a late start to posting today as i've spent all morning in hospital, on the operating table, having my spleen stapled back together by a nice chap called dr. slaughter who has a glass eye and longer hair than a horse's mane. it was a long operation - twelvty hours long in fact - as my spleen burst into a shower of blood raining down on the risograph machine like monsoon season in asia. it burst like a pin pricked balloon because i read curly's corner shop's first post for today where he highlighted the reason for newcastle not winning the super casino license as the london labour government feel that newcastle is isolated and "remote". read the full story here.
The Government's independent casino advisory panel said Newcastle's proposal was
"sound" but they cited the city's "relative remoteness" and "limited catchment
area" as weaknesses.
i'm clearly too thick to understand this so i need some help here.
what is newcastle remote from - the couple of millions of people who live within an hour's drive?
how is remote-ness a factor in the success of super casino's? sure the desert that las vegas is in makes it sooo close to everywhere else in america but that doesn't mean the several million who live within a two hour's drive of newcastle will have to cross a desert... does it?
there are three cabinet mps from the north east - are they thus remote mps now?
and if newcastle is remote then what the hell do this lot think of scotland?
if nulabour have not lost the polt they i seriously have to question whether they had the polt to begin with...
what is newcastle remote from - the couple of millions of people who live within an hour's drive?
how is remote-ness a factor in the success of super casino's? sure the desert that las vegas is in makes it sooo close to everywhere else in america but that doesn't mean the several million who live within a two hour's drive of newcastle will have to cross a desert... does it?
there are three cabinet mps from the north east - are they thus remote mps now?
and if newcastle is remote then what the hell do this lot think of scotland?
if nulabour have not lost the polt they i seriously have to question whether they had the polt to begin with...
.gif)
3 comments:
The panel's verdicts
Glasgow - "We do not note the wider enthusiasm for the proposed casino that we find elsewhere."
Newcastle - Described as relatively remote with a limited catchment area. "All this means Newcastle's market potential is not as strong as some other proposals before us."
Blackpool - Evoked "much empathy" from the panel because its economy is less buoyant and diverse than others. "But we do not think a regional casino on its own would effect the transformation sought, nor optimise the wider regeneration through regional and national economic growth."
Sheffield - "Sheffield does not have the biggest catchment, it is not the most accessible area, and does not have the national and international status."
Cardiff - "In terms of regeneration needs, Cardiff's is not the strongest proposal before us."
Greenwich - "The proposal to develop a casino in Greenwich is unconvincing as to offering the best possible location in which to test social impact."
Manchester - "In every respect, we were extremely impressed by Manchester's proposal, which offers great promise."
Scotland isn't remote, it's much further away than that, in fact it's another nation completey, it even has it's own Parliament. Caledonia is awash with oil wealth and therefore has no necessity for tourist driving casinos.
Has the NuLabour experiment taught you nothing?
i don't believe the snp when it claims scottish oil is so valuable it contributes a thousand £ a head to britain and thus an independent scotland would be £50 million better off.
the experiment has taught many things - such as don't experiment with a system that has worked for a thousand years. tweak it, evolve it but don't fuck it up.
Post a Comment