Why are Blair and associates so enthusiastic about this?

I think sadly this is most likely one of those cases where the obvious staring-you-in-the-face answer is the correct one... MONEY! It will probably make the government (hence the associated profiteers thereto) extremely rich, so they'll no doubt come up with every justification in the book to see that it's implemented. Not that I'm cynical or anything. pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

It's the american dream, innit. :) Daddy, take the banana! Tomorrow it's Sunday! - Faust

"It will probably make the government (hence the associated profiteers thereto) extremely rich," Well, it won't make them personally rich and any money that comes into the government's coffers through indirect taxes paid by gamblers either decreases - to some extent - the amount of money paid in direct taxes by wage earners or increases the amount spent on providing public services. Either of which is fine by me from a personal interest point of view. That said, I am thoroughly opposed to the government's promotion of gambling. It's a policy that encourages both crime and addiction with no social advantage. They're doing it because they've been very effectiviely lobbied by very rich people and Blair and his close associates biggest flaw is that extremely easily seduced by the wealthy and powerful.

Interestingly, in Canada, Casinos are state owned and run. I imagine this came about to take advantage of 'across the border' American gambling laws, and allows the state to suck up some nice dosh. Also, there are advantages in this in that there is a duty of care in operation of casinos and gambling, with much effort put into ensure that responsible gambling takes place and that problem gamblers are spotted and prevented from getting themselves into trouble. A relative of my partner works on systems in Canada to spot problem gamblers in casinos based on patterns of behaviour. Apparently, the pattern is loses followed by greater conversion of cash to chips. If someone's conversions far out way their winnings they're prevented for doing more damage by having their conversion stopped, or something like this. It's all based on modelling of behaviour. I'm not sure if casinos are any worse than bookie shops. I imagine it'll make a bit more service industry dosh than bookies shops do. Cheers, Mark

I love that idea - from a government that has supported privatisation at every turn, they finally turn their coats inside out and go for state owned casinos! I guess from the ideology of New Labour that they would argue it's up to each individual to decide if they want to gamble or not - and they are then responsible for the consequences. From any sensible point of view it's another piece of immoral, short term thinking from a government that has been beset by that. PPP etc. has sold off the nation's long term future and the 'short term foreign policy', i.e. let's get rid of a dictator and get hold of the oil, didn't work out the consequences. These things are typical of politicians without any form of decent ideology. I am not arguing for despots driven by blind blueprints for the future, I do think that you need to have a 'big picture' in your mind if you are to be an effective government - and I don't think the 'third way' has ever been that. It's been a return to the pragmatic conservatism of the Edward Heath era - and look at the trouble into which that got us.

I don't think the super-casinos are actually going to be state-owned in Britain. The state's just going to decided where the licences are granted. I think the difference between super-casinos and normal betting shop betting is that there's an increased chance of get swept along by the excitement and adrenalin and losing a lot of money very quickly. I'm not saying that doesn't happen for some people in the local Ladbrokes but I think the atmosphere in a casino in more conjuicive. "I guess from the ideology of New Labour that they would argue it's up to each individual to decide if they want to gamble or not - and they are then responsible for the consequences." Well, yes but if this is the position, that would also be a perfectly legitimate argument for legalisation of a number of currently banned recreational drugs which, like gambling, do very little harm when used in moderation but do appalling damage when used to excess.

Buk: “Well, it won't make them personally rich...” And yet... Buk: "Blair and his close associates biggest flaw is that extremely easily seduced by the wealthy and powerful. Why are they seduced by such people? What incentives are they offered? I'm not talking official policy here, but doesn't your second point kind of imply backhanders, "favours" and the like? Do you believe Blair and co (and probably many other folks in government) are totally pure and principled and do everything by the book? pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

"I'm not talking official policy here, but doesn't your second point kind of imply backhanders, "favours" and the like?" No. It's not intended to imply more than it says. Blair and friends suck up to rich people, they find them impressive and exciting and want to be around them and be liked by them. A key part of the New Labour strategy is a culture of deference towards successful 'entrepreneurs'. I don't believe that Blair takes back-handers - not because I've got any inside knowledge but there is no logical reason for him to do so. He took on the relatively low paid job - compared to being a top lawyer - of Prime Minister because he wanted the power and importance that it provides. He could've made a lot more cash legitmately if he'd wanted the cash. He wanted his place in history. While 24 hour news media - amongst other things - breeds the kind of cynicism you're displaying (and growing chunk of the population share it) in terms of hard facts, British politicians today are some of the least personally corrupt we've ever had. "Do you believe Blair and co (and probably many other folks in government) are totally pure and principled and do everything by the book?" I don't think they use their position to divert cash into their own pockets. Blair has certainly bent the rules on several occasions but for political motives rather than personal gain.

Gambling is a pretty good way to raise revenue for the state. It's also a pretty good way to attract crime. It's also a pretty good way to generate jobs where they didn't exist before. It's also a pretty good way to attract crime. It's also a pretty good way to improve the infrastructure in the area of the casino. It's also a pretty good way to attract crime. It's also a pretty good way to attract tourism. It's also a pretty good way to attract crime. So, you'll get some nice paved roads, more police, more money for everyone involved, and the only cost will be the additional rapes, thefts, muggings, murders, embezzlements and additional political graft. Can't see anything wrong with it, can you? Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

I agree, Radio - that's why I loved Mark's idea of state owned casinos. But it won't happen. I also agree with bukharin that we have, by and large, the least corrupt bunch of politicians we've ever had. It doesn't mean that they are as pure as the driven snow but my experience of them is that they genuinely believe in what they are doing ... but it doesn't make them right. They are also more pig-headed than many others of recent past history - and whilst that can sometimes prove to be a good thing - in this case it isn't - much like the Iraq War. The true 'pragmatic politician' bends with public opinion. This lot do so to a certain extent - but only if it's their sort of public that's coming up with the opinion - and I think that is dangerous.

Buk: “…in terms of hard facts, British politicians today are some of the least personally corrupt we've ever had…” …&… “…I don't think they use their position to divert cash into their own pockets…” TCook: ”I also agree with bukharin that we have, by and large, the least corrupt bunch of politicians we've ever had.” Hmm… well, fair enough… in the absence of hard facts, I shall not push this conspiracy-ist point any further. Suffice it so say, however, that I think it would be folly to presume that any politician whom we are not intimately acquainted with is not as corrupt as hell. I have no personal evidence to suggest that Blair, for example, is, but he is human, and it rings alarm bells for me that he is evidently so swayed by the wealthy and the powerful – casinos, whichever way you look at it, are a substantial money-making exercise, but also likely to be seen as morally dubious and are not the best example of a potential vote-winner. Blair is not a stupid man, so like I say, against these risky political pitfalls, what is his incentive? I think, regarding our perception of our “leaders,” it is healthy to keep an open mind re their characters and what drives their decisions. This means allowing for the possibility that they are pure and principal-driven, but also accepting that they might be driven by the promise of power and wealth (and by “wealth,” I don’t just mean the more obvious financial incentive of a substantial wage…). pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

"Suffice it so say, however, that I think it would be folly to presume that any politician whom we are not intimately acquainted with is not as corrupt as hell." I think it's good to have a healthy scepticism of politicians - or anyone who's in the position of taking decisions that have a massive effect on other people's lives. The problem is that if your starting point is an overly negative view of politicians as people, you running the risk of failing to analyse their policies on their merits. As Tony suggests, it's perfectly possibly (and in the case of the UK, far more common) for well-meaning, non-corrupt politicians to pursue really bad policies and it's just important to oppose these policies as those that are driven by a desire for personal gain.

I have a horrible feeling that the only reason super-casinos are so popular is so the government can get shot of the millenium dome.