Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Anti-Betting Shop Clustering Commitment in National Labour Manifesto
After lobbying John Denham, Gerry Sutcliffe and most recently, Ed Miliband (in charge of Labour manifesto), I am told there WILL be a commitment in the National Labour manfiesto with regards to introducing laws that will empower councils to tackle betting shop clustering with the ability to oppose further betting shop licenses on the basis that there are too many in operation in the area already.
I submitted a proposal to the Manifesto last month, and I've lobbied Ed Miliband ever since.
This should be included in the launch, live from Birmingham, starting in 10 minutes.
I submitted a proposal to the Manifesto last month, and I've lobbied Ed Miliband ever since.
This should be included in the launch, live from Birmingham, starting in 10 minutes.
Tags for Forum Posts: betting shops
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
Would be interested in the wording once you have it. And will it be clear exactly what 'too many in operation in the area already' means (eg. 5 betting shops within 500 metres is maximum allowed before the community can start emailing their councillors)?
-
Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on
-
Now Ed Miliband is a nice earnest young man. But has he included this commitment in the third footnote on page 100 of the Manifesto?
And, come April 2015, will this be one of several Manifesto commitments jettisoned (like the Parliamentary Reform and Alternative Vote ideas) with the Westminster bathwater in the final late-night 'wash-up'?
(btw as Ladbrokes were bemoaning the millions they lost at 20/1 at Aintree on Saturday, shouldn't HOL be starting a Local Turf Accountants' Benevolent Fund?)
-
Permalink Reply by Office of David Lammy MP on
-
Here is the specific line from the manifesto (attached file).
I would have thought "how many is too many" will come out in the committee stage of a prospective Bill. In its current form, councils could state what is "too many" in their gambling policy, which they publish every 3 years, so "too many" would be a local, not national desicion. - Attachments:
-
-
gamblingclause.jpg, 20 KB
-
-
-
Yes, not so much a footnote on page 100, more an afterthought to a lap dancing sentence buried in Chapter 7.5.
Might have carried more credibility if it had been included in those "50 Steps to a Future Fair for All", as in Step 34: 'Protection for post offices and pubs on which community life depends'.
But I suppose if it gives our MP a chance to associate himself, however peripherally, with a Future Fair for All, who are we to begrudge him?
-
-
.... "too many" would be a local, not national desicion
Hmm, so 'zero tolerence' dear HOLers. Future HOL campaign ...
In its current form, councils could state what is "too many" in their gambling policy, which they publish every 3 years
Just out of interest, do you have a link to Haringey's 'gambling policy'?
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
Haringey Council Statement of Gambling Policy 2010-2013 (pdf)
The Statement came into effect on 31 January 2010.
-
Permalink Reply by Adam on
-
What will be done about the streets like Green Lanes that already blighted by too many betting shops - are we stuck with them?
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
empower councils to tackle betting shop clustering with the ability to oppose further betting shop licenses on the basis that there are too many in operation in the area already.
This is vague. Sorry to be blunt, but:
Will the Market Demand Test be repealed?
This test comprises the clause in the government's Gambling Act that is the cause of betting shop saturation. I have attended several council gambling licence applications and a Magistrates Court Appeal (by a betting company, appealing against a declinatory decision). Barristers for the gambling industry will love to argue about clustering: an essential feature of High Street commerce that promotes competition. It's not credible and is a non-starter.
The barristers for the gambling companies rely on the Market Demand Test. Adding other clauses in Gambling Act or other Acts is no more than a recipie for argument, without the removal of the demand test. Anything else is window dressing.
The other key clause on which gambling industry lawyers rely is your governments instruction, via the Act, to local authorities, to "aim to permit" (new betting shop licences). Will that remain in place too?
.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
I'm really disappointed with the reception David Lammy's post has generated here from some people. It's a commitment in a national manifesto for goodness sake! And of course it doesn't go into detail. If party manifestos did that they would be thousands of pages long. The important thing is that we now have a commitment to do something about this from a party that may form (or be part of) the next government. The legislation will have to be formulated to bring these powers about and that is when we have the chance during the consultation phase to shape how it might look.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
I think you're being a little over sensitive but I also think some people on here are plain old blimmin rude to their MP.
Labour have passed a lot of very poor legislation. Nobody saw the consequences of the Gambling Act. Labour thought it would provide employment up north in super casinos that would regenerate run down areas. The problem (not enough money) gamblers would be kept out by tuxedoed bouncers. I don't know if it was malice on the gambling industries part or if they even realised what they could do until after the legislation was passed. Either way, Labour and our MP messed up here. When they say they're going to sort it out I don't think fawning thanks is appropriate.
In Ireland they're addressing the real problem which is the betting machines.
-
-
The gambling "industry" saw the consequences of the government's Gambling Act. After all, they lobbied hard for it. The government gave them what they wanted plus, they saw lots of tax revenue. The social consequences were not considered. The public did not clamour for this Act and they're unlikely to clamour for its repeal. The government caused this problem and they should sort it out.
There's a lot of brass neck in this manifesto commitment: presenting themselves as people's champion against a problem entirely of the government's making. And the MP wants the public to help build the case. Some would like to see the whole Act repealed, but that's unlikely. Just remove the clauses that caused the problem!
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
There has been a lot of woolly ill-thought out legislation recently. Result of forcing bills throgh without proper discussion by the experts in the House of Lords who traditionally could examine the fine print at leisure without Government pressure and thus amend the dubious drafting.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
