All bets off when it comes to regeneration

HANDS up if you thought tomorrow's papers would be full of accusations about favouritism, secret dealings and murky goings on after Greenwich got the first super casino?

Certainly, the TV crews were certain it was going to Greenwich, with Blackpool a people's choice second.

Instead, Manchester won. Which was a bit of a shock for everyone, not least the mighty Manchester Evening News which had cued up its third edition with the banner headline: "Blackpool gets super casino."

So surprise all round. But it's not the location which bothers me so much as this myth that it's worth jumping into bed with the gambling industry because of the untold regeneration riches it will bring.

Which is nonsense, and serves to show that regeneration experts the world over are very good at blocking things which don't appeal out of their mind.

The belief is this: A super casino in a poor area will not just a self-contained gold mine, but one in which the area benefits in terms of further investment from other companies, more jobs, and therefore better living conditions.

Look to Las Vegas the experts cry - look what happened to a desert town in the middle of nowhere when the mining industry collapsed. They allowed gambling, and the rest is history. Millions visit every year, it's good, if not always clean, fun in a safe environment.

Which may be true for the Brits like us who head over there for a few days in the year-round sun before heading off to San Fransisco or Los Angeles.

But in terms of creating a better place to live and work, Las Vegas is the last place which British areas should be looking to replicate.

When I went on a two-centre holiday there in 2003, one of the first things our tour guide said en-route to the Stratosphere Hotel was not to walk north of the hotel. The bit between the hotel and the original strip - the bit without the huge hotels - wasn't safe.

South of the hotel, he said, was fine - and the image of thousands thronging the wide pavements each side of the Strip, admiring hotels themed on everything imaginable, is one perhaps worth replicating.

If only it wasn't for the streets on either side. The biggest eye-opener for me was that within 50 yards of these massive hotels were what can only be described as slum housing. Several blocks high, paint peeling, no gardens, the closest these people get to the riches on offer on the Strip is either a) working in one of the casinos or b) spending all their cash trying to get hold of some of the riches.

People in those houses earn peanuts - and there's no reason at all why the supercasino in Manchester will pay anything above the minimum wage over here. So the riches from the tourists like you and me stays on the Strip, or more likely, in the pockets of the big companies.

So the notion that a big bang development can solve an area's problems is rubbish. What about the crime it will bring?

And as for the tourism pull - how long does it take people to get bored in Las Vegas? If you're not hooked on gambling, there's only so much themed hotel days you can take, which is why most people stay three of fours days before moving on. Even then, one of those days is spent at the Grand Canyon.

Blackpool seemed certain casinos would solve its problems. It won't, just as it won't turn East Manchester into the most sought after bit of real estate in the North. Those who will profit will be the casino owners, not the local community which desperatley needs a co-ordinated approach to having its socks pulled up.

We hate Ruth

HERE'S a thought. Imagine a very orthodox Muslim man became an education minister and then decided that the Government shouldn't fund college education, post-16, for Muslim women because it conflicted with his beliefs.

Or a health minister who was a Jehovah's Witness trying his best to give doctors the power to deny blood transfusions to patients because it might interfere with the medic's beliefs?

What would happen? There would, I hope, be moral outrage, an absolute refusal for it to happen. It's the sort of thing that couldn't happen, could it?

But is it so far removed from having a hardline Catholic running the department responsible for equality legislation trying her best to make sure said legislation is equal for all as long as you are not gay?

I don't think so. Two weeks ago, for what it's worth, I felt a tad sorry for Ruth Kelly over the hoo-harr about her son being sent to a private school because she felt it was the best solution for his 'special needs.' For the record, that sympathy vanished when she decided to report The Daily Mirror to the Press Complaints Commission on the grounds that her son's privacy had been invaded.

Bobbins Ruth. By reporting it to the PCC you've made it look as though your son should be embarrassed by his dyslexia, and should try and hide it. You've stigmatised your son when you could have become a champion for better mainstream education.

She's one of those ministers who seems to attract trouble wherever they go. In the 'communities' department, you'd expect her to keep a low profile - and not try and torpedo equality legislation the department is promoting by demanding an opt out for the Catholic church.

Although Tony Blair - whose relationship with the Catholic church is, like most things associated with the great man, a tad odd - has since ruled there will be no opt out for the Catholic adoption agencies when it comes to giving gay couples equal status when placing children, questions still remain about the role of Ms Kelly.

The MP for Bolton whose children go to school in Tower Hamlets, wasn't voted in by the good people of Bolton because she is a severe Catholic. She was voted in because she represented Labour, which has made a great point of putting equality close to the top of its agenda.

She needs to remember that point. Perhaps the people of Bolton were pushing for her to put the boot into the gay community on adoption. Do gay couples make good parents? Probably as guaranteed to do so as a straight couple - surely it all comes down to the individuals involved.

And if the people of Bolton are telling her to push this point, then she needs to resign from her position. She's rather like the chief executive of Barclaycard, who famously said he'd never have one of his cards because the interest rate is too high.

But as with most things New Labour, Ruth Kelly is able to continue in her role largely due to the fact those around her are able to ignore certain parts of the equation. Does Hazel Blears, the party chairman and rule enforcer actively campaigning against a Government policy in her constituency not mean she is in conflict with her party? Apparently not. Does the fact the deputy prime minister was humilated after having a fling mean he now doesn't have the gravitas to continue in office? Apparently not.

And does all this pretty much guarantee Labour will get a good kicking at the next election? When you look across the floor at Cameron and his mob, and ask yourself if they'd be any better, there is only one answer: Apparently not.

Potty mouths ahoy

Hmmm. Knowing when to shut up appears to be a skill in short supply at the moment.

Take Jade Goody last week - she just kept blabbing, blabbing, blubbering, blabbing after coming out of the Big Brother house. She's ashamed of herself for her 'racist' comments made to Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty. But she's not managed to keep it zipped long enough to make me think she is actually genuinely remorseful - instead, her continual presence in the papers makes me reckon she's crying crocodile tears over her flagging career.

Her actions, apparently, should make Britain ashamed. For those in their ivory towers who still believe Britain is classless society, then perhaps Jade's ignorance did come as a surprise. So perhaps they are ashamed. But this week, I think, there has been a real reason to be ashamed. Those travelling from across the UK to Devon to raid the washed up goods from on board the stricken ship - great journalistic phrase - Napoli.

People honestly rented vans in Manchester and Liverpool before driving to Devon to see what booty they could get. The sight of us, in the 21st century, allowing people to steal belongings from others as a result of a accident is shameful - another favourite word among journos. Some people did get lucky, with BMW motorbikes and more perfume than you could shake a stick at. But what about those leaving with random pipes, or car steering wheels. What's more embarrassing for us as a nation - that people would happily pick among the piece of a disaster or the fact we did nothing?

And to hide behind age-old scavanging rights is very sad, too. Just because it was law in the past doesn't mean it is morally acceptable now. Mancuians on the beach proclaiming their scavaging rights as though they were taught about them at school.

I was taught at school about the Pendle Witches, and how suspected witches were thrown into ponds with weights tied on. If they sank, they weren't witches, if they did, they were, and they were killed by other means. I have no idea if killing witches is still legal - I can't imagine it's come up for debate in Parliament - but I've not intention of chucking the woman down the road who keeps leaving rubbish at the end of my garden into the pond, just because it's what they used to do in that neck of the woods.

But to go on to Radio 5 Live, as one woman did and say a)it was her right to steal from a ship's cargo and b) she only went because she heard there were nappies on board and her daughter has just given birth served to prove people don't know when to shut up when a microphone is put in front of them.

And if I needed further proof, and regular readers of this blog will know I rarely need proof before ranting, about my theory that people don't know when to shut up, then I got it today.

Step forward Derek Williams of North Wales. He's a child porn pervert. He downloads nasty images of children. He was convicted of this yesterday, but thanks to Home Secretary John Reid's decision to say only serious repeat offenders should go to jail, he got a six month sentence suspended for two years.

Plenty of gnashing of teeth as you may well expect. The Tories, Victim Support, something called SmartJustice, the Lib Dems, victims of crime - all came forward to say what a scandal it was.

And so did Mr Williams.

Sat, in what I'd call scruffs but fear are probably his best clothes, he berated the fact the judge's hands were tied. He was gracious enough to admit he was lucky to be out - too right - but then went on to say it showed what a state the country was in. He also said the country included England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland.

Proof, like I said, that sometimes people should take their right to remain silent - for the benefit of us all.

Have a good weekend.

Soapstar washout...

To the pages of the Manchester Evening News, where Antony Cotton, he who won Soapstar Superstar, is expecting great things as a result of his success.

The prospect of several main storylines in Britain's favourite soap - Coronation Street - doesn't appear to be enough. He wants a talk show.

"I'd like to be something irreverent, light-hearted, a bit camp and a bit fluffy and also a bit new and bold."

Hmmm. Irreverent, light-hearted, camp, fluffy? Try Channel 4, weekdays, 5pm Antony - Paul O'Grady got their first!

But while Antony may be suddenly losing grip on reality, the same can't be said of 'racist' Jade Goody.

Quoted in the papers today, she says: "I just hate myself right now." It's only taken four years, but it appears Jade is finally on the same wavelength as the rest of us.

Posh n Bucks - hell, everyone else has used that pun

Hmmm. David Beckham is off to America to help raise the profile of game known as 'soccer' on that side of the pond.

Good luck to him. And after CBS Evening News (shown in the UK on Sky News just after midnight) marked his pending arrival by showing an England goal scored by Michael Owen, it would appear Beckham needs all the support - practical, spiritual, divine, what ever you can offer - to get 'soccer' better known stateside.

But in all seriousness, people do need to lay off the whole 'he's doing it for the money' business. He doesn't need the money. It's only right he should move the family to America and quietly ply his trade while his wife tries to give her career a push. After all, she's been very good at sitting quietly in the background while David's tried to keep pushing on in football, hasn't she?

And on that note, have a good weekend.

Raining on the RAC's parade

Some essential advice issued by the RAC Foundation today, from Edmund King, arguably the second-most quoted man on TV (after Cary Cooper, the psychologist).

He is quoted as saying that drivers should stop when approaching a swollen ford [ie a stream that's full because of the rain, not a car with too much petrol in it] and check how deep and fast flowing the water is.

More than 18 inches could be enough to cover the engine and brakes of a small car, which could make the engine cut out and the brakes fail.

If you get stuck, call out your breakdown service. the longer the car is in the water, the greater the damage to the electrics.

"If a farmer is nearby, pay him to pull the car out. It could be cheaper in the long run. If your car is swept away and you can swim, it's best to get out."

Two questions:

1) What about those of us who don't live in Suffolk

and

2) If you found any of that advice enlightening, how the bloody hell did you get a driving licence in the first place?

Give the man a chance!

QUESTIONS which need answers from today's news: Why have three Premiership managers now paid money to sign Djimi Traore? Why does anyone feel the need to own a pitbull terrier? And why are people now calling for John Reid's head at the Home Office?

Of the three questions listed above, I think the latter is the most baffling. Question one may well answer itself in time (though I doubt it) and question two probably has something to do with feeling inadequete as a human being wrapped in the answer.

But as for question three, well, here's another question: Is it not becoming abundantly clear that the Home Office's problems have nothing to do with the politican in charge, but those paid handsome salaries to run the place?

From the Criminal Records Bureau fiascos to prisoners escaping, from the scandal that is the asylum system to the current debacle about unregistered criminals in the UK, one thing is adundantly clear: John Reid was stating the bloody obvious when he said the Home Office was no longer fit for purpose.

But perhaps more telling was the point from Jack Straw, a former home secretary, who incidentially was wrongly derided later by his successor David Blunkett - the most disappointing politician of all time.

Mr Straw said, this week, that it is impossible to know everything that goes on in the Home Office until you are made aware of it. He was smart enough to make the point that such a comment was similar to Donald Rumsfeld's famous "there are known knowns, known unknowns but there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know." comment about Iraq.

And in a nutshell, the point is this: You can't sack John Reid for something he didn't know anything about. It's different if it later comes to light he did know about it, but I doubt that will happen.

If it proves to be true Tony McNulty, one of his ministers, did receive a letter about senior police officers about the problem, and never followed it up after passing it on to colleague Joan Ryan, who, it is said, did chuff all about it, then both of them need to go.

As do the people inside the Home Office who have let it happen in the first place. This isn't just about an error in the sense that files which should have been processed on to the national police computer when they arrived at the home office were just left to one side.

It's about putting the safety of the public at risk. 500 free of a criminal record in this country. Rapists free to work in schools.

So if Mr McNulty or Ms (Mrs?) Ryan have been, at least, inefficent, they need to go. And the people in the Home Office who made the mistake need to go.

We're living in an age where the 'war on terror' has impacted on all our lives. We're all having to be more cautious, and put up with tougher measures in the name of security.

There needs to be a feeling of terror in the Home Office, too. A knowledge that if you get something so simple so wrong, then you walk. Being in the public sector has many perks over the private sector, but job security when you put the security of others at risk can't be one of them.

And Mr Reid needs too keep looking at the department and decide whether it does need to change. If it is too big to meet the modern-day challenges, then it needs to be shaken up. And he's the man who should be given the time to sort it out.

Because, after all, if Blair is to kick out John Reid because he has failed to get to grips with a massive public sector instution, then surely he has to do the same with the woman hasn't yet turned the NHS around.

And Pat Hewitt has had much longer at it that Mr Reid!

Blunkett again

Footnote to yesterday's blog: I made a mistake. I took David Blunkett's column to be a serious reflection of the week's events. Then I saw he allows someone to impersonate his guide dog, Sadie, and write about reduced fat doggie chews. And he wonders why no-one takes him seriously now.

Spot the hypocrite!

IT'S funny, isn't it, how sometimes you end up sympathising with people you have generally disliked in the past?

Take Ruth Kelly, for example. On a professional level, as a journalist, I've met her twice. I've found her to be generally off-hand, unhelpful and ever so slightly patronising of anyone who hasn't signed up to the New Labour belief-sphere lock, stock and barrel.

So how odd that I find myself feeling sorry for the semi-mauling she's taken in the papers - simply because she's put one of her children - with special needs - into a private school because she doesn't feel the right education is available in the state sector.

Ok, so she's an MP, and more than most MPs, has had the chance to influence education policy. But the Government's push towards placing as many special needs pupils in mainstream education as possible wasn't her idea.

No, it was that of David Blunkett MP, who writes in his Sun column today: "All politicians are vulnerable because they may not have made enough progress to avoid the accusation that what they expect for others, they don't expect for themselves."

That's a rather rich statement from Blunkett, who always insists he should never have had to resign from the cabinet - on either occasion - and who didn't believe the public should be so interested in his private affairs, before releasing a book detailing those affairs.

He goes on: "Surely the task we face is making major progress so we don't have to take these difficult decisions. Or more important, don't exclude those who don't have enough income to make these choices."

Again, rather rich - seeing as he has effectively created this situation by forcing special needs provision into the mainstream and, according to parents involved, diluted the ability of such services to be as specialist as each child may need.

And as for not excluding those who don't have enough income to make the choices - as the first education secretary following the 97 Labour landslide, can he explain where some of the support packages for getting youngsters into the private sector when they needed such support, went?

Funny how some people you should respect you end up disliking with a passion?

But, having established that perhaps David Blunkett is perhaps being more of a hypocrite - or, at best, forgetful - than Ruth Kelly, what should we expect from her?

Well, to my mind, it's not what she's done that is the problem - she, after all, is doing what's best for her children within her means - but what she now does in the future.

Within her means is the ability to rattle cages in Cabinet and point out that the system is wrong. To point out she is one of the lucky ones, who can fund a private education, and not one of the parents who have to fight for support to help their child.

Old Labour hands who want to hit out at her for appearing to say 'what's good enough for you is not good enough for me' have got it wrong. Three of her children are in state schools - which is more than can be said for the likes of Mr Blair's children - so, where possible she's shown she is perfectly happy to use state schools.

And perhaps the fact she has only turned to a private school now is an even greater ringing endorsement for state schools - that she felt they were so good for her other children that she didn't feel the need to put them into private schools, and only turned to one in desperations. That does rather contrast with Blair's determination to keep his sprogs away from the unwashed public.

Ruth Kelly now has the chance to make sure other parents don't face the same tough choice as her - or the even tougher fight to get what's right for their child when they don't have funds at their disposal - but to have David Blunkett telling her this when he's the one to blame for the problem shows where the real charge of hypocrisy lies.

Skip over, Freddie

So there you are. 5-0. The Ashes Whitewash. No longer will a giant home win football (say 7-0) be known as a cricket score, instead a heavy away win will be an England 'Ashes' score. 0-7.

As is typical when something goes wrong, a large-scale review is launched. This is cricket learning from Government. When in doubt, have a probe/review/investigation/public inquiry.

But for the sake of cricket, or English cricket at least, this one can't just be brushed under the carpet - so no need to call in Lord Hutton, then.

Even Andrew Flintoff agrees. In his home-town paper, the Lancashire Evening Post, he said it was important that the 5-0 whitewash wasn't a pointless exercise.

Of course it's easy to say that now, just as it was easy, if slightly odd, for Flintoff to say at 4-0 that England still had something left to play for.

He goes on to say that some of the players played well, some of the time. How true. Sadly, Freddie wasn't one of them.

He points to three players who scored centuries. One each. Australia had seven different players hitting centuries.

Most tellingly, although 'Freddie' probably doesn't realise this, he admitted: "Australia stuck to their plans and exploited weaknesses and that's something we can look at."

Spot on, My fellow once-a-Preston dweller. And here's weakness number one: Freddie as captain.

When is sport going to learn that natural ability - ie scoring runs and bowling fantastically well - doesn't naturally translate into being a natural Captain Fantastic.

Listening to his ramblings after each Test Match - It's just one game we've lost/there's still three more to go/We've got to take the positives from these three games/there's still something to play for in the last game/this can't be a pointless exercise - made me want to chew my hand off rather than have to listen to anymore.

So heaven only knows what it must be like being a professional cricketer, at the peak of your game, receiving pep talks from him ahead of a match. His speeches sounded more like those desperate screams you hear from the footie terraces on a Saturday afternoon when deluded fans believe they can still turn round a 2-0 scoreline in the last 10 minutes, than the careful prose of the captain.

The simple fact of the matter is that, with Freddie off form, we struggle. And what's changed between the Ashes we won and the Ashes we lost - other than the hemisphere played in? That's right, Freddie's the captain. Great honour and all that, but even he must realise for the good of the game, he's not the man for the job.

It was the same with Ian Botham. And in football, the same with David Beckham. The odd flash of brilliance here, a bit there, but certainly not what we'd come to expect from Beckham. And when players in a team see their captain struggling to reach peak form, they get distracted, concerned. The confidence as a whole starts to go.

The best teams in any sport are those captained by people who are an intergral part of the team but not always the shining light. Take Blackburn Rovers when they won (or bought) the Premiership. Who do you remember from that team? Alan Shearer. Was he captain? No. It was midfielder Tim Sherwood - a man whose role enabled him to lead from the middle. The team didn't rely on his goals. The same goes with Manchester United - look how successful they were with Roy Keane as captain.

So it's time to see Freddie take his own advice. Don't do a Blair and promise to fix something then blame all around you and paint yourself whiter than white. After all, I'm sure Freddie wouldn't want Blair doing a Freddie - and coming round to p*** in his back garden - something we should be entitled to do after the shower we've had to suffer down under.

Pure genius!

Just a brief one today, because sometimes, it's just better to defer to someone else. And today, I'm deferring to Hugo Rifkind, of The Times:

At the funeral of President Ford yesterday this country was represented by Sir David Manning, the British Ambassador to the US. Strange that Gordon Brown, for example, couldn’t be persuaded to attend the funeral of this former head of government who stepped in unelected to replace a disgraced predecessor, served a mere two years and was then booted from office at the ballot box. Whatever could have put him off?

Every little helps...

Well, it's started already. The Tesco-bashing, that is. All over the Sunday Times, the shock horror figure that Tesco snapped up half of all new retail space in 2006.

Straight away, out come the claims that Tesco is taking over the world, leaving shoppers with no other choice about where to go, and what to buy.

You'd think Tesco was so powerful it was ordering the Government to issue Tesco tokens instead of child benefits so those relying on the state had nowhere else to go.

But when you see Asda leading the charge of those complaining that Tesco is too dominant, you have to laugh. Why are they grumbling? Possibly because they aren't the ones taking over the world? A bit rich from a chain owned by Walmart, the company Asda was supposed to copy but which Tesco has aped more successfully.

After all, where do you prefer to shop? For me, it's Tesco every time. I particularly like going into my local branch on my way home from work, at about 11pm, and being confused by the night shift staff for management simply because I am wearing and shirt and tie. If you want good customer service, that's how to get it.

Unlike Asda, where beyond the usually inane greeter at the front door, all you get are the most miserable people on earth, who treat serving you as a favour to you as a customer and whose priority is to get to the bargain aisle ahead of the shoppers when the cheap bread comes out.

And ask yourself, why is Tesco so successful? Why will people travel miles to go to their nearest megastore? And why are their local stores in town, city and suburb centres so popular?

Could it, just possibly be, that they provide what people want, at a price they can afford, in surroundings which don't make you wish you had a machine gun?

Not to mention some canny business deals. In the Lancashire town of Rawtenstall, there used to be just one supermarket: Asda. It decided it needed a bigger store, obviously purely for the good of the shopping communinty rather than its profits. So it spends several millions building a new double-decker store.

And what happens to the old store? Asda sells it off to a property agent ... who sells it to Tescos. Bingo. One-store town becomes a two-store town. The shops on the little high street haven't suddenly closed. The fruit shop is still there, as is the bakery (several of) and the market, twice a week, seems as busy as ever.

Tesco isn't going to kill off the world with its clout. It won't kill off the little store if the little store realises that it has to raise its game and make personal service count over discount prices. And if it makes life harder for Asda, then good, perhaps they'll raise their game too. But I doubt it. Still, when it comes to improving a trip to Asda, any little bit would help!