As a Blackpool boy, I never had any doubts about Blackpool having the 'supercasino'. Entertainment is what Blackpool does. Gambling is a form of entertainment and Blackpool is badly in need of the profile and focus that a resort casino could give it. Compared to Manchester - awash with regeneration money and almost regenerating on top of regeneration - Blackpool has visibly declined. Less people holiday there; the conference circuit increasingly miss it out as its Winter Gardens venue can't meet the demands of the modern conference organiser and, unlike Manchester or Greenwich, it has very little choice on the kinds of vehicles it uses for regeneration. 

I raise the last point following the Question Time debate on TV last night. On this subject, the majority of the panel declared that there was something wrong - for some people, something morally wrong - in using gambling as a platform for regeneration. Why? For Blackpool the classical town regeneration options aren't available. It is not going to develop a manufacturing industry, or high technology industries. No the industry is entertainment and if investment in entertainment is what this is about then the right thing to do is to allow Blackpool to be able to use this to attract in the investment it needs.

This moral panic on gambling has all the anti-liberal elements we are familiar with; protecting people from themselves, puritanical social control and punshing the responsible majority for the excesses of the few. Polly Toynbee in a recent Guradian column gives you an indication of the moral degradation that, according to her, will ensue. For example, 'negotiations over the size of casinos has centred entirely on how many slots they can put in for all the dead-eyed addicts poking their wages into black holes.' The gambling bill is a vehicle for Polly and her ilk to make spurious causal connections to declare that society is going to hell in a handcart and the government gets fat on the misery of those that suffer.

The reality is that most people - including working class people - who gamble do so as a form of enjoyment and entertainment with a fixed budget. According to the gambling commission  73% of the UK population gamble, the vast majority on the National Lottery. 0.8% of the population may possibly have problems with gambling. Casino gambling represents only 3% of gambling.

It is right that government derives taxes from this as government provides the the regulation and framework to ensure that it is carried out properly. Some people become obssessed and addicted. So what. Some people become addicted to all sorts of things from sex to food. People with obsessions and addictions need help to take control of their lives and the environment they are in. Alcoholics know that they have to avoid drinking. It doesn't matter if pubs are open longer. Someone who approaches gambling with the idea that they are guaranteed a return is deluded - and is highly likely to become addicted. 

Like sex and relationships education, we also need to educate young people about recreation and pastimes in this country. This should include gambling as it something that they are likely to end up doing in some form. The Gambling Act should include education work as a key element.

Finally, as much as I hate to admit it, I do agree with Nigel Farage from UKIP on one thing. Speaking on question time last night he said that it is not the job of central government to decide where casinos go, this is the job of local authorities.  

Even Nigel can be right about some things. 

Lord Turnball in  one of those ambigous is - is it on the record or off? - interviews with the FT suggests that Gordon Brown has 'stalinist' tendancies. What a shock! Even less shocking is the immediate reposnses from Gordon's mates, Harriet Harman etal that this is merely an interpretation of his 'strong leadership', which the civil service have problems with.

Why are these conceptions of strong leadership utterly at odds with modern ideas of leadership? There are no management texts that I have read that have indicated that paranoia, rudeness, information hording, diffusing responsibility and obssessive behaviour are the elements of strong leadership in the modern world.

Cllr Peter Martin Mayhew has replied to my letter in the Journal accusing me of 'fatuous ramblings' and having no right to raise civil liberties because of the 'bufoons' in government that I follow - and that he and the others are simply looking for common-sense solutions.

Apart from thinking how could something as semi-literate as this be published, it also sparked off some connections between previous issues and themes. Key theme is that the Tories when cornered on matters of substance and debate resort to bluster and abuse. Linda Neal (Leader of SKDC) for example displayed an earlier example of this. During the Council Budget debate at the beginning of March her response to our detailed amendment to fund ward and neighbourhood conferences was, 'he's just trying to be too clever, Mr Chairman'. Superb analysis there, Linda.

Back to Peter. Well he can't get away with denying the fact that he wants an alcohol ban and is going to hunt down the evidence he needs to get it. I sense a lot of embroidery could be taking place.

The Community Panel of the Council have been fretting about people drinking alcohol outside. You would guess from an article in the Grantham Journal that there was a major problem, particularly when the Tory Chair Cllr Peter Martin-Mayhew suggests that because having restrictions in certain areas would move the 'problem' elsewhere so a total ban seemed inevitable.

However, reading the minutes of the meeting it appears very clear that people don't want a ban and tellingly the record states, "Although there was a lot of anecdotal information concerning drinking and anti-social behaviour there was not enough evidence available that linked the two and that would stand up in court".

However, why should that stop a committee with the prohibitionist bit between its teeth. They have decided that further work is required to gather 'tangible' facts and figures(?!)  

I wrote a letter to the Grantham Journal which was published but unfortunately I forgot to copy.

I have always found tradition an uncomfortable bedfellow; I dislike the notion of power automatically assumed out of the shadows of history. Custom and Practice in organisations will often be wielded in an authoritarian way by those who believe is it is another instrument of their office. The problem is that it is almost always abitrary and often unreasonable.

Take government for instance. At a local level, there are rituals and traditions such a prayers before council meetings, or unwritten dress codes for council meetings. It is unfortunate that some representatives of the people spend so much time obsessing about these matters especially if they are challenged and justification is sought.

Thomas Paine captures this well when he wrote

"The circumstances of the world are continually changing, and the opinions of men change also; and as government is for the living, and not for the dead, it is the living only that has any right in it. That which may be thought right and found convenient in one age, may be thought wrong and found inconvenient in another. In such cases, who is to decide, the living, or the dead?"

Public Conference on the Future of Earlesfield

A community conference is to be held on Earlesfield in Grantham. Members of the community, businesses and other agencies will have the opportunity to come together to discuss and share ideas about how the community can develop. Topics include housing, recreational and green spaces, crime prevention, transport, health services and employment among others. The organisers of the conference believe that this will be the springboard for a community plan that will develop the community as a whole.

One of the organisers, is the district councillor for Earlesfield, Rob Shorrock. Cllr Shorrock explains the reason for the conference. “In neighbourhoods like Earlesfield there are many individuals and agencies doing great work on single issues. We thought it would be good to bring them all together to look at developing a vision for the whole community. As elected representatives we can then shape this into a plan and make the case to the district and county councils for investment and the kinds of services people want.”

The event on Saturday starts at 10-30am. Participants will get the opportunity to raise the issues which they think are important and then will be able to discuss them in detail in theme groups. The theme groups will report back and participants will get the chance to say which are the most important issues that should go into the plan. A small panel will be elected to liaise with the councillors and help develop the plan.

Cllr Shorrock has also made requests to the district council for councillors to hold ward budgets. These are sums of money that can be spent on initiatives within the community that are not already delivered. The big difference is that the community can decide through forums like community conferences on what the money aill be spent upon.

Cllr Shorrock believes that the community conference coupled with the investment of ward budgets is a vital step in helping develop local communities. “Evidence from residents surveys shows that a high proportion of people say that they want to be more involved in direct decision-making. Making decisions about the future of your community is an important step in building strong, thriving neighbourhoods.”

The conference will take place on  at the Earlesfield Community Centre on Trent Road between 10-30am and 1-00pm. Anyone living or working in the Earlesfield Community is invited to come along. For further details contact 01476 400740.

Further Information

Contact: Rob Shorrock

Mobile: 07746 48 46 36

Email: rob.shorrock@btinternet.com

I thought I would herald my return with some good news that my bank paid up almost all of the bank charges!

Don't let them get away with it. Links to the organisations that can help are nearby.

Cheers

Rob