Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
bet365 & Labour
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Setz on
-
Of all the possible governments we could have, surely the least likely to exploit the poor are the left wing ones.
Could it be that the right wing governments favour big business? If so, then the gambling act would have been much worse had it been passed by a right wing government.
Or are you saying that a right-wing government would have made a better set of laws, protecting the poor by preventing the industry from exploiting poverty?
-
Permalink Reply by John W Leach on
-
I would have hoped to keep politics out of this discussion - but wasn't it the last government that wanted to have Casinos throughout the land?
There is other legislation introduced by the last government that has impacted the poor. Who is paying all the lawyers? Answer - anyone who pays an insurance premium.
Anyone interested in social cohesion within this Country should be asking for the gambling laws to be repealed and a fresh start be made now that we know what the result is.
-
-
Thanks John - I think this is a political attack on Labour - the title of the thread says it all. I have nothing against people attacking any political party, but I don't like it done badly - the argument fails if it is clearly wrongly stated, whereas it might succeed.
The main problem it seems to me is that we are paying MPs to do this stuff for us and everyone thinks they're bad at it so should be ignored. Why keep a dog and bark yourself?
-
-
I have come in on this a little late in the day - but it is understandable that those who were closely involved with saving Ally Pally to be cross with this Labour Council and Lexington.
It is no exageration to say that from the moment Labour Haringey took over The Palace it has been a disaster and time does not allow me to expand but largely thanks to people like Clive Ally Pally is now on the right track and let's hope it stays that way.
As to gambling it has thrived thanks to the people's desperation (and how we got there is another days arguement) and the "me me" must have it now culture we live in nowadays.
It should be plain as plain that Gambling in its current form is bad for society and should be stopped and replaced by something less corosive.
It says something about us when the only new shops that can afford the local High Street are Pay Day Loans, Betting and Charity Shops.
John Leach
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
John, continuing their campaign about the FOBTs, yesterday the Daily Mail published a story about an individual who, like Peter Coates of bet365, benefited hugely from the Labour government's slacking of gambling legislation:
The jailbird pornographer behind Britain's crack cocaine g...
While the Gambling Act enormously benefited a few, the scourge of their permissive legislation helped to impoverish many.
Disclosure:
am a prospective councillor candidate
Highgate Ward | Liberal Democrat Party
-
-
surely the least likely to exploit the poor are the left wing ones.
right wing governments favour big business
Good morning Chris, yes, I suspect you're right on both counts. However, I think its possible to confuse labels with content, and therefore left and right.
Did we not, for 13 years, have a right-wing, laissez-faire, bank- and big-business favouring government?
(I'd like to hear Alan Stanton views about this ambidextrous-ness as he's written about cognitive dissonance in politics).
Some research suggests that, unfortunately, inequality in society increased during that period. The Institute for Fiscal Studies points to growth in top incomes; one of the rich who became far richer, was the big New Labour donor, bet365's Peter Coates. I suggest a contributory cause to inequality, may have been the Gambling Act. Does it – and particularly FOBTs – not continue to make the poor, poorer?
It's been observed that the betting chains cluster in poorer areas. Please do consider the knock-on effects to the families of gambling addicts. Surely no government could have provided a single lobby group with a bigger, richer or more customized gift?
And a mistake for society?
It's the sort of legislation I would associate with General Pinochet. I freely acknowledge this is a criticism of New Labour and to the extent that New Labour values persist, a criticism of newer Labour. (I've already welcomed Ed Milliband's changed views: my fear is that he and David Cameron will merely tinker with the Act).
There's a wealth of further information available at the Campaign for Fairer Gambling.
(Chris, can you identify which parts or sentences in the Mail's article, that you believe are factually inaccurate, or which cause you grief or that you consider to be defamatory?)
-
-
I NOTE that Tessa Jowell has admitted that her government got it wrong about Fixed Odds Betting terminals:
We DID get it wrong on crack cocaine gambling machines, admits Tessa Jowell: 11 years after Labour's betting revolution, former culture secretary admits reforms led to a free-for-all
CDC
Haringey Councillor
Liberal Democrat Party
-
-
-
-
MY attention was drawn yesterday to another article by the Daily Mail on this subject.
This newspaper has for some time campaigned about the pernicious Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (ushered in by the last Labour Government) and connections between that Party and bet365.
According to the latest MPs register of interests, a Labour MP—who lives locally—accepted £40,000 from Peter Coates, chairman of Bet365, one of Britain’s most successful gambling companies.
These addictive machines have surely made a real contribution … to misery.
-
-
Are you accusing someone (even by sly implication) of wrongdoing Clive?
There are so many nasty stories written at the behest of our billionaire-dominated right-wing press that I am sure ones blaming a wide range on non-Tories for a wide range of things can easily be found. Who else, though, apart from you, has the time to promote them to HoL readers to help the all-but-sunk Haringey Lib Dems make political capital?
As you have absolutely no chance of making any difference at all to the betting situation, why not spend time helping improve the things you can actually improve? If you were to do that, what could you actually improve? Is there anything you have already improved since election?
Reading some of the other posts you've made on HoL, you appear to be an intelligent person who pays attention to detail. Why not use more of those undoubted skills in more specifically helpful ways than this politically-motivated bleat? Or is it that you can't find anything better to do at 11pm on a Wednesday evening?
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
"Or is it that you can't find anything better to do at 11pm on a Wednesday evening?" <- that's a bit mean. I take it he struck a raw nerve.
-
-
Don't intend to be mean John.
I have gained the impression, and one or two people have confirmed, that Clive is a well-respected local person. He finally stepped into the ring by having the courage to stand for election as a local Councillor in a distant ward and, kudos, got elected!
He has, however, no political 'power'. The Lib-Dems are down to a very few councillors in Haringey, just as they are down to a very few MPs in Westminster. There is practically nothing 'Lib Dem' he can achieve in a Borough that has voted Labour for the last 50 years of elections. Let's face it, Haringey has never wanted his sort of politics.
So, if you were him, what would you do?
For instance, Highgate seems under attack by very rich people who are the only ones who can afford the millions it costs to live in the many huge properties in Highgate. That "1%" (who are known to avoid all but 1% of their tax liability) want to abuse some of our beautiful local green spaces and lovely houses in N6. This issue has gained widespread, determined opposition and brilliant groups of locals have banded together to defeat the largely non-dom wealthy with their basement-hungry fortunes.
I don't think Clive lives in Highgate and groups like the Highgate Neighbourhood Forum and the Highgate Society were established long before he arrived on the scene, but having met some of them they do seem open and friendly so would probably welcome his active participation. Their work is so important to the future of the ward that if it were me, I'd want to be closely involved where I could help. Maybe it's too difficult for a Lib-Dem Cllrs to add any value?
As another example, there's a housing estate in Highgate battling with the Council who want to use some of the land to build more houses and the estate tenants don't want that. Could Clive maybe help there?
I frankly think Clive's constant Council-bashing and rumour-spreading approach in his many posts on this site must be taking up a huge amount of his time and that's a shame. We need Councillors to show the way forward and he seems to be ducking that responsibility. We're in dire need of representation and fewer and fewer of us can even be bothered to vote. Our democracy is dying. The last thing we need is what appears to be a local councillor venting his obvious frustration that he has no effective political power - we need our Cllrs working for us, not against us.
So, rather than reinforce a contentious old story about unintended consequences a decade ago, I want him to be much more 'on the money' and address the many and urgent issues his own ward looks to their local councillor for. His recent post resurrected a two-year old topic about much older events and bunged in a slur against an MP. Could all this simply be a displacement activity?
Out of respect for his potential prowess, I am urging him to stop bashing others. Focus on those things he can change, and have the courage to accept those he can not.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
