The Daily Telegraph reports today that John Prescott has (rather amusingly) "thrown his weight behind a growing campaign at Westminster to force a rethink of the decision to site Britain's first super-casino in Manchester". Apparently he thinks it should never have gone to Manchester and that the independent advisory panel got it wrong. Tessa Jowell was, apparently, "stunned" by the decision not to award to Blackpool. And now 100 backbench MPs have called for a reversal of the decision. And all I'm left to do is ask, so what??!!
Cowboy John Prescott did his best to get Greenwich the deal and failed. Those in Parliament felt that Blackpool should have got it, but in the end Manchester won because an independent body was set up to decide. Has this government really got its way now for so long that it will challenge everything it doesn't agree with? And with such arrogance. They have effectively set up a body to come up with an answer and if they don't like the answer they turn round and say you got it wrong. Why bother setting it up in the first place if you won't accept their advice? Why waste taxpayers' money with the time and effort it took them to reach an independent decision if you're not interested in the independent decision. This whole casino debate has been a nonsense from the start. It was clear that the government wanted Greenwich ever since Big John was pictured in his Texan hat. Others in the government have clearly wanted Blackpool. Unfortunately, the advisory panel didn't play ball and now that rootin', tootin' John Prescott is throwing his toys out. Pathetic.
Comments
As ye reap...
I don't see why Greenwich can't have one, Blackpool can't have one, and Manchester can't have one too. It was always a bad idea for the Government to create another protected competitive position for one of their pals. Having setup the system, people were always going to be disappointed. In fact, whatever the result, more people were bound to be disappointed than pleased.
If super-casinos are a danger to public health, we should have none of them. If they are acceptable in Manchester, they are acceptable in other cities and towns. The feeble excuses about protecting the public and trialling to see what impact it has, were always a flimsy cover for what was really another case of government sticking its nose where it didn't belong. I hope they all choke on the decision.