Turn on thread page Beta

Supercasino "dead in the water" watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Senior Whitehall sources have told the BBC that the idea of super-casinos was now "dead in the water".

    Manchester MP Graham Stringer said it would be a "weak and bad decision" if the city's successful bid to host the first super-casino did not go ahead.

    The prime minister has said that: "This is an issue on which there is no consensus found in the two Houses of Parliament. In September we will have a report that will look at gambling in our country - the incidence and prevalence of it and the social effects of it. I hope that during these summer months we can look at whether regeneration in the areas for the super-casinos maybe a better way of meeting their economic and social needs than the creation of supercasinos."

    Good news, or bad?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I honestly don't see what this has to do with the government at all, beyond purely logical planning permission.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanGrover)
    I honestly don't see what this has to do with the government at all, beyond purely logical planning permission.
    Mass organised crime? Gambling addiction? Fraud? These are practically synonymous with Casinos. As these are all matters which are important to government, Casinos are indeed part of their remit. Not to mention the fact that until recently they were illegal altogether and it was the government that instituted the change. It now has the right to rescind that change. I don't think the decision to allow them should ever have been taken, but it seems that that is now being corrected.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    To be honest living in Manchester I don;t really see why need this, yes it would create 1600 jobs but there are plenty of other developments going on creating 1000's of jobs. All the casino would do is provide jobs for yet more Polish immigrants.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cage)
    Mass organised crime? Gambling addiction? Fraud? These are practically synonymous with Casinos.
    What are you on about? "Synonymous with"?! What on earth has lead you to believe that any of those things happen at every casino (as would be required by the phrase "synonymous").

    Not to mention the fact that until recently they were illegal altogether and it was the government that instituted the change.
    Only because they banned them in the first place.

    It now has the right to rescind that change.
    It has the "right" to have all black people shot, too. Just because the government can do something, doesn't mean that it should nor that doing so is a good thing. In fact, i'd argue that it's probably the opposite.

    I don't think the decision to allow them should ever have been taken, but it seems that that is now being corrected.
    Not a fan of personal choice and freedom? I'm really glad we have the government to to wrap us up tight at night and make sure we're all safe in case we hurt ourselves.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AT82)
    To be honest living in Manchester I don;t really see why need this, yes it would create 1600 jobs but there are plenty of other developments going on creating 1000's of jobs. All the casino would do is provide jobs for yet more Polish immigrants.
    Yes, this is what I thought; that the Government's main justification for the casino was that it would "bring jobs" to the area was a bit transparent when you consider the fact that any new industry will bring jobs (surely a factory, sports centre, arts venue would bring more jobs as well as cultural/economic regeneration?).

    The social impact of gambling was not really considered when Government first floated this plan; it needs a massive rethink.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cage)
    Mass organised crime? Gambling addiction? Fraud? These are practically synonymous with Casinos. As these are all matters which are important to government, Casinos are indeed part of their remit.
    So where does the line of "things that are important to the government end" and "things that have nothing to do with the government" start? Surely you must be guided by a principle (if we are to prevent the exercising of arbitrary power - see the Civil War) which declares some things to be private and of no business to the government. Allowing the government of the day to exercise power in any field it wants seems to me to be the epitomy of arbitrary power.

    The standard democracy defence is really inadequate, unless some aggregation of people are imbued with infallibilty which allows them to compel other people - paraphrasing a quote I seem to remember: "Democracy is like two lions and a sheep sitting down to decide what to eat."
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanGrover)
    What are you on about? "Synonymous with"?! What on earth has lead you to believe that any of those things happen at every casino (as would be required by the phrase "synonymous").
    Hehheh.

    I was at a fairly large casino myself last night and yes, you're quite right, I noticed none of these things.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm happy the government has decided against it. I thought it was a stupid idea from the start, and a huge waste of money. At least now those however many millions of pounds can be spent on something worthwhile.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spoog!)
    I thought it was a stupid idea from the start, and a huge waste of money. At least now those however many millions of pounds can be spent on something worthwhile.
    It wasn't public money. It was private firms (such as Phillip Anschlutz's) trying to bid for a licence to set up a super casino. If they own the property & are properly regulated to ensure fairness in gambling, why should they stopped from building a big casino on their land?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I was well looking forward to the casino.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The social impact of gambling was not really considered
    And with Manchester being one of the UK's most deprived areas, was it really wise (from all people involved) to build a potential social problem there?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spoog!)
    And with Manchester being one of the UK's most deprived areas, was it really wise (from all people involved) to build a potential social problem there?
    Is a pub a "potential social problem"? Should landowners be prevented from setting up pubs in poor communities?

    Plus, I disagree that a) Manchester is "one of the UK's most deprived areas" and would like to see some evidence; b) that any part of the UK is substantially "deprived"; & c) that even if there were "deprived areas", this somehow allows the government to control who builds what on their own property.

    A good intention - to stop poor people frittering away their money - unfortunately supposes that somebody else is infallibly capable of spending it better than them and thus can claim it. Just because some people are poor doesn't stop them from being people, and thus owning themselves, and thus free to spend their money in whatever fashion they choose to.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This is just typical. Instead of leaving people to just get on with their own business in peace, the government has to first ban peaceable activities on pseudo-religious moralistic groups, then decide to reintroduce them to fund social regeneration programmes on the cheap, then stage some contrived 'competition' instead of just unbanning the damn things, making it look like they're providing some sort of service when actually theyre doing nothing of the sort, and then undertake a wild and completely inconsistent U-turn for seemingly no reason at all.

    I despair at this country sometimes.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    So where does the line of "things that are important to the government end" and "things that have nothing to do with the government" start? Surely you must be guided by a principle (if we are to prevent the exercising of arbitrary power - see the Civil War) which declares some things to be private and of no business to the government. Allowing the government of the day to exercise power in any field it wants seems to me to be the epitomy of arbitrary power.

    The standard democracy defence is really inadequate, unless some aggregation of people are imbued with infallibilty which allows them to compel other people - paraphrasing a quote I seem to remember: "Democracy is like two lions and a sheep sitting down to decide what to eat."
    It is the responsibility of central government to protect the people against the potential effects of gambling. That applies to both the crime aspect and the gambling addiction problem. It's all very well to cry 'nanny state', which in some policy decisions I would accept, but gambling has never been a part of Britain, it doesn't need to be a part of Britain. Once gambling become entrenched in your economy and culture, it is very difficult to get rid of them again when they begin to have nasty effects. It was a poor decision to introduce them in the first place, it is a good decision to cut our losses and stop it from going ahead.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cage)
    It is the responsibility of central government to protect the people against the potential effects of gambling.
    GYAYHRRGHGHGHH
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cage)
    It is the responsibility of central government to protect the people against the potential effects of gambling...gambling has never been a part of Britain, it doesn't need to be a part of Britain.
    Then why have they not said anything about stopping the 16 regular casinos being built?

    Everything about this says Labour sleaze and waste.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _jackofdiamonds)
    Then why have they not said anything about stopping the 16 regular casinos being built?

    Everything about this says Labour sleaze and waste.
    It's not these small establishments which are the problem, although they do still encourage addiction, but it's the Supercasinos with high rollers that bring in the big crime bosses etc.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    A good intention - to stop poor people frittering away their money - unfortunately supposes that somebody else is infallibly capable of spending it better than them and thus can claim it. Just because some people are poor doesn't stop them from being people, and thus owning themselves, and thus free to spend their money in whatever fashion they choose to.
    Nevertheless, my own grandfather (separated from his wife decades ago) was, until his death, an alcoholic. He spent more than £10 from his state pension in the bookies each week, and pretty much everything else on booze. He was malnourished, because he couldn't afford to eat properly with the money he had left.

    It is certainly worthwhile to ask why people gamble. In almost all cases, returns are disproportionately low given the chances of winning (bookies, casino owners, Camelot, etc, all take a cut). Where the gambler is aware of this situation, the only "good" explanations for their gambling are that they would value a large sum of money as disproportionately more valuable than a small sum of money - £1,000 is more than a hundred times more valuable than £10 - which seems to fly directly in the face of the law of diminishing marginal utility. Alternatively, there is the possibility that the gambler sees the entertainment value of gambling as making up the shortfall in the odds of winning.

    Or perhaps the individual concerned is masochistic and delights in the personal defeat and inferiority that results from gambling. Or perhaps the individual is deluded, and reckons they have far better chances of winning than they really do. Or perhaps they are so desperate for a sense of belonging to a community and feeling accepted that they gamble away everything they have in order to participate in the social atmosphere of the bookies; it is in such a setting that they seek to conform to the expectations of others, and these expectations are overwhelmingly devastating to the material living standards of the individual concerned.

    The earlier to explanations for gambling, where either of them are held and considered to be the motivation for the majority are justification for permitting it on a large and organised scale. The latter explanations for gambling relate to psychological problems most prevalent amongst those in relative poverty (for it is that poverty which produces the psychological problems, and the problems which perpetuate relative poverty, to a large extent). They are therefore, i would consider, adequate justification for denying planning permission for the construction of casinos and organised gambling facilities in relatively deprived areas.

    This isn't a massive infringement of liberty - it's not as if the government is spending other people's money for them or stopping them from gambling altogether. Putting a bit of geographic distance between the council estates and areas of concentrated deprivation on the one hand, and casinos and bookies on the other though, can only create some disincentive to poor people frittering a hell of a lot more than their money away.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If less and less people are smoking they're gonna have to raise taxes somewhere else. Mass binge drinking seems to have been just a temporary solution.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 13, 2007
Poll
Should Banksy be put in prison?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.