« Can Cameron hear the concerns of Acacia Avenue? | Main | The Brown Tories »


This and the budget show the phenomenal contempt NuLab have for the traditional core Labour vote - the working man in deprived areas. What arrogance and what a disgrace.

Good for him, what was osbourne thinking?
This must be stopped and Jowell needs exposing as the rent-a-lie minister of choice.

The Casino scandal is very unpopular and will also help dent Gordo revenue predictions.

I think I agree with Cameron on this. Placing the casino in manchester seems to be a act of madness. It had to be Blackpool if it was going to be done at all. On a positive note, that decision should make turfing out the MPs in Blackpool a little easier.

I wonder how this will play with Manchester City Council who are subsidising Conference?

Does that matter, Michael? I applaud Cameron's decision on this. I've never understood New Labour's passion for gambling. It's so at odds with its heritage.

It's a good move from Cameron. But with yet another setback just how long can George Osborne last?

Osborne was sensibly arguing as shadow for Manchester that our hopes of getting back some presence in the city would be damaged if the Tories came across as supporting another city. Cameron though has recognised the greater good; that Labour's love-in with the gambiling industry has to be challenged.

The Commission's prioritisation of social testing does explain its odd choice of cities across the board. Did Tessa mean this to happen or were the Commssion's terms badly drafted. Another NuLab b****s up?

Does that matter, Michael? No,of course not,but I would be interested in the Council's take on this and the possible financial impact.
I personally agree with Cameron and find the guinea pig idea appalling and I will applaud almost anything that puts Tessa in her place.
Will Cameron now trump Osborne over the latter's unbridled support for private equity which in some instances impacts the poor as much as a tax credit/benefit 'soaking up' casino

"But now, in what must be a deep humiliation for this foolish woman,.......", but what about that other foolish woman, "Letterbox-Lips" always gambling on making a few quid!

Obviously some people are problem gamblers, but I don't think everyone else needs protecting.

If you're unsure of the extent of problem gambling, then rolling out a casino programme stage by stage seems perfectly sensible.

It's the same sort of thinking that has people reflexively damn the Lottery as 'a tax for stupid people'.

And the truth is that problem gamblers already have all sorts of outlets. Tackling their individual is more important than trying to shut down places of temptation. It's the same with drinking.

I have an addictive personality. It doesn't occur to me that other people should have to rein in their own behaviour for my sake.

'Tackling their individual PROBLEMS' sorry.

And frankly I'm much happier with moves to curb smoking in public.

Certainly the upcoming change in the law is disquieting to my liberal sensibilities. But I'm also fed up with coming home from the pub stinking of cigarettes, and it's perfectly clear that mosts smokers aren't courteous enough to consider others.

For all it's flaws, that is a law that actually protects people from the egregious behaviour of others. Denying choice to gamblers does not.

Of course problem gamblers don't just hurt themselves. But they'll always find an avenue to gamble if they're determined to.

Agh! I meant: 'for all ITS flaws'.

Right, that's all from me!

Quite right .

Except that the article says
"In effect the deprived population of a great British city are intended to be used as guinea pigs."

it was/is and ENGLISH city which is being targetted by this bunch of crooks -

they wouldn't do it to a Scottish one .

The "social impact" test is interesting. My understanding is that Blackpool was disregarded because the target gamblers would be hoildaymakers having a bit of a flutter. This would make it difficult to measure the social impact because people would go home and take there problems with them.

By going for Manchester this wouldn't be such a problem and the impact could be measured.

However the Lords, Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments took the following evidence on this

"Professor Collins’ memorandum to us ... stated that “an increase in problem
gambling is likely to be inhibited… if casinos are located where they are
unlikely to encourage people to gamble on impulse”, that is “destination
resort casinos, with a very wide catchment area, are more likely to bring
greater benefits with less costs to local communities than are urban casinos
whose customers come mostly from within the jurisdiction” 4. This view was
corroborated by the Panel’s own digest of the international research on the
impacts of casinos."

So in Manchester it can be measured but in Blackpool it would do less harm. In going for Manchester they have disregarded one of the "Principle Concepts" of the Act (in the first section) which is "protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling."

If you're interested I suggest reading the Report which you can find at this address; http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldmerit.htm

Manchester was only chosen because it WASNT the dome or blackpool. The choice of either of these would have caused accusations of sleaze given they were the two hot favs during the blatant prescott/anschutz breach of the ministerial code. Just because Bliar let him off doesnt change the truth.

The entire casino project has zero popular support and is the cause of deep embarrassment among grass roots Labour members. It is ONLY about sleaze, tax receipts and the Dome.

Jowell+ Prescott+ The Dome + a billionaire = corruption.

The public know the real story; the burden of proof rests with the government after their repeated lies and all they did was cover it up.

Given that the Salford/Moss side part of Manchester already has a problem with drug running,gun crime etc, I dont understand why nulab want to compound their problems by shoving a great big casino in amongst it.
I would have thought that would only encourage the mafia element to proliferate, and you still would not get a true picture of social engineering, just a totally fed up population who would have to add it to their misery.
Give it to Blackpool. They already have a bingo parlour every five yards, and it would be less likely that the home crowd would be the biggest users.

There must always be a balance between freedom of the individual and protecting the weak. I agree that we will never stop the determined addict, but by liberalising the gambling laws we may encourage a lot more to take it up and so become addicts/problem gamblers.

I thought our laws were about right. I think this government has got it wrong and Cameron is taking the right course.

I thought our laws were about right. I think this government has got it wrong and Cameron is taking the right course.

Oh dear this is getting to be a bad habit, I agree with (most of) the Tories again :D

IMHO you can't stop people from having a flutter, nor should you, but there is a big difference between that and shoving it in peoples faces and encouraging it.

Tom Greaves said they'll always find an avenue to gamble if they're determined to.

Exactly, which is why we don't need super casinos.

I'm glad to see OFCOM/ICSTIS cracking down on gaming TV channels also.

I wonder how many people writing about th poor of Manchester here have ever ventured North of Regent's Park. It's a booming, wealthy city.

Voting against this on this basis will only leave Cameron open to ridicule. Surely we should trust people to make their own decisions.

After all, alcohol is probably more dangerous to society than gambling and all manner of front benchers predicted the coming of the apocalypse when pub opening hours were deregulated. Where are they now? Certainly not advocating we return to the nanny state policy of "time, gentleman please."

Isn't "Trust the People" meant to be a Conservative slogan?

its a bad project, dripping with sleaze. No governemnt should be promoting gambling, teher is no upside for society. The only winners are the corruptly chosen license owner and teh taxman.

If people want to gamble they can, we dont have to make it easy for anyone.

Large casino operations go hand in hand with prostitution and drugs. End of story and it is not good trying to pretend otherwise. These big casinos will not be nice fluffy places where Jo Public can go and have a jolly flutter. They will encouraging hard-nosed gaming and all the crap that goes with it. And what is good for Las Vegas is not necessarily good for Britain. The Conservatives should resist the big casino operators at all costs.

I wonder how many people writing about th poor of Manchester here have ever ventured North of Regent's Park. It's a booming, wealthy city

Of course it is, but it has some poor, inner city areas also. As does London of course-Tower Hamlets is one of the poorest places in the UK.

Anyway middle class lives are ruined by gambling also- however much you have someone is willing to take the bet if you want to risk it.

If that makes me a bit 'nanny state socialist' so be it. I've been called worse :D

Dog Biter, as you have already advocated craven surrender to the Taliban and the jihadists of Iraq, the fact that you don't trust people to make sensible decisions about their own money for fear they turn into crack whores is hardly a surprise.

What beats me is that the rest of the party falls for this old testament rubbish.

I won't take them seriously, though, until they start decrying all those tens of thousands of hard working Brits who holiday in Las Vegas every year. Do they all end up as prostitutes with HIV? Err, no.

Of course it is, but it has some poor, inner city areas also
Quite a few poor areas around the outside on the North and East - Gorton for example is one of the poorest parts of the UK but is over on the East side.

Casino's just recycle money - they do nothing productive as with gambling generally, the winners are generally those already with money. If people want casino's let them go to Monte Carlo or Las Vegas and rather have something there that does something productive or creative there instead.

Government increasingly especially from the National Lottery on seems to love to pour money into things with no real merit either in terms of the economy or of technological progress.

The issue here is not whether the experiment of liberalised gambling should be sited in Manchester or wherever. Surely the fact that the rules which used to exist; having to wait 24 hours for membership, not being served alcohol at the gamimng tables etc, have been swept away, should be the point of our attack on this decision.

By all means allow anywhere that wants a casino to allow for that in the local plans produced by their democratically elected local authority and for the operators to decide if they want to go there. You protect the vulnerable by limiting the way in which the gambling is done.

If Blackpool wants six "super-casinos", fine. If Frinton decides to keep them out, as they succesfully did with pubs for 200 years, fine too.

The genuinely "liberal" position is to protect those who might otherwise harm themselves, not to allow people to harm themselves, only if they happen to live in Manchester!

Good move. Encouraging more gambling was madness. Well done DC, this was the right call,


Voting against the super casino only now is expediency at best.As for the media stance certain papers who might or might not have serious gambling problems in their owners family is hardly an independent source of advice. No politician is coming out of any of this farce with any credit.

he should have not opposed this. i am not sure why they are doing this.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker