by
wowbagger
@ Thursday, 12. Jul, 2007 - 20:36:36
So Golden Brown has become, with a single, glorious fudge, I mean decision, the moral compass of the nation. Apparently. I have a number of issues with this ‘Super Casino’ lark. Up until yesterday the matter had not bothered me in the slightest, I’ve been to casinos on a couple of occasions and if one was opened, super or otherwise, within walking distance I might go again, if I had to get the car out, I don’t think I’d bother. But it’s not the substance about which the decision was made that I have a problem with but everything behind the process of making the decision. Parliament took a vote; yes to a whole rash of casinos, ostensibly in the expectation that the corporate purveyors of all things chancy would throw their largesse at various areas in need of regeneration into which H.M. Govt. would plant them. After whittling away at it the number of ‘Super Casinos’ to be built ended up at 1 with a number of locations racing towards the end of the rainbow. So here we have one of the problems, a beauty contest was arranged, involving the expenditure of private and local government money, with an unambiguous prize to be bestowed upon the winner. Well here’s the news guys, every last penny spent, win or lose, was pissed up the wall. Is there some morality in stimulating pointless expenditure of local government money? Personally I rather see it spent on weekly garbage collection if it’s all the same to you Golden.
Was Brown’s predecessor not someone who claimed to be led into Iraq a by a moral imperative? I am not for a moment trying to equate the decisions, just the spurious basis in ‘morality’ which has been ascribed to the decision making process. All this started for me during a moment of inattention, I found myself listening to the renown lightweight Jeremy Vine, upon who’s show Amanda Platell was supporting Golden’s decision. A Daily Mail columnist supporting Brown, some mistake surely? It got worse, he then gave air time to a couple of rabid, anally retentive Tories who avowed that, until this decision, they would rather have opened a vein than vote Labour, were now on board with Golden!
But just how much morality underlies this decision? Is Golden just trying to distance himself from his predecessor, if so is abandoning parliamentary decisions and cabinet politics so radical a departure? It’s OK, no consultation required, it was a ‘moral’ decision. Was it just a knee jerk reaction to feeling like he was having a pole shoved up his arse, politically speaking, by, of all things, Ian Duncan Smith pissing in the wind about how to ‘heal our broken society’? Really, if Golden can’t withstand the blathering of washed up Tories of the calibre of IDS then his domicile at No. 10 may not even stretch to the next General Election.
And finally, has any decision actually been made, or unmade, or made and then unmade? Morally or otherwise. Whilst at the Despatch Box did Golden say that his sensibilities, and those of the nation, would be affronted by such a heinous institution as a ‘Super Casino’ and the whole concept was done like dinner? No, he did not, he said that the project was to be subject to a further period of reflection. So no decision. Well, no, or yes. A ‘well placed source within No. 10’ seems to have briefed all the media, with the possible exception of the Shetland Free Ads, that it is in fact toast. See, this is the way to do politics, just ask Tony Blair.