Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
bet365 & Labour
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Setz on
-
>>... appear to have helped to purchase the Gambling Act 2005.
Clive, I respect your views on many things and don't want to see them undermined so I ask, surely you can't be serious?
To claim that an act of parliament was 'purchased' on the basis of what you've read in the newspapers doesn't sound tenable to me. Anyone who had bought an act of parliament would have taken every step practical to cover it up. Were they to be found out, it would be a triumph of journalism and would enter the political canon of 'big mistakes'. No doubt criminal proceedings would result.
As you claim this was done when a Labour government was in power, why wouldn't the current government prosecute all those concerned? Or did nothing illegal take place? If it wasn't illegal, was it immoral then? Are you calling for a change in the law to make it illegal? What exactly would you make illegal that isn't already?
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Chris thanks for the opportunity to expand my thesis on New Labour's Gambling Act 2005.
I do not believe that the £0.4 million donation secured the future of the gambling industry ... by itself.
In your quote, you omitted the qualification amongst other lobbying. Much lobbying was in the public domain.
I have already made the point that, during the term of the last government, pressure to slacken gambling laws did not appear to come from the public. Pressure for change (or in industry parlance, reform or modernising) came from operators. At least some of this was formal, public and published.
In 2001, the DCMS consulted with the industry, their representatives and others.
I attach the Appendix to the Gambling Review Body's recommendations. I draw your attention to Appendix E, "Consultation Lists of Respondents", near the end (on the penultimate page, one of the entries is Lexington – this has local relevance, to which I'll return).
--
"AIM TO PERMIT" – Although nominally an Act of Parliament, the most powerful clauses in the Gambling Act 2005 could have been drafted by the "industry". Foremost among them is the direction Aim to Permit (i.e. new Licence Applications). Unless this is struck out, little progress can be made.
--
Until the Daily Mail's article, most people following these matters assumed that industry representations had been oral or written and above board. That was the public picture for more than a decade.
However, there can surely be no more effective representation than representations accompanied by the smell of piles of freshly printed bank notes!
A kindly gesture of £400,000+ probably helps a political party to see things your way.
bet365's huge donation was secret for years. The Mail provided the missing pieces in the jigsaw puzzle as to why we have this pernicious legislation. IMO, they deserve credit for this.
Can I encourage you to set aside any prejudice and to read the article?
===========================================Local Labour & Lexington
The then government's drive to promote and normalise gambling was reflected locally.Lexington Communications plc, is a PR firm reported to be linked to the Labour Party.
Around 2006/7, Lexington was paid £182,200* by Haringey Council to help sell our charity's asset, Alexandra Palace, to a former slum landlord. *(FOI data).
The buyer wanted to install a casino, but the whole sale was frustrated at the last moment by High Court action, brought by the Save Ally Pally campaign.
Certain Haringey Labour Councillors were determined to get that casino. To this day, it remains a mystery as to how the promise for casino use, by our council, made it into the final agreed Lease.
Don't expect any exposé in Haringey People magazine! - Attachments:
-
-
Gambling Report Appendix.pdf, 722 KB
-
-
Permalink Reply by John W Leach on
-
I too am appalled at the way gambling has been allowed to flourish and Gordon Brown has a lot to answer for as he saw the income from gambling rather than the social and subsequent financial cost.
At the time I wrote to Barabara Roche and other Labour M.Ps begging them to oppose the legislation and when it came to the vote they were all absent from the chamber on the day - they copped out.
The gambling lobby with their financial power cow local government due to the cost of opposing licenses and are cynical when offering free coffee in the area of St Anne's hospital where mentally distressed patients end up betting in their shops all for the sake of a free coffee. Its disgusting behaviour by any standards.
The sooner society clammers for a change in legislation and particularly the advertising and easy smart phone and fixed odds machines the better.
-
-
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?
-
-
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
-
-
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.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
