NationStates Jolt Archive


UK Supercasino - who wins?

New Burmesia
30-01-2007, 17:57
Today's news:

Manchester has been chosen as the surprise location of Britain's first Las Vegas-style super-casino.

The decision is a blow for Blackpool and London's former Millennium Dome, which were the bookmakers' favourites. The licence will allow Manchester to build a venue for up to 1,250 unlimited-jackpot gaming machines. Meanwhile, licences were granted for new "large" casinos to Great Yarmouth, Hull, Newham, Middlesbrough, Solihull, Milton Keynes, Leeds and Southampton. The Casino Advisory Panel also granted licences for "small" casinos to Bath and North East Somerset, Dumfries and Galloway, East Lindsey, Luton, Scarborough, Swansea, Torbay and Wolverhampton. Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell said MPs would be given the final say - via a Commons vote - on the proposals. Manchester was a 16-1 outsider at the bookmakers to be selected as a test-bed for the UK's first regional "resort" casino.

'Regeneration'
There has been speculation that more super-casino licences might be awarded but Ms Jowell told MPs that there would definitely be no more granted during this Parliament. Any further casinos would have to be approved by parliament and would not be considered until there had been a "proper evaluation over time" of the social and economic effects of the 17 new casinos. She said: "Las Vegas is not coming to Great Britain... British casinos will be subject to new controls, which will be the strictest in the world." Stephen Crow, chairman of the independent Casino Advisory Panel, said Manchester had been chosen because of its "very thorough consultation" with the local community and "the way it dealt with questions of problem gambling". "Manchester has a catchment area for a casino second only to that of London, and it is an area in need of regeneration at least as much as any of the others we observed," he added. Professor Crow told BBC News 24 the panel's decision was "watertight" if it came to a legal challenge from any losing bidder. Councillor Richard Leese, leader of Manchester City Council, said: "This is fantastic news for Manchester, and the region.

'Smack in the face'
"Manchester has an unrivalled track record in the delivery of major regeneration schemes so we are confident we have the expertise to deliver a world-class venue, creating thousands of new jobs for local people." However, Doug Garrett, chief executive of ReBlackpool, the urban regeneration company which worked on the town's bid, called the decision a "smack in the face". "It is tragic. It is very difficult to see how they have drawn their conclusions," he added. Previous assessments had put Manchester at the bottom of the seven bidders, while all local government bodies and regeneration agencies in the region had backed Blackpool, Mr Garrett said. "It is a very strange decision. We need to look into the rationale. Manchester has come from nowhere. It was a real, real dark horse," he added. A spokesman for Dome bidders AEG said: "We are very disappointed that the London Borough of Greenwich has not been recommended as the location for the first regional casino. "We are taking time to examine the findings in full and considering our position."

Entertainment complex
Manchester's bid organisers said it would regenerate a poor area in the east of the city, promising a £265m investment and 2,700 direct and indirect jobs. The casino would be based at Sportcity in the Beswick area, close to the City of Manchester Stadium. The proposed site will also contain an entertainment complex with a range of facilities such as a multi-purpose arena, a swimming pool, an urban sports venue, restaurants, bars, a nightclub and a hotel.
Conservative leader David Cameron said: "I think it was the right decision that it went to the north of England and actually it's going to have a regeneration impact. "I've nothing against Greenwich at all, but, after all, London did get the Olympics and so I think that either Manchester or Blackpool... probably made more sense." Liberal Democrat culture spokesman Don Foster said: "Any further increase in the number of super-casinos, without a full study of the impact on Manchester, would be against the wishes of Parliament and the concerns of many local communities."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6312707.stm

A quote from Have Your Say sums it up nicely for me:

"I would not use a super casino or any other type for that matter. That a labour government should sanction this woeful development beggars belief. These developments are inevitably positioned in deprived areas for the reason that the poor are the obvious punters. The whole thing is shameful.

John Hyett, Sudbury, United Kingdom "

It seems every day one thinks "how can this government make things any worse" it shits an answer straight into your lap, it seems. Nobody in this country wants Supercasinos and the crime, poverty and addiction, thank you very much.

So, my question is, who do you think will win from this, and the 10s of other developments across the country?
Infinite Revolution
30-01-2007, 18:52
the only people that are going to win from this are the casino owners. this filtering down of wealth idea is pure bullshit.
Ashmoria
30-01-2007, 19:04
nobody in the UK wants super casinos....

are there polls verifying that? if no one wants them, who is going to patronize them?
Vetalia
30-01-2007, 19:06
Hell, if they don't want the casinos they can always build them in the US. I for one wouldn't mind having a supercasino in the Columbus area...the kind of tax money casinos make is incredible. Not to mention casinos are fun places to begin with...talk about boosting tourism.
Underdownia
30-01-2007, 19:11
:eek: I was sure Blackpool was going to win it. It would just somehow fit better there. Oh well. I wonder what proportion of the government's tax take on this will be spent on the therapies of the gambling addicts it will create.
Greyenivol Colony
30-01-2007, 19:11
Casinos are a tax on misplaced hope.

The hit the poorest in society the hardest and do nothing but widen poverty. Gambling is a disgusting practice that ruins millions of lives, and I despair at this latest developement.
Call to power
30-01-2007, 19:17
I don’t mind the new casino (some) people are old enough to make there own decisions

Yes I never liked the idea of a nanny state...
Compulsive Depression
30-01-2007, 19:20
Banning casinos won't stop gambling nearly as surely as teaching probability theory.
The Tribes Of Longton
30-01-2007, 19:30
OH MANCHESTER! IS WONDERFUL!
OH MANCHESTEERRR IIISS WOOONDERRRRFUUUUUL!
*this part of song deleted for profanity*
OH MANCHESTEERRR IIISS WOOONDERRRRFUUUUUL!

So er, yeah. I'll be going.
Arinola
30-01-2007, 19:31
Meh I don't want Supercasinos because I don't like the idea of people spendng mahusive sums of money on something your incredibly unlikely to win. The fact they placed it in Manchester is even worse. It's hardly the Las Vegas of the UK.
New Burmesia
30-01-2007, 20:18
Banning casinos won't stop gambling nearly as surely as teaching probability theory.
Casinos aren't banned in the UK at all. This new idea is to allow casinos to have completely unlimited jackpots and massively increases the amount of machines and area thay can have. There's nothing already to stop people gambling if they want to, but these supercasinos take it onto a whole new level.
Rhursbourg
30-01-2007, 20:53
cant belive they want to put a casino even a small one in area as if East Lindsey isn't underfunded as it is
Compulsive Depression
30-01-2007, 20:58
Casinos aren't banned in the UK at all. This new idea is to allow casinos to have completely unlimited jackpots and massively increases the amount of machines and area thay can have. There's nothing already to stop people gambling if they want to, but these supercasinos take it onto a whole new level.

Yeah, I know. But if I'd've dressed it up properly it wouldn't've looked as pretty.
Darkest Empires
30-01-2007, 20:59
i think they are hoping that building a supercasino will help bring money into the area and regenerate it. im just annoyed newcastle didnt win it lol
Nag Ehgoeg
30-01-2007, 21:17
I'm a Brit and I'm pro-super-casino.

Why?

Why not!

We have a National Lottery. We have a European Lotto. As a nation, we gamble.

There's a fruit machine in every pub and kebab shop in the country.

Those who want to gamble away large sums of money do it on the horses anyway.

So how about people STFU and accept that adults are capable of making their own decisions as to what they want to do with their own money!

Yes, people will choose to waste all their money in a casino. And yes, they will get kicked out of their home etc etc etc.

The thing we should be addressing is the fact they'll say "but I was addicted and had a disease - you must now give me money!"

People make stupid choices to escape reality. And they will make these choices regardless of whether or not casino's have limits.

If you're concerned about the poor getting poorer - then go campaign for equal wages and to get the unemployed working!
If you're concerned about a rise in crime - then how about standing up for Britian's underfunded, undermanned, under equiped police force?
If you're concerned about people making stupid choices - then how about giving a shout out for our education system (my mother is a teacher who can't find anything but temp work because of budgeting issues)!

But for the love of mother and child, don't give me that sodding, bleeding heart "but the government needs to control everyone's lives or else bad stuff happens" line.

Casino - A place where the stupid get poorer by buying "entertainment" and the entrepreneurs get richer from exploiting willing victims.
Crime - people demanding money from the hardworking because of their "addiction".
Consent - A wonderful thing.
IL Ruffino
30-01-2007, 21:55
nobody in the UK wants super casinos....

are there polls verifying that? if no one wants them, who is going to patronize them?

Tourists?
New Burmesia
30-01-2007, 23:10
I'm a Brit and I'm pro-super-casino.

Why?

Why not!

We have a National Lottery. We have a European Lotto. As a nation, we gamble.

There's a fruit machine in every pub and kebab shop in the country.

Those who want to gamble away large sums of money do it on the horses anyway.
In that case, why do we need any more, if people who want to gamble can do so anyway?

So how about people STFU and accept that adults are capable of making their own decisions as to what they want to do with their own money!

Yes, people will choose to waste all their money in a casino. And yes, they will get kicked out of their home etc etc etc.
Nevertheless, we regulate the things in society which can be dangerous to the individual. That's why we have "smoking causes cancer" on big letters on packets of cigarettes, and all booze adverts have 'drink sensibly' on them in small letters.

The thing we should be addressing is the fact they'll say "but I was addicted and had a disease - you must now give me money!"
Gambling addiction is not to be sniffed at. Nevertheless, if you want to remove the controls on an industry, one has to be prepared to deal with the effects of doing so.

People make stupid choices to escape reality. And they will make these choices regardless of whether or not casino's have limits.
And?

If you're concerned about the poor getting poorer - then go campaign for equal wages and to get the unemployed working!
If you're concerned about a rise in crime - then how about standing up for Britian's underfunded, undermanned, under equiped police force?
If you're concerned about people making stupid choices - then how about giving a shout out for our education system (my mother is a teacher who can't find anything but temp work because of budgeting issues)!
What gives you the impression I don't?

But for the love of mother and child, don't give me that sodding, bleeding heart "but the government needs to control everyone's lives or else bad stuff happens" line.
Crap aside, even the most rabid Tory would support smoking/drink warnings to protect the individual, and ban sale of Alcohol and Tobacco to minors. THe pronciple is the same.

Casino - A place where the stupid get poorer by buying "entertainment" and the entrepreneurs get richer from exploiting willing victims.
Another good reason for keeping it controlled, not banned.

Crime - people demanding money from the hardworking because of their "addiction".
More crap.

Consent - A wonderful thing.
And you can consent to gambling already, as you already pointed out.
Cosmo Island
31-01-2007, 03:49
Yeah, lets ban this super casino. I mean, why should poor people gain some enjoyment in an otherwise fairly miserable life? Lets ban alcohol and tobacco while we're at it. I mean what's so important about people actually spending their money on something they enjoy?

There are far more important matters to reducing poverty than restriciting gambling in a selection of major cities.
Sarkhaan
31-01-2007, 04:39
nny that they're going "Las Vegas" style...the largest and most profitable casino in the world (Foxwoods) is in Connecticut (Uncasville), with yet another of the largest and most profitable (was once 2nd on the list, but I'm not sure about current rankings) only 8 miles away, also in Uncasville (Mohegan Sun).
Marrakech II
31-01-2007, 05:34
Burn all the casinos down. They are evil I tell ya. At least though your casinos in the UK will pay taxes im sure. The "Native American" ones dont in my state. They just transfer wealth from the middle class and they get rich. No real benefits outside of the "Native American" reservation. It is a big scam and I think more areas should ban them.
Andaluciae
31-01-2007, 05:53
Meh.

Idiot tax.