The government is expected to continue backtracking on gambling in a statement today which will officially scrap the supercasino which had been planned for Manchester.
Unfortunately, in my view, plans for 16 regional casinos will also be confirmed.
Culture secretary Andy Burnham is expected to confirm the smaller projects in a statement to MPs, while repeating the prime minister's opinion that regeneration is not best achieved by supercasinos.
Hazel Blears, communities secretary, is also expected to outline an alternative regenerative package for Manchester where the supercasino was expected to be built.
According to the prime minister's spokesman:
"As we said in July, there is a huge difference in scale in terms of gambling opportunities in a supercasino and smaller casinos."
"What we said was we would work up alternative regeneration packages which did not rely on a supercasino."
Personally, I cannot see the difference between a big building that takes money from people and a small building that takes money away from people.
The false promise that gamblers can actually win is the same. The damage to the lives of their families is the same. The deliberately psycho-addictive qualities of gambling are the same. The harm to many individuals is the same.
Personally, I think the truth is that the government sees now that gambling liberalisation was a really bad policy and would like to drop the policy without losing too much face.
However, saving governmental face is not a good enough reason for permitting the smaller casinos to go ahead.
Letting the smaller casinos go ahead will hurt too many people and the government should officially admit that now.
Bye for now
Rob Hopcott
7 comments:
Quite agree!
Paul, it's good to hear from you again.
I recollect I listed your site with your valuable insights into problems created by gambling but, unfortunately, I lost the reference when I upgraded my template to the new blogger system.
I've had a look through your sites but can't find the references to gambling.
Is there any chance you could let me know where to send people to on your site for the gambling issues stuff?
From your front page, I've reinstated David Hallam - thanks for that :-)
I hope you and yours are well and as turbulent as ever :-)
I am enjoyed that you have a "Culture Secretary"; what a treat.
I like to play seven stud with six others but haven't been in a casino in years. Its nice when you can set up your own game at a local pub (or tavern in my case) and play without the glitz and glitter.
Your blog is very extensive. To which post do I comment?
Personally, I really don't like gambling. I have a hard time saying that it should be illegal, because I like people to have all the rights and choices they can, but I don't get the urge.
Charles, yes, I think a lot of people feel like you.
They don't like gambling. They feel it is somehow rather a distasteful activity. But they can't quite think why or what to do about it.
My position is not to ban it. But I really want to do everything I can to discourage it. The more we discourage it, the fewer people will get hurt. That can't be a bad thing.
It's the same with drugs. They cause harm. But banning them hasn't worked.
The Labour Governments position is completely reprehensible (and I'm a left winger at heart).
The Minister responsible for liberalising gambling (a huge mistake) was actually photographed by a roulette table smiling her head off. She should have been ashamed of herself.
The position on gambling should be the same as it is for cigarettes. We know it does harm so big warning signs should accompany every transaction.
My position on drugs is the same. To provide a legal channel for them with huge accompanying warnings as to the harm they cause.
The problem for any government is the gutter press in the UK and the way they make easy capital from any genuine attempt to solve these social problems.
Faced with pressure from the gutter press, the government caves in, fearful it will lose votes from the majority who read these cynical newspapers.
The way forward is obvious. If people cared whether harm was done to others they would take it immediately.
Thanks for your visit and taking time to comment on this important issue.
How about a contract where you agree to give all your winnings back on your way out, and get your money back if you lose on the way out?
Nice idea, Steve. It makes me think of some gambling ads that are running at the moment which give a statistic such as so many wild card masters tennis entries got through to the quarter final. The voice then makes the statement something like 'It matters more when there is money on it.'
From the addicted punters point of view, it wouldn't have the adrenaline buzz they crave. From the gambling organisations point of view, it wouldn't make them the vast profits they currently enjoy.
The best solution to the problem of gambling is to state the stark facts at each point of gamble.
'If you put money into this slot machine, over a series of transactions, you will lose your money.'
Or, 'if you do this gamble, the odds are stacked such and such against you. Over a series of transactions odds will always be effective.'
Warnings are placed on cigarette packets so why not on gambling points?
Arguably, it's just a valid risk assessment...
Post a Comment