All of the papers are reporting that Gordon Brown has killed off Tony Blair's supercasino plans. The Mail can barely contain its delight:
"To his huge credit, Gordon Brown is turning his back on the big-money interests that held his predecessor in thrall and is signalling that Britain's first supercasino is dead in the water. Admittedly, Blair's wretched gambling policy had already become a farce. Only weeks after Manchester was awarded the licence to run this vast new opportunity to exploit the weak and vulnerable, the House of Lords threw out the proposal - and with it, plans for 16 smaller casinos.
But that doesn't alter the significance of what Mr Brown had to say on the subject yesterday. He doesn't repeat Downing Street's arrogant claim last March that the gambling industry is still 'very much alive', despite the Parliamentary vote. He acknowledges frankly that there is 'no consensus' in either the Commons or the Lords. He knows most voters don't want a supercasino. And unlike Mr Blair, he is listening."
Gordon Brown's friend Paul Dacre may have been positive about IDS' marriage report yesterday but today's leader shows that The Mail's affection for the new Prime Minister remains strong.
David Cameron has attacked the manner of the supercasino u-turn - announced at PMQs in response to a question from a Labour backbencher. The Conservative leader said it contradicted Brown's declared wish for a return to Cabinet government: "Suddenly the Government's policy is torn up on the sort of whim of an answer at Prime Minister's questions." I'd prefer the Tories to simply welcome the u-turn and the abandonment of a supercasino that Hugo Swire did so much to successfully oppose.
I think this whole love affair just confirms what we already knew. The Daily Mail is a tabloid, run by opportunistic and deluded individuals and not worth the paper it's written on. They have bought Brown's "change" message hook, line and sinker!
Posted by: chrisblore | July 12, 2007 at 09:13
For three years, Gordon Brown was the Chancellor who didn't raise any objection to these plans, and allowed money to be wasted on the policy. Has that been mentioned I wonder?
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | July 12, 2007 at 09:26
With their victory on this subject maybe they will now put the same effort into the EU referendum campaign. How can the Mail be supportive of a PM who is openly lying to the public about the implications of this treaty? The EU treaty is possibly the most fundemental change to our constitution in modern times and ALL Tory supporters should be firm in their call for a referendum. Those Tory MPs giving Brown ammunition against DC's call for a referendum should either shut-up or be deselected. Mr Clarke please note you speak for nobody in the party, and only 15% of the country, on this subject and are doing much damage to our cause.
Posted by: Steve | July 12, 2007 at 09:28
Andrew Woodman:For three years, Gordon Brown was the Chancellor who didn't raise any objection to these plans, and allowed money to be wasted on the policy. Has that been mentioned I wonder?
Perhaps his thinking was that he knew he could always kill the plan when he took over as PM? I expect over the next few weeks that quite a few Blairite wheezes are going to be chopped - it's the best way for Brown to establish his 'change theory'. The interesting thing to note will be what gets chopped and when. Perhaps CH could help Brown, in the best anti-Punch&Judy spirit by speculating wildly and raising false hopes?
Do we know, any way, that Brown didn't raise objections earlier? It would be the first time in living memory that the Treasury hasn't objected to an idea from another dept.
Posted by: William Norton | July 12, 2007 at 09:51
Well William, it looks like Brown has let all kinds of policy go through, so after a costly feasibility study, he can just scrap it to show he's the change. I wonder how much money has been wasted on this political ego trip of his.
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | July 12, 2007 at 09:57
Were we ever particularly convincing in our opposition to a super-casino? Did it ever really look or feel like a Conservative policy?
Posted by: Andrew Lilico | July 12, 2007 at 10:14
The Mail has been hoodwinked. This is just more spin and no change. There are still going to be large casinos in a number of cities. All he's done is get rid of 1 so-called "super casino" and mainly because the Lords had blocked it. Brown let all this go ahead and was there at the helm all the way through the last 10 years. The Mail will be sorely disappointed if they think he is a fresh new thing,
Matt
Matt
Posted by: Matt Wright | July 12, 2007 at 10:20
Paul Dacre's affection for Brown and caution for Cameron is a class thing in many ways. Dacre identifies with Brown on a personal level. Cameron is just too aloof.
Posted by: CCHQ Spy | July 12, 2007 at 10:29
Brown is clearly listening...to whom though?
Having been Chancellor for 10 years, he can be seen as one with B-Liar on the super-casino project. So the volte face is clearly opportunistic, no change there for NuLab.
The manner of the announcement though, is highly suspicious. A backbencher question drawing a policy decision? methinks a bit of a stitch-up.
So much for Gordo's promise about open government and no more spinning....unlikely i thought at the time, surely the NuLab leopard can't change its skin, it can't.
Posted by: George Hinton | July 12, 2007 at 10:43
"Well William, it looks like Brown has let all kinds of policy go through, so after a costly feasibility study, he can just scrap it to show he's the change. I wonder how much money has been wasted on this political ego trip of his."
The new Chancellor has form on this too - as Transport Secretary he cancelled a huge scheme to introduce trams somewhere in the north/the Midlands (I forget where) despite an eyewatering amount of time, energy and public money being ploughed in to the scheme.
Back to this story, I think the fact that the government's U-turn on the casino issue is seemingly dominating the print news agenda reflects how utterly shambolic the Liberal Democrats are at news management given that their eyecatching tax proposals have been overlooked.
Posted by: Daniel VA | July 12, 2007 at 10:54
This is where Coulson has to earn his corn. A lot of the work of Directors of Comms is done away from the public gaze and the Tories worked very hard to receive a favourable press in the run up to the last Election. Putting aside the huge disappointment of The Sun backing Blair (but not Labour) they did a first rate job.
Because Cameron has effectively operated with a junior press officer as Press Secretary cine he became Leader they are now almost two years behind the curve.
Credit to Hilton - some of the imagery and pictures of DC have been superb but that isn't enough. You have to take the written press seriously because they set the agenda. That means working meticulously on Editors, leader writers and copinion formers.
Operating with a low level media operation has been DC's biggest mistake so far. Lets hope Coulson gets to work quickly!
Posted by: Peach | July 12, 2007 at 10:59
"For three years, Gordon Brown was the Chancellor who didn't raise any objection to these plans"
He was hardly in a position to object- it wasn't his area. Glad this has been dropped :)
I made no secret of my disaproval of his funding a tax cut with abolition of the 10p starting rate whilst at number 10 but from what I've seen of him in number 10 so far, I'm liking- very much so.
Posted by: Comstock | July 12, 2007 at 17:42
Oh come on Comstock. Brown was pretty much in charge of domestic policy. If he was that bothered about this policy from the outset, we would have known about it by now.
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | July 12, 2007 at 17:47
I agree with Andrew Woodman. Brown has been involved in every single decision this administration has made over the last ten years and without his approval, super casinos would never have got the go-ahead in the first place. Comstock, you are falling into precisely the trap that Brown would like you to do.
Posted by: chrisblore | July 12, 2007 at 18:30
So the Mail, a critic of the nanny state, believes in nannying people when it comes to gambling.
Supercasinos don't force people to gamble, they do it out of their own free will. Will the Mail now launch a campaign against people who gamble?
Posted by: Richard | July 12, 2007 at 20:50