piece of legislation for no reason whatsoever. Forget anything about addiction, or morality, there just was no need for them.
On Brown's performance, I was confused by the exchange between brown and Cameron.
Cameron was asking whether Brown would listen to the 54% of people who did not want to see hospitals closed. Brown answered that in the report there is a recommendation that NO hospitals close. Fair enough. Seems to answer the question. For if no hospitals close, people's worry about it is somewhat academic.
But we ended up having the question repeated time and again by the Boy David.
Now, his presentation of the questions may have been fiery and well worded. But he did waste his and our time on the same repeated, and seemingly meaningless question.
So, Nick, in what way was Browns performance less sure footed than Cameron's? Unlike Blair on certain occasions, it seems to me that Brown actually answered the question. Or was that the problem?
Nobody
Ditching the super-casino plan is probably the right choice for the country but it makes a total mockery of his own party which had so vehemently supported it. I wonder if he has any more dramatic U-turns up his sleeve.
Initially, I was opposed to the casino plans due to the economic and social distortions they imposed but have swung around the other way. I'm not entirely persuaded the discussed surrounding them really fleshed out the pluses and minuses but, like nuclear weapons, it tends to generate deers frozen in headlights, so easing off may help shuffle things into a better order.
As politicians lie in parliament, business asset strips the nation, and a feral media drops fleas on the carpet, so casinos might create similar problems in society. Developing a better sense of work and community, discipline and consideration, or what we do and how we get along can find an outlet in work, family, and recreation. Best walk before we run seems like a good idea.
If business can be more investment led and communities more cohesive, I don't see why casinos can't be revisited somewhere down the line. You could probably add a few more things to the verboten list as well, such as what the Japanese euphuistically call the "water trade", and a smarter and more effective policy on things that make you go "Woah!"
It's a crazy, crazy, crazy craaaazy life.
Well, a change of leadership implies some changes in priorities, if not policies.
It always upset me that a Labour government could push a policy that will bring misery to many of the poorest homes. People should be free to ruin their own lives, but there's no point in the government rushing to help them do so.
One reason Westminster seems out of touch is political reporting that worries about presentation 'less than sure footed' etc instead of policies and impacts. Blair got rave reviews for not answering questions while Brown is branded weak for giving much more honest answers...
Do political journos simply admire bullies?
Am I mad or was this always a particularly stupid idea. Surely the majority of people would end up poorer - the only real gain would be for the people who owned the casino. While many people could probably use casinos as an occasional way, not causing any major problems for anyone, it would be bound to leave a significant minority in terrible circumstances. I think Brown did well politically to scrap this, its a lot more straight forward than addressing voting discrepancies in the UK parliaments, or a host of other issues.
Gordon Brown has listed his priorities as Education, Housing and the NHS, yet has no power to influence any of these issues in his own constituency, only in England. I wonder if he sees the irony? Cries of a democratic deficit are well founded, and Gordon Brown's time in office will be haunted by this unless he addresses the constitutional anomaly that England suffers as a result of his government's flawed devolution settlement. Every time he announces a domestic policy it will highlight the problem afresh, and like it or not, the English voters have at last wised up to the question, and I simply can't believe that someone with GB's supposed political savy doesn't realise this. Like the demands for an EU referendum, the issue will not go away, it is being discussed in pubs, clubs and offices across the land, and will have to be addressed eventually. I suspect that Brown is sitting on a timebomb with two burning fuses and it is only a question of which one reaches the powder first.
As much as I hate to potentially agree with the Daily Scaremonger, that was a good performance from Brown today. Whilst he appeared "less than sure-footed", he certainly appeared to have the substance, and I think what he said is more important than how he said it.
I had a few quid on Brown, number 10 to scrap Super Casinos.
CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW FORCING A SINGLE PARENT INTO WORK WHEN THEIR CHILD IS 5 CAN POSSIBLY HELP TO BRING ABOUT A STABLE SECURE SOCIETY. HOW WOULD THIS WORK. THERE ARE NOT MANY JOBS AVAILABLE DURING SCHOOL HOURS ONLY. WHO WOULD TAKE THEM TO SCHOOL BRING THEM HOME, LOOK AFTER THEM WHEN THEY ARE SICK OR DURING SCHOOL HOLIDAYS. WHO WOULD PAY FOR CHILD CARE? MANY SINGLE PARENTS ARE NOT SINGLE BY CHOICE. MANY ARE DIVORCED OR WIDOWED. THEIR CHILDREN NEED A PARENT THERE FOR THEM NOT BEING FORCED INTO WORK. THINK AGAIN MR CAMERON GET INTO THE REAL WORLD
PAT MANCHESTER
The proof will be in the pudding. Super-casinos were never going to be the answer to inner-city deprivation but in their absence how will Brown deliver real benefits to the communities the plan was supposed to help?
Scrapping the plan is one thing - and a good thing - but he now has to provide an alternative and make it work.
We will just have to wait and see...
"I wonder if he has any more dramatic U-turns up his sleeve."
Presumably a large U-turn like this would have to be kept up both sleeves and across the shoulders.
Surely the key thing here is that it would be very dangerous for the government to be licencing super-casinos ahead of the first full review of state of gambling in the UK for quite a few years.
I rather suspect that given the massive growth of online gaming, more bookies in the high streets and even the pervasiveness of tv quizzes, this report won't paint the rosiest picture of gambling.
But we'll have to wait and see!
If Gord's rightly against gambling as a means of 'regeneration' I expect he'll be looking at hedge funds next.
I don't read the Daily Mail, but I certainly approve of this decision. Tony Blair only really listened to tycoons with lots of money, lets hope that Gordon Brown continues to have the moral strength to resist their lobbying!
Graham Stringer should talk to the families and friends of people addicted to gambling.
I felt Brown gave a much better PMQs this week, his body languge, posture and speech were much, much better and confident than last Wednesday's session and I felt overall he came out on top against Cameron, particularly with his 'PR/PM' comment at the end. I am surprised how little the 91Èȱ¬ seems to have noticed this though, am I the only one who felt this way about Brown's performance today?
Gordon Brown completely shadows wishy washy David Cameron who must think that repeating his point but not listening to the answer, is clever when in reality it makes him look inept and stupid. DC has no chance the tories need a new leader equalling Mr Brown.
He's got guts.
I dont care about him not looking sure-footed at PM question time, His moral compass seems to work alot better than Tony Blair's
'Another less than sure-footed clash with DC'? Were you watching a different PMQs from me?
I'd be the first to say last week's was terrible, but I'd have said he was the clear winner this week, and Ming was again much stronger than DC-he asked substantial questions, rather than just pretending GB hadn't answered him when he actually had answered him pretty effectively.
GB is running rings around Dave. GB is building up a head of steam and good momentum. Dave is dead in the water. The difference between leadership and posturing.
Why did GB mention casinos? Why his 'not the Queen's Speech'? Maybe it is in preparation for an early election, which Dave has no chance of winning.
Personally, I think this is a welcome decision that not only suits Brown politically (can you have clear red water?) but is in touch with a wider change in the moral landscape that is finding exprssion in areas such as alcohol and tobacco too..
The unique aspect of gambling, and problem with the original vote, is that very few of the political classs actually understand either the dynamics or psychology of gambling. The manner in which they waved through highly addictive FOBTs into High Street bookmakers illustrates this.
The regeneration argument was always an enticing piece of strategic lobbying, but it was a shallow and hollow one. That does not mean the casino outlet shouldn't be available but it should be a strictly regulated leisure option.
Good work Gordon. May be we are getting a new start?
I'm most definately not a Daily Mail reader but I applaud this new announcement to scrap the super casinos. I've always believed they take money out of a community rather than inject it in.
Hopefully this will be followed by a review of the Trident plans.
It makes sense in that GB wants to be seen as a different type of person, and he may well like the voters to see super-casinos as a Blair kind of thing, but not a Brown type of thing.
Even if you set aside the 'moral' case, the economic case has always seemed rather specious to me. True they create jobs, but they also suck money out of the local economy (since local people gamble and gambling loses you money) and the massive profits are probably exported.
But none of this is new, so in the end the question is the one that Nick posed. If Brown doesn't favour super-casinos, why didn't he say so before? Perhaps it was because that awful brute Tony used to bully him so unmercifully?
Hooray for this great decision. Well done Gordon! Now let's get onto Internet Gambling - why are our laws on this more "progressive" than in the US, where freedom is so highly cherished? The big players are rubbing their hands at the thought of creating addicts all over the UK, many of whom will be the young or the poor or both.
casinos may or may not be good.. but over-reliance on them is definitely bad.
take a look at macau. 1 trick pony.. etc.. casino dominates everything that there's no point looking into other jobs... vicious cycle, etc.
I have never understood why we needed or wanted Super Casinos. Houses yes. Hospitals yes, Conference Centres yes, Swimmig Pools yes. Concert Halls yes, Schools yes. Roads yes, Airports yes. Railway lines yes. New sewers yes. More houses yes. But Casinos! Seems a very American idea. PROFI PEOFIT PROFIT. Let's build all the things we really need then maybe we'll think about it again. If the world hasn't come to an overheated end and other things become more pressing that is.
Lets hope we can have some more common sense decisions like this one, super casinos could only benefit the owners and it was hard to understand how labour gave the idea any credence, lets have some real ideas on regeneration that improve peoples lives. Gambling, is an addiction and there is a tendency for those who can least afford it to get "hooked".
The newly made EU constitution signed by BROWN and Blair gives them everything they want. The ability for the EU to make its own treaties mean they can take whats left of the country as and when they please.
This Supercasinos cave in is a red herring appearing to many as if he is going in a different direction.
This is spin.
If Brown is to get this constitution through he will need to have everyone on side and be prepared for a rough ride. Hopefully many won't notice how powerful this new EU amndment really is. And hopefully many will come on side thinking brown can be trusted.
The Supercasinos will not go away they will be back.
The intention of new labour was and is to make the UK regions of the EU.
The open door policy
Many new arrivals mean an excuse to build millions of homes so backhanders with Large companies like BP who have building arms take place. BUT also labour get to improve their powerbase and also destroy social cohesion ending with racial cities called multicultures to further erode british culture and to create a climate of fear where they can introduce new laws limiting freedoms and ID cards. Designed to give an amnesty to all those here illegaly and to monitor all indigenous british and to allow the EU using the schengen highway which collects all data on everyone sent to brussels ready for EU taxes and road tolls. And is why the airports are being doubled in size ready for millions of more immigrants
This was why the home office was allowed to deteriorate and criminals on the streets with illegals given NI numbers.
They have
Sold out the country to the EU WHO will pick off whats left in their own time
They are about to concrete the south
They have set up a data highway leading from this country to the EU containing all the data on every man woman and child in the UK from a single source in Brussels. Any EU region can access this data
ID cards and surveillance are well under way.
I would say they have done exceptionally well in a short space of time.
Super casino led regeneration has been trumpeted as the only effective way of delivering the much needed jobs and investement that were promised to our urban areas. There are american casino investers lining up to pump money into these areas, only to exploit their investment over the longer term, and to send these profits back across the pond where the money is unlikely to benefit the UK.
I think that everyone has seen that there are extreme risks of problem gambling and crime associated with casino led regeneration from day one. Much of the work over the last two years by the Casino Advisory Panel has been undertaken with the aim of minimising and mitigating the impact in terms of choosing the best possible location. Whilst Gordon Brown may wish to explore other forms of urban regeneration, especially for Manchester, his cabinet will have difficulties finding the money to pay for it.
The beauty of super casino led regeneration in manchester was that foreign investors would have made considerable investement into a regeneration scheme, as well as the potential for others nationwide, delivering physical development and job creation in inner city urban areas that are in great need of revitalisation.
Coming soon, an inner city regeneration scheme for East Manchester funded by the tax payer.
Nick
I watched the 91Èȱ¬ news showing the Prime Minister reveal his future legislative programme.
But the real story seemed to be something else. Just look at the faces of the cabinet minsters sitting on the front bench! They all looked very grim and fed-up.
Can you tell us what is going on in the new Cabinet to produce this mood?
Andrew Constantine
A risky move. Is Gordon Brown going for Broke ? Will he strike the jack pot?
My personal view is that there must be better ways of regenerating a community by encouraging vice.
both gordon and jack look exhausted and rather more hang dog than usual - i guess they have had a baptism by fire over the past few weeks - however i think that he is shifting the focus correctly to housing - though unless you prevent people buying the houses up in order to let them it wont work - also i dont believe the country wants super casinos at all - do we even want a whole lot of small ones - are we to believe that over the past ten years tony just ran roughshod over all opposition? Why didnt we hear more contradictions from Gordon? He has made many people poorer - through scrapping the 10% rate band in particular. - i could go on and on
My guess as to why Gordon got rid of super casinos is because everything else he has said today is exactly the same as under blair and removing super casinos was a desperate attempt to try and distance himself from Blair. Quite funny although predictable how he reverted to planted questions in PMQs and surely he must have a world record for the shortest lived claim of a return to cabinet government.
I am beginning to have my suspicions that Gordon had more influence over the ten years of Tony than he is claiming.
Just a quick note to say how thrilled I would be if the super casino plan were ditched.
Keep the cancer of gambling out of Britain. It belongs in sleaze pits like Las Vegas, not here.
What I'm thinking about is that with Stranraer being chosen for one of the smaller casinos that might have helped in the regeneration of the seafront, after Stena moves to Cairnryan, this might throw the planning into doubt and also lead to delays in the project. Let the smaller casinos go ahead while the "super casinos" are debated.
How many policies exalted by Tony Blair have been of real benefit to the electorate? Not any that can be found. The poor are poorer, the millionaires are billionaires, the future generation that will need to support this couintry are struggling to find somewhere affordable to live.
By any standards the man has qualified for impeachment. Some legacy!
PFI, NHS, education,financial issues
pensions - non have improbved under Blair. However spin seems to have developed very well indeed. Well that what his chat line is all about.
When Brown was campaigning for the Labour Party Leadership he made much of the influence of his father and his Christian values. Those values of basic decency are incompatible with super casinos.
Brown's decision appears to stand with his convictions. Blair appeared embarrassed by the very idea of convictions, it was not really "Cool Britannia." I think this is all part of Brown defining himself as very different from Blair.
In America the dour Al Gore "lost" to George W Bush, and Brown following Blair could be compared to Gore following Clinton. However this is not America and times have moved on and being more serious could be an asset to Brown.
I WONDER WEAR GORDON WOULD STAND IF LONDON HAD BEEN AWARDED THE SUPER CASINO. AFTER ALL WASN'T HIS BOOTS HAT AND BELT, PAID FOR BY PHILIP ANSCHUTZ. THE MAN WHO WANTED TO CONVERT THE LONDON DOME INTO A CASINO, EVEN IF THEY DIDN'T MENTION IT DURING BROWNS VISIT.
Could never understand why Labour were suggesting casino's in the first place. I am even more confused at the fact that many MP's voted for them on the guise of "regeneration". Did they really think that the only way of regenerating their area was to build a casino? Beggers believe!
I believe this examination of the social and commercial added value of the Supercasinos to be correct.
Brown has been the unchallenged architect of the UK failed domestic policies for the past 10 years.
He has to get something right even though it has taken 10 years.
That any government with a social agenda should actively promote the idea of new casinos is just plane daft. We do not have a strong casino going culture in the UK so why on earth create one? Will it make us all happier? I think not.
If Brown's announcement signals the end of a ludicrous area of current policy I'm sure the vast majority of UK citizens will welcome this.
Not sure what you want Jamie Whitehouse. You seem to be against the super casinos on the basis of the moral argument but then trot out the old tired line of tax payers footing the bill for other forms of regeneration. What's wrong with that? A good use of tax payers money I'd say whether it's for East Manchester or East Lodon. Like it or not we live in a society which stretches beyond your front door.
In answer to Andrew Constantaine - I can't be certain about this, but GB's dominance over the cainet may have a part to play in the cabinet's gloominess. I recall the good 'ole Robin Oakley making a joke (I guess it was a joke) once on the 91Èȱ¬ TV news about Margaret Thatcher: at a dinner she was asked about her food selection, and was then asked about the vegetables. "They'll have the same", he said her reply was.
Atlantic City was a deadbeat place that was successfully revived by 'super-casinos'.
The gambling aspect is just one feature of these places, which provide plenty of other sorts of entertainment as well, shows, high quality restaurants etc.
As well as, of course, providing jobs for the locals.
I suspect the Brownian 'highly moral' solution to East Manchester will involve lots of taxpayers money.
At the end of the day, there is nothing particularly moral about that either, for the long suffering taxpayers of England.
Re Gordon Browns reversal of the casino policy.Should this not be looked on as a comment on his religious background.This is not meant as a criticism but if I am right then we can perhaps look forward to a more moral and balanced foreign policy,particularily on Iraq.
Re Gordon Browns reversal of the casino policy.Should this not be looked on as a comment on his religious background.This is not meant as a criticism but if I am right then we can perhaps look forward to a more moral and balanced foreign policy,particularily on Iraq.
Well - at least the so-called Culture Secretary can now concentrate on pillaging the Lottery to fund the Olympics - the cost of which has still got a LONG way to go...
Well - at least the so-called Culture Secretary can now concentrate on pillaging the Lottery to fund the Olympics - the cost of which has still got a LONG way to go...
Keith, Post #35, It may be just a guess but i think you probably have never been to Las Vegas? If you haven't then keep your "sleaze pit" comments to yourself. I cannot how you can judge a place on not visiting it. Before anyone comments, yes i have been and no i'm not American. Yes i am a gambler and no i don't have a gambling addiction or problem (like the majority of gamblers!).
Regarding Super Casino's I dont think in truth it is a completely bad idea although using it for regeneration possibly is. I cannot see why the likes of Blackpool or London, or any tourist "hot spot" which has a high influx of visitors could not benefit from another "attraction". The people attending these super casinos wont just be the folk from next door. Lets remember the casinos in Vegas are not just gambling halls, they are entertainment venues providing shows and most provide free entertainment as an attraction to get you inside. Also that in certain area's especially where i stay, in Aberdeen hotel space is at a major premium and a large complex would benefit the area.
What also has to be remembered is that a lot of time, effort and money has been invested in getting this through parliament and also by the various councils in bidding for these licenses. I guess we'll all be happy to lose that money now the plans are shelved.
It's time GB started prioritising properly: adding real value by actually producing something useable should be promoted, not taxed.
Too much "profit" from recycling money in the way casinos do (quite apart from taking it from the many and giving it to the few) merely increases the velocity of the money supply, which is a key factor in inflation. It's no wonder inflation's inexplicably growing without the government spending any more: it's the amount of unproductive freeloading happening that's causing it.
It is a great relief that Gordon Brown should call into question the issue of super-casinos. It takes courage to blow the whistle on something that has been developed so far, yet is fundamentally flawed. In fact it seems to me that a super casino is a solution which would generate more problems and cost the country far more in social and economic terms that it would generate in the first place.
I think there is already too much gambling, it's on TV, it's in every newsagents and small supermarket, it's even in your household insurance if you live somewhere where the Environmental Protection Agency doesn't.
Thanks Nick for taking the time to speak to me last Wednesday after you had done your piece to camera outside the House of Lords. It was good to go into my own meeting with the most up to date information.
Well Done Prime Minister Brown. Now do away with spin doctors. Be yourself and people will respect and honour you.