Posted by Jim Mackrell on Sunday Feb 04, 21:06
First of all let me say that I believe that Manchester winning the battle to secure the only super casino in the East of the City is a great thing.
On the day of the announcement I heard John Leech speaking on radio saying it was a bad idea. He later released to the press a statement saying that we ought to have a referendum on the issue, presumably open to all people who live in the City of Manchester.
Given that John is an MP and also a Councillor in the City he has more votes than most in deciding this. I think it safe to say he will be voting against at every opportunity.
What do Withington people think about this rather unusual device of a local referendum? Should the people of Withington, Wythenshawe and Blackley have a veto over the Council's bid?
Does anybody know if John Leech has the support of the Lib Dem group on this issue or is he loning it again?
Does John Leech have the support of his parliamentary colleagues for his stance.
And finally, what does it say about John Leech that he is against a proposal that will bring £100 million per year to our City and bring much needed investment and jobs into one of the most deprived areas of our City?
I look forward to hearing your views.
+ tags coming soon
( 111 Comments )
Adele
Sunday Feb 04, 21:52
http://adeleslabourblog.blogspot.com
Personally I think John Leech has well and truly lost it. I'm actually quite worried because he is putting that investment in Manchester at risk and it is investment that is desperately needed to create jobs and opportunities in one of the poorest areas of our city. Perhaps I'd have more respect for John if regardless of politics, he just once put Manchester first. But no he's a member of a liberal democrat group that consistently vote against measures such as ASBOs, regeneration for East Manchester, the Commonwealth Games. Perhaps they just can't take the fact that Labour in Manchester is achieveing something for Manchester people.
peter h
Sunday Feb 04, 21:55
I don't recall any local consultation as to whether we want a casino. So a local referendum's as good an idea as anything.
you could bring millions of inward investment and job opportunties equally by opening an enormous brothel . Doesn't make it right to do so though
Jim Mackrell
Sunday Feb 04, 22:07
Peter H. I will defer to your greater knowledge of brothels. But £100 million per year??
Alan
Monday Feb 05, 08:58
Perhaps John can get a few of his cronies together, make a few banners and recreate the Christie farce. He loves it, a new project to get his teeth into. Being completely incompetent as an MP this is a blessing in disguise for him. As opposed to tackling the real issues and getting media coverage for them, why not tackle/ oppose something that will create jobs and assist in Manchesters regeneration.... this man has got to go, he's a complete joke, has no clue as to what he's doing. That guy who looked like swampy at the debates in Didsbury pre election could have done a better job than this idiot!
Dave
Monday Feb 05, 11:11
ASBO's are a joke. Having worked with young offenders in the South Manchester region, I know only too well that they are just away of keeping prisons from bursting point... oh dear that didn't work then under Labour did it Adele? As for East Manchester getting a giant Casino, well I am sure the hard up folk of East Manchester can't wait to take to spend the little money that they have!
I grant you that the Commonwealth Games was excellent (even though I am not a sport fan), and it was a shame that the Lib Dems didn't support it all the way through.
peter h
Monday Feb 05, 17:38
it also strikes me as desperation that this supposedly "great" city has reached a point where it regards casinos as a means of regeneration. Sad, very, very sad. Is that what we've come to?
Sue
Monday Feb 05, 19:03
At the Executive the day after the decision was announced the Lib Dems could't make their mind up whether it was good or bad. No change there then! Obviously just waiting to see whether it's a success, when they'll claim they were behind it all along!
There will be plenty of consultation - as anyone who has looked at the bid or read the announcement knows. the casino is the anchor - the real prize is the development around that - a new leisure complex, hotel, arena, etc, etc. Anyone who doesn't think that's welcome has obviously never been to East Manchester
Jim Mackrell
Monday Feb 05, 19:08
Dave, The good people of East Manchester have thus far managed to walk by bookmakers, the dog track and a host of other betting establishments without suffering from an irresistable urge to hand over the entirety of their wages.
They may however decide to go ice skating, take in a concert or use some of the other myriad of facilities that will be on the site. Or they may just go there to work. Maybe its that kind of patronising attitude that prevents people from supporting this City? Some people are against any big thing we do to improve this City. Just glad they don't run it.
sedgelypark
Monday Feb 05, 19:24
And let's not forget that if it had been left up to Fib Dems then there would have been Eastlands development at all as they didn't want the Games.
Oh...and then they did.
Oh..and then they said they created it.
Oh...then simon Ashley won the 10,000 metres and the pole vault.
Oh...and then they put out a Focus leaflet and slagged off John Leech.
Typical day for the guardians of our communities..bless them.
If onky they had put the same effort into creating a vision for our city as they did thinking up lies for their Hocus Focus leaflets.
Jim Mackrell
Tuesday Feb 06, 19:45
Put very well by Big Fat Dave on Adele's blog..
big fat dave said...
Eh, up? Off t' casino to piss me wages down t' drain!
02 February 2007 08:50
peter h
Tuesday Feb 06, 22:14
so you lot don't see anything intrinsically immoral in gambling? It doesnt worry you that the proposed owner allegedly used to sanction-bust in south africa? that all the profits from this will leave the country and go to south africa? that a fair percentage of those profits will come from people who can't afford to lose that money? Nothing wrong there? Nothing to give you any paise to think?
Adele
Wednesday Feb 07, 00:07
Have to say agree with the comments made by Jim Mackrell when talking about East Manchester.
However, in other news when cooking dinner last night John Leech and Tony Lloyd came on the news.
Leech was like, ooh perhaps we can't put a casino in a residential area. I personally think that his actions are putting the investment at risk.
What Tony Lloyd said was very sensible. Its East Manchester that desperately needs the regeneration. Putting it in the city centre would be fairly pointless.
Dave
Wednesday Feb 07, 09:48
Fair point Jim. My comment regarding the Casino was rather hasty.
I still stick by the ASBO comment though. I know the JRF (and other social policy organisations) also back up my claims about them not being very effective.
Jack Pott
Wednesday Feb 07, 11:38
I go back to my initial points (odd to be agreeing with Peter). Bottom line, it's regen at a huge ethical and moral cost. Just search the BBC website for a minute to find out levels of personal debt in this country, social demographics of who is more likely to gamble by percentage of their earnings etc etc.
And if you can get past that point, how come Manchester's need is greater than Blackpool's at this moment in time?
A mega regen for Blackpool equals the shot in the arm it desperately needs. Extra UK tourists stops people getting on planes and screwing over the environment.
Short-sighted, parochial and irresponsible. End of. This back-slapping, big-business schmoozing and lack of contrition is very unattractive and more reminscent of Tory values, than democratic socialism.
peter h
Wednesday Feb 07, 19:48
thank you mr pott. "tory values" sums it up nicely.
Sedgelypark
Wednesday Feb 07, 23:31
Peter, the same Tory values that drive the Fibs to oppose ID cards just like their Tory mates.
A small point about this patronising middle class twaddle that the working class oiks in East Manc will sell their kids to feed money into the slots.
The bid for the Manc casino outlines what the council intends to do about any growth in gambling addiction. A fact glossed over by the fibs.
Of course, the good people of East manc might decide not to gamble and use the swimming pool that will be built as part of the devlopment or maybe have a look round the shops that will come in.
But, Peter, this isn't about the merits of gambling or not. People gamble and it isn't illegal. I don't gamble and having been to Vegas I think it's boring but I don't mind having a supercasino if bring in millions of pounds worth of investment.
But the real issue is Leech and the Fibs are facing both ways yet again. We're not sure about it...we'll have to wait and see if it's a success then we'll say we always supported it.
The simple question for Leech is: do you support millions of pounds worth of investment or on a point of principle do you oppose it?
Yes or no? Answers on a Focus leaflet near you...not!
sedgelypark
Wednesday Feb 07, 23:34
Peter, how do you feel about the Fib in Burnley who faced with the choice of a BNP councillor or a Labour Councillor to sit on a local regen committee decided to vote for the Nazi.
That's the Fibs all over. Always keen to lecture us on their democractic purity and yet vote for a fascist party full of Holocaust deniers.
Peter, even you and/or Simon 'Commonwealth Games champion' Ashley can't justify this.
Jim Mackrell
Thursday Feb 08, 01:08
Well said Mr Sedgelypark. The whole point is that the casino is but the anchor. The people of East Manchester have not been nominated as problem gamblers by this successful bid.
In fact the independant team felt that the East Manchester bid was best equipped to do two things:-
1 - Put the systems in place for public consultation and best address problems that may arise.
And
2- Best make use of the regeneration opportunities that a resort complex, anchored by the casino could achieve.
Only the Lib Dems or the Tories who do not care would disagree.
Those who really represent Manchester have done a top job and East manchester deserves the jobs. The whole region will benefit from the opportunities that arise and we were a better choice than second placed Glasgow. Not that I have anything against Glasgow but better for the North West that it was in the East of Our City.
Jack Pott
Thursday Feb 08, 09:17
..and my question to the yah-boo Labour boys...is Manchester's need for a casino/regen greater than Blackpool's?
And what about all the Labour backbenchers signing the motion to condemn this decision?
Let's cut the playground politics and get to the substance eh?
One Armed Bandit
Thursday Feb 08, 12:31
Jack Pott is Jack Potty surely. Blackpool fought its corner and lost. The sour grapes they are now demonstrating is perhpas but one of the reasons they didn't get it.
Dave
Thursday Feb 08, 13:16
Sedgelypark, another reason why I stopped voting Labour was due to the ID cards? Why on earth do we need more ID, we have plenty. I don't want my taxes spent on a useless piece of plastic. The police have enough powers to do their job. I would prefer Labour spent my taxes on improving the education system and the health system.
Jack Pott
Thursday Feb 08, 13:22
Bandit...question again...who's need is better. What about the stream of Labour MPs now crying 'foul.' And what does this the decision say about the political process, influence and fairness?
So yes, throw a party but Labour has definitely p*ssed on Blackpool's promenade...again.
Alan
Thursday Feb 08, 16:26
Who cares about Blackpool, I'd sooner deep fry my arm and eat it that spend a day in scally paradise. Manchester was the right choice!
Jim Mackrell
Thursday Feb 08, 20:31
Let's be clear. If you represent Blackpool or a nearby area then you need to speak up for their case.
If however, you are a Manchester MP then you need to do your job and represent Manchesters best interests. Not only has the Withington MP done neither, but even his acolytes here have failed to construct a reasonable defence of his actions.
There has been no answer from any Lib Dem on where their group stands on this issue and no comment on the referendum idea floated by our MP and a desparate attack on the Labour Party who succeeded in bringing this investment to our City against the odds.
Is this how inane the opposition have become?
sedgelypark
Thursday Feb 08, 22:39
Jack P, if you care to read what's said here properly you'll see it's not simply 'yah-boo' Labour hacks mouthing off but anti-Leech voters woh are concerned his inept showing as an MP is making a mockery of our great city.
Now to business.
The EDM put down by the Blackpool MPs is the correct response to Manchester getting a casino they thought was in the bag for the ailing seaside giant. Messers Humble et al are doing their jobs as MPs as they should.
Personally I think Blackpool needs a casino and soon but now we have it we should work with it.
Jim M is right to point out - AGAIN - that the Manc bid included measures to deal with gambling addiction.
It's also worth considering if the new onwers are relying on the people of East Manc alone to play the slots they will soon be out of business.
All we are asking is Leech to make a simple statement: is he FOR or AGAINST the casino? You can't be both unless you're a fib.
Now, on to the referendum/let's defer making our position clear idea. You could argue that the General Election is where people vote for things like whether a Government should introduce supercasinos. Or is leech suggesting that we should have referendums whenever there is a difficult decisions to be made. That why we elect MPs even part-time ones like Two Jobs.
But as Tessa Jowell pointed out when she really slapped down Leech in the Commons there was widespread local consulation as part of the bid which Leech would have known if he;d bothered to read the bid. He really is thick bless him.
I often wonder how many stars he got at McDonalds. He's certainly got none at Westminister.
Adele
Friday Feb 09, 00:11
Leech seemed on the TV and this is only my interpretation so don't sue me please.
To be for the casino in Manchester, to have some reservations about the social problems it may create and to be very against it being placed in a residential area.
peter h
Friday Feb 09, 00:35
Where the hell was this "widespread consultation" about the casino? I heard of no such thing, nor did anybody I know.
And, you lot, get real. In case you don't understand the consequences, the adult population of this country has a current AVERAGE debt of 140% of it's annual income. We are the most indebted population in Europe by a mile, either 50% higher than the European average .
So what does Labour do? It introduces the concept of super-casinos round the country.
Can you not get your head round this? We're in debt, so we introduce the mechanism for people to get even more in debt with nothing to show for it except a few shattered dreams as they try to get rich quick.
And make no mistake, that is what they'll be trying to do.That's the point of introducing gaming machines with £1 million jackpots. And if you think people will merrily nip in, spend 50p, smile and so "oh well, better luck next time", then you're living in the same cloud cuckoo land as the casinos' victims - oops, sorry, customers.
Time was, when morality still meant something to Labour, that they'd have fought tooth and nail to keep such garbage out of manchester.
As for what lib dems think about it, I dont give a flying f***. This is about more than party politics.
Alan
Friday Feb 09, 08:26
"And make no mistake, that is what they'll be trying to do.That's the point of introducing gaming machines with £1 million jackpots. And if you think people will merrily nip in, spend 50p, smile and so "oh well, better luck next time", then you're living in the same cloud cuckoo land as the casinos' victims - oops, sorry, customers."
THEIR BLOODY CHOICE!!!!!!!
Jack Pott
Friday Feb 09, 09:14
Alan - your comments re. Blackpool are simply contemptuous. I'm sure Thatcher is proud of you.
Sedgley - ok, there's your (occasionally puerile) rants about Leech and his well-charted ineffectualism. I'm not disagreeing on the basis of those. But you simply don't have the arguments on the Blackpool vs Manchester issue, nor the ability to look at this in a non-parochial manner. Hence the strength of feeling amongst politicans outside our city walls. A little understanding goes a long way.
And the idea of putting measures in place to tackle gambling debt is akin to throwing a ball into a fast-flowing river for a dog that can't swim.
" A society without responsibility is the enemy of the society
built on merit and hard work." (Blair, 1994). Erm....isn't that an apt description of Britain, circa 2007?
sedgelypark
Friday Feb 09, 20:59
Peter, I really wish you woulod stop banging about everyone being in debt and gambling will make it worse.
I'm probably overexposed financially but that's becuase I have daft things lke mortgages, car loans etc that everyone has.
Now, like most other debt ridden people I don't intend to gamble at the supercasino so you can't simply blame out debt mountain on people being daft and gambling their kids and livers away.
Simple fact is that those who gamble will do so anyway no matter what the debt so don't keep onnecting 'ordinary' debt and gambling debt as there is no proven connection as you well know.
Jack, keep up. I've made it clear that Blackpool had a very strong case to get a casino and as someone who loves the resort I think it is long overdue. But we have the casino so now we have to make it work.
Dom
Friday Feb 09, 21:59
S.Park...
The new super casino will mean more gamblers in Manchester. The debt mountain isn't there because of the casinoes I agree, but casinoes, and specifically a super casino, will make it that much worse. Yes, it will make it worse no matter what you think. People may well like to use the various facilities there, but people will still use the casino for its primary function which is, y'know, gambling their money away.
Alan... It might well be there choice, but I think that government has a duty to protect society's vulnerable. And their comes a point where the government has to curtail freedoms to a certain extent for the protection of those to whom the freedom would be damaging.
Dom
Friday Feb 09, 22:37
Also S.Park. You say that Jowell put Leech in his place in the Commons. I don't see how she did, as there has been no public consultation as far as I or anybody I am acquainted with knows.
Chris Paul
Saturday Feb 10, 01:19
http://chrispaul-labouroflove.blogspot.com/2007/01/cllr-john-leech-mp-not-working-for.html
Is it not a fact that the casino is going to be 7% of the floorspace? Or thereabouts? Which emans 93% NOT casino.
Jack Pott
Saturday Feb 10, 14:57
Brilliant point Chris. That means I only have a 1 in 14 chance of gambling when I visit.
Muppet.
Alan
Sunday Feb 11, 12:43
Dom, if the Government has a duty to protect the vulnerable then maybe they should assess each individuals personal credit and if it is poor then they should be banned from gambling? Maybe the Government should ban gambling all together?? where does it stop? I think an earlier post stated that regardless of whether the Casino is there or not, gambling will continue at the dogs; the races, bookies, football matches etc. I just genuinely don't see what the big bloody fuss is about??
The argument is about as sound as fat people taking McDonalds to court for selling burgers and fries!! If you don't want to be fat then stop blody eating; if you don't want to loose your money then don't gamble!! It's simple, the Government has a responsibility to a point but I don't see why other people should suffer or miss out purely because a minority can't take control of their lives.
Jack Pott, as for you, what is so contemptuous about my comment! I went to Blackpool last year.... big mistake, covered in litter, full of scallys and dodgy rides, a super casino isn't going to change things there. The only thing that would improve Blackpool is to declare it a state of emergency and send the Army in!
peter h
Sunday Feb 11, 18:28
of course people will continue gambling, and it is their choice. But it is basically a vice. So I don't see why a labour government should be trying to promote it, or you sad lot should try and claim it as some magnificent victory for our city. It ain't. As for you Chris, if it's only 7% of the floor space, and 93% is other things, the answer is simple - kick out the 7% and keep the 93%. No doubt those nice magnanimous developers will still provide all those nice features nobody objects to. Then maybe it WOULD be a feather in Labour's cap.
Chris Paul
Tuesday Feb 13, 01:47
http://chrispaul-labouroflove.blogspot.com/2007/01/cllr-john-leech-mp-not-working-for.html
It's 7% of the floorspace Peter H but because it is a very popular entertainment for rich touristy people (for whom it is marketed, priced and suited) with more money than sense it is extraordinarily profitable. In fact they don't even have more money than sense. They simply choose to spend £30 or £50 or £100 on a night out every now and then instead of going to a football match or for a gourmet meal or whatever.
This anchors the whole development, all the jobs and all the multipliers for our economy. Without the 7% the 93% simply falls over and nothing is built that is remotely akin to these jobs, community facilities and economic benefits.
On the question of the referendum my question for John Leech or any of his cronies is this:
There are now a considerable number of Lib Dem controlled Town Halls. Mostly for very short tenancies as they get found out quickly, but quite a few at any one time.
What proportion of these authorities have conducted all voter referenda on ANYTHING over the past twelve months?
Say on extending Glamorgan's Cricket Ground into local parks and thereby stealing our Ashes Test? Or stealing parts of is it Stanley Park for Liverpool FC? Or removing the subsidy from a much loved Bristol railway while pretending to back our Metro? Or screwing all the Town Hall workers in Leeds in a Lib-Con conspiracy? Or raiding reserves for years in Liverpool to play petty politics with Council Tax then cancelling their famous Pops series with little notice when it all comes home to roost? Having just carried out a tendering process that made it cheaper. Or deciding the week after getting control to throw all the regeneration grants in Newcastle back at the government as they'd have to demolish some houses to rebuild the communities?
How many referenda?
And what do they understand by representative democracy?
Are they right when they don't hold referenda?
Or are they right when they demand one on this?
Or can they really have it both ways?
Let's face it John Leech's position on this is untenable. He has not properly represented local people's interests. He has shot his mouth off - probably thinking that we wouldn't get it anyway - and lived to regret it.
Is he going to bring his puritan misery to bear on everything? And if so why is he in the party party?
Alan
Tuesday Feb 13, 07:12
Chris makes an interesting point surrounding the Casino. It is a night out, having been to a Casino I can say with experience, a good night out. Bearing this in mind and the trouble that is caused every day and night with alcohol related problems, should we ban all consumtion of alcohol in bars, clubs, restaurants etc purely because of the minority (or more likelyy the majority) who consume too much. You can't have it both ways, if you don't want a Casino because it mmight tempt the weak minded to gamble away all their money then surely we should ban alcohol so that the weak minded don't overconsume and have fights outside my appartment every night!! Watch "Street Wars" on Sky 3 and see how much police time and resource these cretins take up.. all paid for by you and me!
Jim Mackrell
Tuesday Feb 13, 08:43
Excellent point Chris.
Nobody, even the Lib Dem authorities hold referenda. Which is why I was so surprised to hear John Leech ask for one. Is asking for the totally impossible a good thing? Even when you know you wouldn't do it if you were in power yourself?
By the way, please feel free to go to the Manchester Lib Dems website and see if you can glean from that which way the Lib Dem group is facing this week on the casino. No call for a referenda I note.
sedgelypark
Tuesday Feb 13, 09:41
Peter, for someone who claims a 'six-figure' salary you have very little grasp of the business world.
As`Chris rightly points without the cash generating 7% then the other 93% simply doesn't happen.
Now as a City fan I see how brilliant the Eastlands staduim is but it doesn't provide long-term full time jobs for the local community which the casino will.
There is no way Manc City Council could afford to build a swimming pool at Eastlands so the casino money will provide that.
So we should deny the people of Eastlands inward devlopment becuase of your Victorian idea that gambling is a vice. Peter, I can see you standing in your drawing room in your frock coat twirling your moustache as you condemn this vice of the working class.
The casino is happening and the real task to make sure jobs are offered locally and that the local community can benefit from millions of pounds of investment.
Jim, I would check the Lib Dem website but their position can change by the minute so it hardly seems worthwhile.
But interesting the Fibs aren't backing Leech's daft idea...he really is isolated.
Not so the Labourt Party who will be out in force to unseat One Term.
I've seen the CVs of the Labour shortlist and I can tell you that all the candiates would do a job on Leech but two are really outstanding and will destroy Two Jobs. Happy, happy days as we wait to unseat One Term John.
Jim Mackrell
Tuesday Feb 13, 10:01
Quite true Sedge. Just saw this on John Leech's very own site. Must be a specific prejudice against East Manchester folk.
"The Liberal Democrats do not oppose all casinos - it is a free country and gambling is a fact of everyday life."
peter h
Tuesday Feb 13, 18:11
Before you shout to hard at John, remember your own saint tony is up the creek right now over road charges because somebody did a referendum on the downing street website. What is it so far? 1.2 million against? Oh dear....
I'm against referenda in principle as it happens, but in practice we live in an undemocratic electoral system which doesn't reflect popular opinion, so maybe referenda have a place on major single issues.
As for you Sedgeley, yes, I understand the economics of it very well, thank you. I was arguing from a moral perspective, not an economic one, but, since you raise it, exactly why should the 93% of the development have to be intrinsically uneconomic? In case you havent noticed, leisure centres are enjoying a huge boom at the minute. From Branson to the breweries behind David Lloyd through to Holmes Place, Total Fitness et al.
If they can make money, then surely so can a state of the art council-run site , and at prices ordinary people can afford without buggering up the lives of people desperate to get rich quick.
Jack Pott
Wednesday Feb 14, 00:21
You can't tell Sedgley anything. He knows it all and if you disagree...he'll just shout louder.
Just wait a minute..........
Wednesday Feb 14, 10:16
err........Holmes Place has just been taken over by Virgin 'cos it was losing shedloads of money... do try and keep up with local issues. Perhaps you should get out more.
By the way anybody with the software to generate random names can cook up a 1.2m name petition in minutes. Proves nothing except that the media and people like you are ready to believe anything that means they dopn't have to pay for the impact of their own lifestyle.
Sedgelypark
Wednesday Feb 14, 16:11
Jack, Jack (or should that be Simon, Simon?) please answer the points made rather than just post unintelligent insults.
I don't pretend to know it all but unlike Fibs I have some principles I stick to and have strong views on some issues that don't chnage by the second which is why I'm not a fib.
So your post is pointless other than it reveals you as a Fib as they always moan that people with strong views just shout a lot because the Fibs find it easier to bend with the wind at any given moment.
jack, happy to debate any issue in a sensible way with you as i do with peter but you never say anything interesting unlike Peter who at least thinks this ideas through even if I disagree sometimes. It's sad Jack/Simon as you seem so smart.
Peter, Just a minute rather brilliantly demolishes your argument re: cost effective piublic leisure centres. If you read the buisness sections then you'll see that sector has been in disarray for months despite high monthly fees and idiots joining after New Year and then not going again.
My point was that Manchester City Council don't have the cash for a big capital expenditure like a leisure cnetre then the cost of running it so that's where the private money comes in.
And there's another general point for us to debate (you listening Jack/Simon)...fib run Liverpool are slashing 50 million from their budget cos they can't run their council properly. Yhey've just slashed the summer pops and are going after libraries. Of course it isnlt their financial and political inepitude it's the Government's fault.
And some of you want the Fibs to ruin our city too?? Get real folks...when the Fibs get in they tend to get thrown outr pretty quick as they act like Tories in power or in Liverpool's case like a group of bad A level politics students asked to run a city.
peter h
Wednesday Feb 14, 20:39
Some leisure companies may be in disarray - perfectly normal fallout in a growing market where people jump on popular band wagons with ill thought-out or executed schemes. But do you really think Branson would be investing in it if there was no money in it?
The fact remains though: why can't this casino effort be a major council-owned leisure facility without having to drag gambling into it, if the only reason to have the gambling is to attract capital? Why can't the council find the funds, or do some variant of PFI and bring in a private company to do it if necessary? Or you could expand the point and say why not, instead of one mega development, have a chain of smaller developments city-wide? This city is not well enough endowed with high quality affordable leisure centres. Withington, Didsbury and Chorlton for starters have outdated facilities.
peter h
Thursday Feb 15, 19:34
Invidentally, rather more importantly than some casino, unicef issued a report this week surveying kids in the 21 most developed countries - their quality of life . UK came bottom. Doesnt say much for 10 years of Labour government, does it?
Jack Pott
Friday Feb 16, 09:04
Erm...amid the New Labour fanfare for the new casino....Labour in Didsbury are opposing plans for a casino at Parrs Wood.
Pots and black kettles anyone?
.my memory goes back further than 5 minutes...
Friday Feb 16, 16:13
peter h - do you really think things have got worse for children and young people under this government. If you do you are either a Lib Dem/Tory or an idiot. Or concievably of course both!
Alan
Friday Feb 16, 18:15
"Jack Pott" I always like to know the name of people who annoy the hell out of me so whats yours???
Sedgelypark
Friday Feb 16, 20:35
Peter, I thought you were smarter than buying Branson's self image of everything he touches turns to gold...Virgin Coke anyone?? He's a beardy creep who loves the oxygen of publicity but can hardly string a sentence together.
But on another note are you really suggesting we support a PFI for better leisure facilities? I would have thought PFI's would incur your self righteous ire as being all that is bad about New Labour. The borrow now and play billions back in interest is something I oppose so I would have thought it would have been well up on on your list of anti-Labour hates.
BTW...I agree most of our leisure facilitie are poor for a city this size so what do your Fib mates intend to do in the unilkely event of their getting into power.
And for your info Serco runs leisure and is a private company. Do keep up Peter.
Jack?simon, on what ground are Labour opposing the Didsbury mini-casino?? Parking, local objections etc...do tell Jack.
peter h
Friday Feb 16, 22:49
I didn't say things had got worse - or better - under labour. I said Unicef say that quality of life for young people in UK is the worst in the developed world - those are Unicef's findings, not mine.
And it doesn't say much fot Labour, since they've been in power for most of those young peoples' lifetime.
And I'm not lib dem, not tory, and not an idiot, unless of course you refer to the Dostoievskian definition, which I'll agree to. I'm sure an erudite chap like you who thinks any one can be "both" of 3 things will be fully conversant with literate niceties. Pillock.
No Sedgely, I don't agree with PFIs. Not because they're a Labour idea, but because they're an economic nonsense, exactly in the way you describe. BUt this government seems to relish debt.
I don't know who Serco is, but it sounds like they don't do a good job. My core point is that the people of this city deserve leisure facilities on a par with the likes of david Lloyd, Total Fitness etc and one way or another they ought to be achievable without dragging gambling into it. And I don't have any lib dem - or labour, or tory - mates. I tend to avoid political animals in real life, apart from throwing the odd brick at fascists in my youth.
And if Labour does oppose a casino in didsbury - right next to a bloody great comprehensive school - then good for them
Dave
Saturday Feb 17, 20:40
Again, I have to agree with Peter and disagree with "my memory..." Yup, I think Labour has made life for children even worse than under Thatcher and Major. The laws that this government have brought in, make all children look like offenders. Under Labour more Youth Centres have closed than under the Thatcher government. More sports fields have been built on than under Thatchers government, etc etc
peter h
Saturday Feb 17, 22:43
that's the tragedy. If labour doesnt change things, who will? Blair of course doesnt need to worry. kids in nice schools, £3 million house in london,
Jim Mackrell
Tuesday Feb 20, 01:08
Well after a full debate here and many chances to advance various views I have concluded as follows:-
The independant group who decided the venue held that Manchester was best placed to host the new casino.
That one of their primary views was that Manchester was best placed to deal with the "ambient" (we call it problem) gambling issue.
That the alternatives such as Greenwhich, Glasgow and Blackpool would not be as good as Manchster at handling these issues.
That Manchester would do more and better consultation with residents.
That Manchester would maximise the regeneration benefits of the license.
And also that:-
The Liberal Democrats agree with most of the above but still have concerns about the problem gambling issue.
That if we are the best to deal with that issue then Manchester IS the best location.
That some people are against the very idea of such a casino development issue.
That the Liberal Democrat Group was unwilling to support John Leech MP on his opposition.
That NOBODY has given an example of Lib Dems asking for a referenda on such an issue before and there was little support for one on this issue.
That if John Leech can't even get support from his own local party he can hardly ask for it from the wider community with any confidence.
Just like the redevelopment of the City Centre, the Commonwealth Games and other positive schemes for Manchester, you cannot rely on either John Leech or the Lib Dems.
Thank you all for taking part in this discussion.
peter h
Tuesday Feb 20, 01:33
So, Jimmy Mack, as a gambling supporter, what odds are you offering on Labour getting an overall majority at the next election, given that they only have to lose about 40 seats nett to lose that overall majority, given their standing in the polls right now, given the fact that boundary changes will lose about 20 for them any way, and given the fact that Iraq, your achilles heel, is getting worse and george bush might yet drag us into Iran?
Come on, you seem to think gambling is a harmless pastime. So gamble. How much will you bet that Labour keeps an overall majority?
Alan
Tuesday Feb 20, 06:59
Peter/ Dave, you're like a couple of old women. What do you want the government to do, wrap us in a comfort blanket and keep us away from all the 'nasty' vices!! Please!!!!! As for your comments about Tony Blair and his 3 million house/ kids in a good school etc. Bloody good for him, he's just run this country for a decade and deserves every bit of it. This country is just full of moaning old busy bodies who feel they need to extend their own pretentious lifestyles onto others! Will certain people please get a life and leave people to make their own choices, right or wrong!
Jack Pott
Tuesday Feb 20, 12:44
Still should have gone to Blackpool on grounds of need for regen. End of.
Jim Mackrell
Tuesday Feb 20, 19:43
Peter, I know you don't believe that working people can resist any gamble that is offered but I have no idea about the odds you suggest. You might want to try one of those websites that manages to offer online gambling without collapsing the economy of North and East Manchester. I will offer good odds though that Leech's referendum won't happen. I assume from the tone and content of your posts that you have no response to my points so I will leave you to wallow here with your anti Manchester mates and hope that your lot never get to visit this nonsense on the good people of our City.
Chris Paul
Tuesday Feb 20, 22:57
http://chrispaul-labouroflove.blogspot.com/2007/01/cllr-john-leech-mp-not-working-for.html
Unicef's study (based on studies or six and seven years vintage i.e. still in the shadow of Thatch-Majorism) does not say what you claim it does. In so far as it is scientific it is based on the idea of relative poverty and not absolute poverty.
In essence this means that if in ten years our poorest households were ALL getting a liveable £25,000 but the average across society had become £85,000 (sometimes in two or three earners, or in one city tea boy before bonus) then those poorest families would all be deemed in poverty.
Though they are perhaps 50 times better off than the dollar a day people.
The other interesting point is that our supposedly arsey kids and teenagers ARE NOT repressed and mentally sterile. They are still rebellious, innovative, cool and ambitious. Unlike some of the lousy conformists in other OECD countries.
This is despite the straightjacket of the national curriculum. Funnily enough countries where creativity and ideas ARE historically repressed e.g. Japan believe they can make their economies and societies work better by loosening up and getting creative, rebellious, individual.
The Unicef study has these faults at least. Which is not to say that it doesn't also sound a warning that there is plenty more to be done and in particular that the runaway super rich should put in more than they do. (Source: Ultralab at UEA - Prof Stephen Heppell)
Between 1997 and 2005 the incomes of the lowest two deciles went up by 11% each and the next two by around 8%. Through Labour redistribution. And the rich weren't even stung that much (which is a shame, but never mind) finding their incomes dented by 1% (9/10) and 2% (10/10).
Unicef's methods and the oldness of their data have missed this.
And are the people claiming this suggesting that lack of casinos and other vices in say the Netherlands and Finland are what got them their higher scores?
peter h
Wednesday Feb 21, 22:31
Thanks for that Chris. So Unicef got it wrong. Silly me
peter h
Wednesday Feb 21, 22:51
I didnt say working class people couldnt resist gambling jimmy. It's not a class phenomenon, but those at the bottom are less able to afford it.
How you think that being anti-gambling on moral grounds is anti-manchester is beyond me. The council recognize the dangers of gambling otherwise it wouldnt talk about "safeguards" .
As for online gambling, if it's so harmless, why is it banned in some countries?
For me, actually, gambling is like most vices - harmless in moderation.
Nor do I propose banning it. I just object to public bodies actively promoting it.
As for the referendum - no , of course it won't happen. It wasn't a bright idea. But don't you think the general principle of referenda on contentious issues is worth considering, especially when it's something which has never been properly aired in elections? Don't you think it is a possible way of engaging people in local politics? Irrespective of which party you support, it must surely worry you that the percentage of people bothering to vote is so small. It's a danger to democracy that so many feel detached from the political process. It's dangerous that one party should havr such an iron grip on power. OK< so here it is Labour, but if it were Lib Dems or Tories the same dangers would exist. If there was a means of forcing referenda in certain circumstances it mught act as a useful weapon against excessive use of power.
Jim Mackrell
Saturday Feb 24, 20:41
Thank you Peter for your frankness. I'm glad you agree that John Leech's idea of a referendum was not so bright. I think you have caught the mood of the constituency on that. Yes there are inherent dangers in doing most things. The idea of governing is to listen and then decide, then to take the consequences.
The idea of a referendum is to abrogate that responsibility because you don't know what to do.
Such people should be replaced by others who can govern and take responsibility. That is what I hope will happen to John Leech.
Manchester does well because it takes limited, calculated and worked out risks. We are a very ambitious City and we need to remain so.
peter h
Saturday Feb 24, 22:48
No. The idea of a referendum is to seek a mandate for a controversial new course of action for which you have no pre-existing mandate from the electorate. I'm all for them, even though it wasn't very bright to propose it this time.
I also object to the idea of our political leaders "governing" us. We govern them through the ballot box, or at least that's how it's supposed to work, although Laour these days seem to have forgotten that both locally and nationally and have been subsumed by long term power's tendency to corrupt.
peter h
Monday Feb 26, 21:00
of course, jim, your attempts to decry john leech for asking for a referendum pale into insignificance compared to the revolt growing amongst labour MPs about giving manchester the super-casino. Perhaps you'd better quit whilst youre ahead.
Jack Pott
Tuesday Feb 27, 10:50
Yes, it's all yah-boo politics and one-upmanship from Manchester Labour. Anybody with a degree of objectivity would see that Blackpool's case is more pressing than Manchester's for this level of regen...which Alan's previous level of class-prejudice only goes to confirm.
Still, Manchester has the Tory Conferences now as compensation.
so to sum up...
Tuesday Feb 27, 15:12
The Lib Dems (or their apologists on this site) take the following position
Blackpool needs/can take more advantage of the Casino more than Manchester even though the independent commission established to decide such matters disagree. As a consequence of believing that Blackpool should get the casino the people of Manchester should be asked a question on god knows what in a half assed referendum involving god knows who. You really think these jokers are serious people who the people of Manchester should trust with their futures.
Please stop.
Jack Pott
Tuesday Feb 27, 18:08
Typical bolshoi bullying attitude of someone who can't debate an issue and turns it into them vs us politics.
I've never voted Lib Dem. Never will vote Lib Dem. I've never voted anything but Labour.
Look at the momentum behind the EDM. Consider the uproar this has caused outside of Manchester..oops...then again, seems as if you, Sedgley Park and Jimmy Mackrell don't care much about life outside of Manchester.
Not denegrading the *quality* of the manchester bid. Don't want to make a habit of agreeing with Peter, but attitudes like this sum up everything that is wrong with sections of the Labour Party locally.
I can only recommend you try your inspired line of argument out in a primary school playground where they are more befitting.
Jim Mackrell
Tuesday Feb 27, 20:01
S'pose I'd better chip in again..
An independent committee which suffers no claim of political or other bias comes back with its answer that the new resort should be in Manchester.
Some of those who thought it was between Blackpool and Greenwich are upset and still want Blackpool. Others are actually saying in the press that Manchester has had too much regeneration!! One Greater Manchester MP is among the protesters. One Manchester MP - our very own JL is "dismayed" that Manchester has won.
The underlying inference behind some of the comments is that Mancunians can't be trusted with a casino. Others think that they know better than the committee and that Blackpool was better all along.
Nobody from the detractors has suggested a replacement scheme that will bring in the thousands of jobs and John Leech hasn't persuaded anybody that his "research" argument stacks up.
Now I stand accused of not caring about life outside Manchester! On a John Leech watch website!!
We should ignore the *quality* of our bid and instead accept some sentimental tosh that Blackpool "deserves" the license.
If this is the best you've got then I am sadly disappointed. Is it only a matter of time before you lot claim legitimacy in a House of Lords protest and say that proves your point?
sedgelypark
Tuesday Feb 27, 21:28
Jack P, my fave place in the whole world is Blackpool and I think there is a good case that the resort needs a casino. So it's not a black and white as Blackpool bad..Manchester good. I attend a major conference there every eyar and i see first hand how much help Blackpool needs and I hope they get a super casino in the next wave but I will back my city unlike Leech as the bid was the best.
The Labour Blackpool MPs are doing what they are elected to do and raise a stink and i wish them luck although I think the report is watertight legally and factually.
I should also point that the oppostion in the resort is led by - you guessed it - The Fib Dems. Until the EDM put down Joan Humble gets a result and then they'll be behind it.
JL is a disgrace for backing an anti-Manchester EDM...Eastlands needs economic development up and above the stadium which provides little or no full time employment and as Jim says Two Jobs is providing no alternative.
So here's my challenge to JL or his fanc cluib...let's says the decision is overturned how do the Fibs intend to offer the same number of jobs and inward investment to compensate the people of East manchester...I wait with bated breath but little hope.
Remember Eastlands only got redeveloped cos Labour Manchester went for the Games when the Fibs epent years saying it would be a disaster. They would do well to remember that when the casino is a success.
peter h
Tuesday Feb 27, 23:04
sorry to interrupt lads, but I did make the suggestion that if 93% of the facility was non-casino, then why can't we have the 93% without the casino, and make it financially viable, or spread the investment more widely around manchester in multiple smaller leisure/sports centres? That'll give you the facilities and the employment without the contentious downside of casinos. There is no reason on earth why that could not be made financially viable if properly run. Some of us have serious moral objections to casinos with unlimited jackpots. None of us have objections to the rest of the facilities.
As regards the MPs objecting to Manchester now, 50% of them are Labour, so (a) it cuts across party lines (b) it suggests Labour hasn't thought this one through coherently and should think again.
LOgically, if super-casinos are potentially a good idea (and I don't think that), then the committee's decision to site the test-case casino in Manchester makes sense and , if it proves worthwhile , then Blackpool will eventually get one any way. So the only contentious issue is of timing, not principle
John, Chorlton
Thursday Mar 01, 10:18
If John Leech doesn't want to support Manchester then why is he a Manchester MP? He is a lightweight. His party knows it, he knows it and increasingly the electorate know it. His poor performance in Parliament is mirrored by his shambles at doing casework as an MP. The man is a charlatan. His supporters and apologists on this site need to get out of their bedrooms and talk to some people in Manchester and stop lecturing others about the real world.Barbara Keeley needs to get her self sorted out as well while I'm on the subject of crap local MP's
Alan
Thursday Mar 01, 15:47
Jack P, I'm sorry but Blackpool is rubbish, I can't stand the place and I'd sooner deep fat fry my arm than go anywhere near it. Quite frankly I couldn't care less where the dam casino went but I am glad it's come to Manchester; however if it had gone to Blackpool then so be it....I couldn't have cared less. Furthermore, I have no such class prejudices, my family has all come from working class and I'm very proud of that. What i talk about has nothing to do with class, it has to do with the feral scallies that roam the streets, the litter, the decaying buidings and streets and a disgusting beach!!!
peter h
Thursday Mar 01, 18:22
try it during glasgow fortnight alan. Your deep fried arm would be a delicacy....
but you're right. The place is beyond parody
sedgelypark
Thursday Mar 01, 21:13
Your snooty comments re: Blackpool proves it ALSO needs a casino to regenerate the so called 'Golden Mile'.
Now on to business.
Students of Hocus Focus leaflets will know they always feature a bogus survey where concerned citizens (ie Fib Dem members) are invited to send them to Fib Towers so they can bring the government down.
I was watching NW`Tonight and they had a (thankfully) short item where Greater Manchester's motley bunch of Fib MPs handed in their 'there's less police than there used to be' Hocus Focus petition into Number 10.(bet Tony was quaking).
Guess how many these clowns - from constituencies from Rochale to Cheadle including a smirking Two Jobs - handed it?
30,000 - rubbish.
20,000 - sad
10,000 - pitiful.
5,000 - a joke
Yes, it was the latter. Hundreds of thousands of Hocus Focus leaflets stuck through letter boxes and a poxy 5,000 punters filled in them.
I didnlt know whether to laugh or cry.
Oh yes, I laughed very hard for quite some time.
BTW...Two Jobs looked less deranged than Andrew Stunell which is some feat and Two Jobs looked like he was on work experience and had tagged on the end as a bet. He is doomed.
sedgelyparl
Thursday Mar 01, 21:43
Oops..I meant Two Jobs looked more deranged than Stunell which is some feat.
peter h
Thursday Mar 01, 22:02
blackpool is a hole. that's not snooty, that's fact.
and there aren't enough police, SP. Try reporting a car break-in or any minor crime. You'll soon find out. At least lib dems are trying to focus on that. grow up.
Adele
Friday Mar 02, 00:27
Right just have a brief point to make. Have received the latest focus and it has Leech on so is relvant to discuss here. It is moaning about police cuts.
So why in the name of God did the liberal democrats on the police authority vote for this budget.
If they oppose labour's plans to tackle crime in this city. Absolutely fine. Oppose the budget and then tell the electorate why you did it. But don't vote for it and then try and twist it to make yourselves look like principled politicians.
Chris Paul
Friday Mar 02, 13:10
http://chrispaul-labouroflove.blogspot.com/2007/01/cllr-john-leech-mp-not-working-for.html
Peter H: If 50 of the MPs signing up for Blackpool are Labour then it means that 1/7 of the PLP is genuinely irritated by the decision or grandstanding. Meanwhile about 1/6 of other MPs are irritated or grandstanding. Meaning that overall about 6/7s of all MPs are not bellyaching about this independent recommendation.
Hey, that's democracy! 6/7 has always tended to win over 1/7 when it comes to it.
It is of course interesting to note that Casino opponent and multiple hoaxer Cllr John Leech MP HAS NOT signed this piece of rebellion. Why ever is that? We think he should explain. Does he want a referendum first on whether he should sign?
One of the Labour ones signing up - one Barbara Keeley of Worsley and Eccles is not in fact doing so for any kind of sane temperance reasons or insame party political reasons but because her consitituents in the likes of Little Hulton and Higher Folds (even poorer SOAs there than in Leech's benighted Mersey Bank and Nell Lane estates which he has personally supervised with his Shameless gangster chums going down the toilet) enjoy going to Blackpool and would like to be able to lose their life savings there as well as paying £10 for fish and chips from a plastic tray in a sit in restaurant and £3 a pint for warm beer and so on. You really could not make some of the wit and wisdom of these 100 rebels up could you.
peter h
Friday Mar 02, 18:25
Fine points Chris, EXCEPT for the plug for democracy. Do the same maths for what percentage Labour got at the last election both of the available vote and the actual votes cast, and then yell "Hey, that's democracy!". Then look up democracy in the oxford english dictionary (clue, it's between deadleg and dickhead - no reference to you, as it happens).
Jim Mackrell
Friday Mar 02, 20:24
Peter,
I'll ignore your snide comments here although I'd not be surprised if others don't.
I wish to take up the point you intended to be serious.
That is why cant we have the 93% of the resort without the casino?
This is the bit I find baffling and I'm sure you are better than this.
Why not have all the £200 per night hotel rooms without the casino?? Do you have any idea of how a resort casino works?
Lets have all that investment and all the job without the casino?
This is like saying why does Liverpool need two cathedrals, or Barcelona, why does it need the Sagrada Familia?
May they don't and it doesn't, but it brings in thousands of people for a range of reasons and helps keep both places in business and both would be poorer without them.
Not everyone who visits Barca becomes religious and some go there because they already are.
Same will happen with the resort in East Manchester. High rollers who travel the world will come and book the big suites and bet squillions at the tables. Others will wager their usual £20 and have a good night. Many more will go to the shows, watch a film or whatever.
The up side is that a very deprived part of our City will get massive investment and loads of jobs. Local small business will be able to service the resort and expand.
I just hope the hand wringing brigade of Lib Dem soundalikes (even if they claim to be otherwise) don't get a chance to run this City and remain satisfied with the current levels of deprivation.
This is the same attitude that we saw in the run up to the Commonwealth Games and we are well rid of it.
peter h
Friday Mar 02, 22:31
Yes, I know how resort casinos work. My argument is that you do not need the casino part to have the rest. You don't need a casino in order to have a viable leisure centre or hotel. You need well run affordable facilities.
Your argument equating Barcelona's sublime architecture or Liverpool's cathedrals with some sordid casino borders on the sick, although I accept you did not mean it that way. But just think for one second about the differing ethical motivations between the two, irrespective of your religious, or non-religious, beliefs, and you'll see why I object morally to casinos being promoted by govenment.
Jack Pott
Wednesday Mar 07, 17:13
It's socialism Jim, but not as we know it!
peter h
Thursday Mar 08, 17:55
these schmucks don't know what socialism is, Jack. Gauleiter Blair thinks it's a 4 letter word
Dave
Tuesday Mar 13, 09:55
Would that four letter word be Tory?
sedgelypark
Tuesday Mar 13, 22:44
And the Fibs are some sort of left wing alternative with their opposition to trade union freedom and the miniumum wage.
The Fibs are simply Tories too scared to admit it.
Really, Peter you are pushing your luck!!
peter h
Tuesday Mar 13, 22:51
at least sedgely admits we need a left wing alternative to labour. Which is a sad, sad state of affairs
Alan
Thursday Mar 15, 16:39
JP, it's in a shambles because unfortunately the old guard are still all card carrying members of CND!!! The reality is that Labour is in Government and they have to make decisions which are in the best interest of the country. Anyone that suggests we don't need a nuclear deterrant, especially in the current climate, has lost their mind!!!
peter h
Thursday Mar 15, 17:29
Sedgeley, your timing is priceless. You accuse lib dems of being closet tories in the same week as tony blair has to use the tory vote to defeat his own labour mps on the trident issue in parliament . (Last time he did that was on Iraq....oh deary me!).
peter h
Thursday Mar 15, 17:36
and alan, remind me. How many countries have nuclear weapons? And how many do not? Are you suggesting that all those which do not have them have lost their minds? I don't think so. Even if they are a good idea - and I don't think they are - then what on earth is the logic of having a weapons system which is totally dependent on USA for it to work? Is that what you call independent? In effect, we become a US satellite, but without USA paying for the things. It's ludicrous.
One day, you'll wake up to the fact that we are just one more medium sized country, and should behave as such. If we're going to have nuclear weapons, then it should be as part of a European consortium, not as Bush's lapdog. Ideally though, we should leave it to the nutters.
Dave
Thursday Mar 15, 21:17
So what is the major threat to UK national security at the moment? Is it Russia? No! Is it China? No! Is it the home grown terrorist? Could be! So lets nuke Leeds, Birmingham, and some sleepy village in Bedfordshire using the new Trident. Money well spent I am sure the Tories and Tory Blair will agree... oh they just did!
Dave
Thursday Mar 15, 21:21
Alan, when was the last time "Labour" made a decision that was "in the best interest of this country"? I certainly can't recall, other then in their first term in Government!!!
They love spending our billions on... London Olympics, Trident.... yet the NHS is in a mess, as are many of our schools, universities, prison overcrowding.... good to know Labour know how to spend wisely!
peter h
Thursday Mar 15, 22:59
and alan, there are only 2 countries in all europe with nuclear weapons. How come they don't need them and we do? Or do you think they should all get them?
Jack Pott
Friday Mar 16, 07:18
I wonder if Chris Paul's logic on opponents of goverment policy and economies of scale stretch to the Trident issue?
Labour is looking a bit of shambles at the moment....contest that!
Dave
Friday Mar 16, 09:12
I think if we have nukes, then we need Iran to get some too. They need to be able to deter the USA from attacking everyone (lets not forget that since WWII, the USA have bombed more countries than any other, I beleive the count is currently 24 countries?, which is about 15% of the world!!!!)
Jack Pott
Friday Mar 16, 10:34
I think we need an independent commission! That could lead to nukes being sited on the Nell Lane Estate and lead Manchester Labour could proclaim it as a triumph in terms of regen and job creation at any cost.
Dave
Friday Mar 16, 11:50
But you must remembe JP, on every major route into Manchester, the lovely city council proclaim that Mancheste is a nuclear free city (what they mean by that is anyone's guess, if they mean nuclear material free, then what about those big trains to and from Heysham Nuclear power station going up and down the main west coast line, or what about the the chemicals kept at Christies and the Uni's?)
Alan
Friday Mar 16, 17:37
Oh come on!!!.... nuclear weapons or the threat of their use has been a detterant to any repaeat of the two world wars and to say that we don't need them is ludicrous. I mean whats next, should we disband the Armed Forces?? If there is no threat, as you suggest Dave, then presumably this would be a perfectly acceptable thing to do?? It's great that you're all on a crusade to 'make the world a better place' but the fact is that reality and what you think reality should be are two very different things and the difficulty that any government has to face is that they have to press ahead and do what they believe is best for the country and the people that live in. May not always be popular but it's, alot of the time, necessary!
Dave
Friday Mar 16, 19:48
Alan, I never said their was a threat. I said that it isn't states that are attacking us, it is terrorists that are a threat. We as a nation haven't used nuclear weapons, as we don't need them, we have plenty of other ways of attacking countries if we need too. To turn round your question and say, lets have a nuclear weapon and not an army, that way we can blow up Afghanistan and rid ourselves of the Taliban and Opium in one great sweep? That way, plenty of British Armed forces personnel lives can be saved... I am sure New Tory... erm Labour have thought that, but just haven't acted upon it, because the boss (e.g George Dubya) hasn't commanded his poodle to do so!
Dave
Friday Mar 16, 21:15
And if trident is such a great detterent, how do you explain the bombings in London this century, and the bombings in Belfast, London, Birmingham and of course Manchester in the last century? The USA with an even bigger deterrent has been attacked within its borders and also its embassies abroad. Russia too. Yup, I feel so much safer at night knowing we have such a deterrent!
Dave
Friday Mar 16, 21:30
I would be interested to hear your views on this Thomas Graham? John Leech voted against Trident (as did most Lib Dems), but I notice that this site still has adverts for Amenisty International, so I wonder, if you had been a Labour MP Thomas, would you have been a backbench rebel (or a cabinet minister rebel for that matter)?
peter h
Friday Mar 16, 22:39
BUT.....we don't have a nuclear capability. It's all totally dependent on US technology, guidance systems and the rest of it. WE are just american puppets. We're kidding ourselves if we think we are a nuclear power in the 1st place. If you think we have any say with the american military, then just look at the friendly fire inquest that's just finished , where they have treated that poor dead british soldier's family with contempt.
Thomas Graham
Friday Mar 16, 23:16
"I would be interested to hear your views on this Thomas Graham?"
Last time I checked, this website was here to talk about John Leech MP, not me! Also, I'm not entirely sure how this website promoting the campaign run by Amnesty, and supported by The Observer and The OpenNet Initiative, means that I should have a particular view on the replacement of Trident or unilateral nuclear disarmament.
It is not my job to take a view on the replacement of Trident, and it is not useful to guess what would have happened in the hypothetical situation you describe.
I'll happily share my opinion with you in some other context, but to do so here would take us away from the real point of this debate.
Dave
Saturday Mar 17, 11:33
If this site is focusing on John Leech, why have adverts for Amnesty? Is John a support of Amnesty? Amnesty subscribe to peace, I don't see how arming this country to it's teeth fits in with that?
Anyway, bygones!
As for you moderating my post... that suprised me, I thought this site was supposed to be balanced? It appears Labour supporters can start new threads, but those who have stopped voting Labour get censored!!!
Thomas Graham
Sunday Mar 18, 09:24
The reason for the Amnesty "adverts" is self explanatory if you visit the website http://www.irrepressible.info. I've no idea if John Leech is a supporter of Amnesty. He has absolutely nothing to do with this site (except reading it and complaining about people who say things about him that he doesn't like). I'm happy to say that I'm a supporter of Amnesty and I don't think that it is impossible to be in favour of replacing Trident and supporting Amnesty, as long as you can be in favour of replacing Trident with a view to it *never* being used. Anyway, as I said before, I'm not here to discuss my personal views on the replacement of the UK's nuclear deterrent.
Just to clarify (for the sake of other readers) - Dave posted a new blog entry about trident. I don't remember the exact wording, but the post had no direct relevance to John Leech. All blog entries are moderated to ensure that they aren't adverts for viagra, that they don't contain offensive or untrue information, and that the are relevant.
I didn't approve your post because it was not related to John Leech in any way. I will happily provide the code behind this website for someone to run a similar site for any number of Labour (or any other party for that matter) MPs, but I simply don't have the time to do it. I would hope that you come back with a positive story about how John Leech has improved your life or represented you well as a constituent, and of course be of note.
peter h
Sunday Mar 18, 16:11
oh come on thomas. You know perfectly well that (a) Manchester LABOUR Council proudly proclaims this is a nuclear free city (b) john leech as our local MP opposes Trident (c)the LABOUR government proposes renewing Trident.
How on earth can that not be relevant? I would have thought that John deserves Manchester Labour's support on Trident?
Thomas Graham
Monday Mar 19, 08:52
Peter H: I was not suggesting that it was impossible to create a news story that was relevant regarding Trident, but the blog that was submitted was not.
Dave
Monday Mar 19, 09:35
He signed an early day motion! We've had disscusions on here based on him signing early day motions before, why not on Trident?
peter h
Monday Mar 19, 16:27
why not dave? Because it ties local Labour up in a million knots, that's why. There's hardly a labour supporter in the country in favour of Trident for starters, including the local City Council, apart from Alan, who'll only vote labour till the Tories become palatable for him (no disrespect alan - at least you're honest and talk about things). They all have the same moral objection as lib dems in this case, and they hate to admit it.
Dave
Monday Mar 19, 20:56
Peter, I think you might be right!
how do i apply dermablend
Sunday Mar 25, 19:06
http://how-do-i-apply-dermablend.thesearchusa.info
Nice site. Thank you!
These comments are owned by the person that posted them. They are not necessarily indicative of public opinion and their content has not been checked for accuracy. If you find a comment you think violates our Terms of Use please report it.
Sorry, posting on this entry is disabled to prevent comment spam.
