Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to bcfcforum.co.uk. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Super Casino; Rejected in the Lords
Topic Started: Mar 29 2007, 09:46 AM (189 Views)
bordesley
Martin Grainger
[ *  *  * ]
Anyone noticed that the siting of the first Super Casino in manchester has been rejected in the lords.

Anyone know if the government can push it through or are tose mancs scuppered?

Anyone think it would have been more likely to have gotten through if sited in Brum?

feed.back
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Concerned Potato Head
Member Avatar
Big Bawss
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
i guess this throws the NEC's plan to develop one of the smaller scale casinos into doubt too now

i wonder if this affects the Birmingham Sports Village proposal :crying:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Loz.JBB.
Member Avatar
Geoff Horsfield
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
it throws into doubt all the casino's within the package
1 super casino prob go to Blackpool now and
15 smaller casino's around the country NEC, Grt Yarmouth etc.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sam Tyler
Unregistered

bordesley
Mar 29 2007, 09:46 AM
Anyone noticed that the siting of the first Super Casino in manchester has been rejected in the lords.

Anyone know if the government can push it through or are tose mancs scuppered?

Anyone think it would have been more likely to have gotten through if sited in Brum?

feed.back

The government can always force things through the Lords. The issue is how long it takes, what compromises they have to make & how much appetite they have for the fight.

Policies rejected by the Lords are usually modified & accepted eventually.

Why did they reject it ?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
alfred E nueman
Member Avatar
Mikael Forssell
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
The Lords traditionally do not vote against secondary legislation - the only other occasions since 1945 have been on Rhodesia sanctions and on the Mayor of London's powers.

Lord Strathclyde, Tory leader in the Lords, told BBC Radio 4's Today on Thursday Ms Jowell could have avoided defeat if she had not "pretended" to accept an amendment saying MPs and peers could examine the Manchester decision before any licences were issued.

Manchester Blackley MP Graham Stringer said it had become a constitutional issue between the two Houses.

"What we can't have is an unelected House trying to effectively reopen the debate on the Gambling Act."




Scuppered by the Tories (who still have an unelected major presence in the Lords) they thought a big rebellion was on the cards so voted against it, having already voted for it in the Comons and as a First Reading in the Lords. It wasa minor ammendment that they voted against, but it effectively stopped further voting and debate.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
northside blue
Frank Worthington
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
If birmingham wants a stadium/ sports village the piddly little casino at the n.e.c wouldn't have made any difference, we didn't have to have casino money to build the icc the nia etc etc. Just do it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
« Previous Topic · Blues Chat · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Forum Design by Hirsty.