The Grosvenor Casino in Sunderland has closed. The same is true for the casinos in Swansea and Reading Central.

Job losses, and a decline in the opportunities to gamble and socialise. None of this is good news.

These announcements come as significant changes take place to taxes and other regulations which are affecting every gambling company across the UK. As one of the staff impacted said to me: ‘It feels like things are falling apart’.

The closure in Sunderland: everyone loses

The overwhelming reaction to the closure of the Grosvenor Casino in Sunderland has been one of sadness and disappointment. Comments on social media include:

‘Such a shame’

‘Met some great people over the years’

‘Very disappointing’

‘Sad to see’

A friend of mine described his thoughts when he heard the plans:

‘Sad times. Staff were all sound. Good group of regulars; they’ll be lost without the casino.’

On social media, one long-standing gambler expressed his disappointment:

‘After 60 years visiting casino firstly at Wheatsheaf then Lambton Street it’s sad to see the casino is closing on the 31st August, such a shame met some great people over the years. Tragedy.’

A staff member also took the opportunity to say how they felt:

‘15 years of memories, friendships, laughs and a fair bit of comedy. More than just a building and definitely more than just a job. Thank you for being such a huge part of my life. Sunderlove forever.’

Another worker told me that they were ‘gutted’, while a customer expressed both sadness about the news, and their thanks to the staff:

‘We joined the casino after recently moving to the north east. It was a place where my husband could play on the slot machines and we both enjoyed watching England matches there during the World Cup with my brother. We enjoyed the food and had pleasant conversations with the staff, who always made sure that we were looked after. The casino will be a big miss for us.’

The Casino in Sunderland

For my part, I always enjoyed a trip to the casino in Sunderland. I mainly went there to play poker, managing to cash in a few tournaments over the years, but not quite as many as I would have liked!

The Card Room was very well managed, and the poker dealers were good. All poker players reading this will understand how important it is to get that right. And it’s why, when I took a friend of mine to this casino to play tournament poker for the first time, she told me how much she enjoyed it and that she ‘felt at home’. The players and the dealers both made it a good place to play poker.

The Grosvenor Casino in Sunderland was always a place I could go to by myself, but also to meet others. Whether I went there alone, or with family and/or friends, it always felt like a comfortable place to meet up and gamble. I wouldn’t always win - obviously! - and a majority of the time I would leave the casino with less money than I went in with. But you always hoped that your ship might come in that night as you walked through the door. As one of my poker-playing buddies said to me:

‘Sunderland has once again found itself down trodden in her luck, losing another venue where people could meet with friends and dream that one day their own lives could upturn in a brighter tomorrow.’

Other closures; more job losses

As mentioned, the Grosvenor in Sunderland is not the only casino to close in August 2026. Swansea and Reading Central have also taken their last bets.

Staff in Reading were told of the proposed closure in July, and it has now gone ahead. There are no confirmed final figures on job losses, but there were ‘dozens of jobs at risk’, according to the Independent. There is another Grosvenor Casino in Reading, which I’m sure will want to attract the previous business, but it is not clear whether all staff can be absorbed from one casino to the other. Job losses look like they are inevitable.

With Grosvenor closing down their premises in Swansea, the nearest casino is almost 50 miles away in Cardiff. Like elsewhere in the country, there were heartwarming tributes to the Swansea casino staff for making the venue a place where people ‘made lifelong friends’ and ‘shared endless laughs’.

One kind offer of help included someone on social media offering their assistance with CVs, to help find work for those facing redundancy. Others expressed their disappointment about what this might mean for the night-time economy, and said Swansea was becoming a ‘Ghost Town’. Another expressed their upset at the news and offered their solidarity with the staff - see screenshot (below):

As well as the impact on the staff, and other businesses close by who benefitted from the casino, these closures will impact on the amount of in-person gambling and socialising that takes place. Seeing a decline in that is not good for those directly impacted, or for society more generally.

Almost everyone I know says it’s better to gamble with others in a regulated environment outside of your own home, than to do so by yourself in a more isolated way. These casino closures are negative in so many ways.

A government and MPs not listening

The warnings about casinos closing were there for all to see. But MPs and the government seem not to care. In October 2025, whilst giving evidence to the Treasury Select Committee, the Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) outlined the concerns that the sector had. This was prior to decisions that were made about gambling taxes in the budget, so something could have been done to prevent these closures.

The BGC’s Chief Executive, Grainne Hurst, told MPs:

To make clear this point, The Rank Group, who operate Grosvenor Casinos, repeated the warning in November 2025, when Chief Executive John O’Reilly said:

‘Put simply, if the chancellor raises machine gaming duty – the tax paid on slot machines – it will bring Rank’s nationwide investment to a shuddering halt, with closures and job losses along the way.’

Local factors

In all three casino closures, there were local factors impacting on the decision to shutter the premises, with the following all being mentioned:

‘long term viability and sustainability’

‘revenue performance below budget expectations’

‘increased operating costs’

But what is also clear is the part being played by the considerable changes in both gambling regulation and taxation. I’ve written about this at some length, both for Slots Hawk, and also on this Substack. So I won’t repeat things that I have said before.

The Future

The Prime Minister says he wants to do something to help the leisure industry and the night time economy. His words and actions around pubs have been widely welcomed. If Andy Burnham wants some evidence about the good things that casinos do to help local economies, local communities, and which have produced memories and friendships that last, reading the comments that have surrounded the closure of these three casinos would be a good start in understanding their importance.

The End

For me, the closure of Sunderland casino has brought to an end any new memories I could make there. Like everyone else, I will still have ones from the past, but it is a shame that no new stories, friendships, and experiences will come from the Grosvenor Casino in Sunderland.

As one staff member said, it was ‘more than just a building’. She is right. It was so much more than that.

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

Labour’s Gordon Brown wants to increase taxes

Speaking on Radio 4 (26/08/26), this is what the ex-Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, said that he wanted to do:

‘I would support, for example, betting and gaming, machine gaming tax, up to £500 million could be raised without affecting bingo halls or affecting pubs, but these adult entertainment centres, I would put a tax on that’

Granted, it was a bit off the cuff and poorly phrased, but we can assume that he is talking about Adult Gaming Centres (AGCs), and suggesting taking £500 million from them and giving it to the Treasury.

You can have that as a policy, but you can’t pretend that it won’t have consequences. Taking money from one part of the economy will have an impact on it. In short, it will mean a loss of jobs in the gambling sector, and a decline in regulated gambling opportunities for those of us who want them.

Standard Labour Party policy now seems to be the following: decrease the number of jobs in the gambling industry. Ex-trade union official, Vicky Foxcroft MP, is now the UK government minister with responsibility for gambling. It will be interesting to see if she falls in line with others in the government and continues to see jobs being lost from the sector she oversees. Opposing job cuts should be normal practice for trade unionists. Let's see what stance she takes.

Part of a pattern

For Gordon Brown, and for the Labour Party, this is becoming a bit of a pattern.

Last year Brown suggested raising taxes on gambling, and this was implemented by Chancellor Rachel Reeves under the then Prime Minister, Keir Starmer.

The money it raised wasn’t just lying around on the floor; it was part of the accounts of gambling companies. Those changes led to job losses in the industry and, at the same time, there has been an increase in the unregulated gambling sector. You can’t increase taxes and expect things to stay the same. It was always going to lead to job losses, as was warned, but it was clear that some Labour MPs didn’t really care.

Job Losses

According to data collected by the Betting and Gaming Council (BGC), thousands of jobs have been lost in just over six months:

‘Since last year’s Budget, more than 540 high-street betting shops have closed and around 4,500 jobs have been lost.’

That’s not good news for anyone connected with the industry - workers and punters alike. The BGC also said: ‘Britain’s regulated betting sector is facing mounting pressure from rising taxes and costs’ and it warned that ‘further increases will mean more shop closures, job losses and reduced investment.’

With more changes yet to be fully realised, and with announcements from companies like Betfred to close 132 betting shops and axe 600 jobs, Grainne Hurst (BGC Chief Executive) said

‘These are the real-world consequences of the previous Chancellor’s damaging tax rises. They are bad for jobs, bad for high streets and bad for sport - and they hand a huge advantage to the unsafe, unregulated gambling black market.’

More Labour attacks on Gambling

Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, appears to have it in for gambling, with his latest announcements on taxes for businesses.

There are some businesses that he likes - pubs and music venues - and he is going to make it easier for them. There are those that he doesn’t like - betting shops and Adult Gaming Centres - and he is going to increase taxes for them.

I wrote about this for Star Sports a couple of weeks ago, and argued that he seems to have ‘an intense dislike of gambling’.

You have to judge people by their actions, and everything he has said and done so far has been negative for the gambling sector. Burnham seems not to care about the impact on jobs and the choices for punters, and other key figures in the Labour Party appear to have the same perspective.

These continuous attacks by Labour mean that the regulated gambling sector is in decline. The jobs being lost are unlikely to come back again any time soon, but could well be replaced by similar activity in the black market.

High Street, Jobs, and Communities

Recent public discourse where Labour Ministers were talking about the decline of the high street, and dreams of bringing them back to what they were like at the end of the last century, showed a total lack of understanding about what has happened to our high streets, and to betting shops in particular. As the BGC noted in response to the discussion: ‘Betting shop numbers have fallen by over a third since 2019. Around 3,000 shops have closed and over 15,000 jobs have already been lost.’

‘The real threat to Britain’s hard-pressed high streets’, said the BGC ‘is more empty units and fewer local jobs, not businesses rooted in the communities they serve.’

As jobs begin to go, and empty shop fronts replace betting shops, those empty-unit eyesores will be a reminder to Labour politicians of the impact of their policies.

Gordon Brown is an ex-Labour Prime Minister urging attacks to continue on the gambling sector, and Andy Burnham is the current Labour Prime Minister who is giving these attacks the go-ahead. Gambling and gamblers deserve better than this, as do we all.

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

One of the things that I am beginning to dislike about Andy Burnham is he just assumes everyone will like the things that he does. He also assumes that there are no consequences to the ‘popular policies’ that he is introducing.

He has spent the week announcing ‘wins’, as one policy after the other has been spelt out to the nation. We are expected to simply applaud him for what he is doing, and government ministers get annoyed when journalists do their job of questioning and probing, which is exactly what they should be doing.

Don’t get me wrong, some of the policies are good. I welcome making bus fares easy and accessible for everyone. And pubs need some help, as do those who pay energy bills.

But because the only challenge he has faced recently was from a Reform UK councillor in Makerfield, and the formidable interviewer they call Gary Lineker, he simply hasn’t been properly tested and challenged for weeks. On top of this, he won’t face any questions in parliament for another couple of months. This is not good for democracy or policy.

Andy Burnham has become so presumptuous of late that he even stormed off at the count in Makerfield, when the agreement about who could speak after the vote had briefly broken down.

None of this bodes well

I speculated recently about what a new UK Prime Minister would mean for gambling:

• Would the cancellation of the digital ID scheme signal an intent about his view of the state and privacy?

• How would he view the loss of jobs in the gambling sector? Would he look to make sure not to add more onto the unemployment list?

• Would Burnham have bigger and more important things to tackle?

After a week with him as Prime Minister, I can see no grounds for any optimism under the premiership of Andy Burnham. Nothing that has happened this week bodes well for those of us who value the right to gamble.

Bad for the gambling sector; bad for gamblers

We now know some of what’s in store for the UK gambling sector, and it doesn’t look good. While Burnham pulled a pint and announced welcome relief for some leisure venues, it now transpires that this will come at a cost for others. The Prime Minister confirmed the changes to business rates that would be coming in, and said that the government was

“developing a business rates regime where we give incentives to the businesses that give benefits, and look differently at the ones that cause social harm.”

Vape shops and Adult Gaming Centres (AGCs) are two of those on the high street which seem to annoy ‘The King of the North’, and he used the generic and idiotic term ‘social harm’ to tar those businesses.

Chances are, he’ll soon be after betting shops, and then he may well come for casinos too. The ‘King’ appears to have a hit list.

The message so far: if you don’t share an interest in the leisure and hospitality pursuits of the Prime Minister, Burnham’s government will come for the businesses that you use. And if you work in a sector of the economy that he doesn’t like, you better start updating your CV.

Perhaps he’ll even make it more expensive for us to support football teams that aren’t called Everton?

One week in, he has not impressed. And the lack of challenge that he has experienced so far is not good for any of us.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

A BBC report is warning us that the 2026 World Cup is expected to be the biggest betting event in history and is full of statements and arguments alerting us to what could happen.

‘Almost all punters lose money in the long run’ is the first revelation. I hope this hasn’t come as too much of a shock to you.

We are then told that a big contributing factor is the number of teams taking part: 48, as opposed to the 32 last time.

The campaign group Stop Predatory Gambling warns us that ‘hundreds of thousands of people…will suffer life-changing debt and financial distress’, while Matt Zarb-Cousin says that those betting on the World Cup will be ‘cross-promoted more addictive casino content.’

Be careful with sweepstakes!

Meanwhile, the Gambling Commission posted on LinkedIn about the dangers of running a World Cup sweepstake at work, and signposted the concerned citizen to a link on their website.

This caused Peter Bedford MP to ask:

‘Do we really need regulation of the office sweepstake!?’

and commented:

‘What a load of self justifying claptrap.’

Next, we had an article in City AM by Rosie Harris-Davison talking about possible ‘legal red cards’ for employers if there is a sweepstake in the office. Hunters Law partner Clare Brennan says that ‘Employers need to be mindful of things like inclusion, pressure to participate, and how any disputes are handled’.

Just like VAR, it seems that these people are trying to take the joy, passion and impulse away from everything that surrounds football. I think I need the World Cup to start so I can watch that instead of reading all this other stuff.

DON’T PANIC

Every year, the World Cup provides us with surprises, and this year it will be no different. So I guess I shouldn’t be surprised with all the talk about gambling risks today as the same thing happened four years ago.

Luckily, workplaces didn’t fall apart after the 2022 World Cup when the outcomes of all the sweepstakes were known. Nor has gambling addiction exploded over the last four years, proving the doomsayers and killjoys wrong again.

The World Cup is responsible for lots of highs and lows, but it isn’t responsible for the ills that it is often linked to, and certainly not the way that some people want us to panic about any gambling or sweepstakes taking place during this World Cup.

Good Luck!

If you have a country in a sweepstake, or have a bet on any of the games, good luck to you! You are probably more likely to come out ahead than two of my friends who both have Algeria in a sweepstake, a team currently at 400/1 to win the whole thing. Their luck clearly deserted them when they pulled the teams out, I hope it stays with you longer than it did them!

Enjoy the tournament!

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Share

Chris Philp MP

I didn’t think I’d ever hear Chris Philp talking about gambling again, so I was surprised last week when he took to TV and Radio to announce a new policy launched by the Conservative Party.

Philp, who was a Gambling Minister in the Conservative Government of the 2020s, is now the Shadow Home Secretary. He has been talking about a new proposal aimed at those who have a criminal conviction, are receiving benefits, and ‘either have a community sentence or who have been released from jail on licence’. They want to stop them from spending the money that they get from the government (or, the taxpayer) on drinking, smoking and gambling.

It was Sunday morning, the day when we often see the media peppered with religious and moral arguments, but this was something else. I did momentarily think that I had turned on some interview with the Temperance Union when I heard Philp going on about their plans. Let’s look at what he said:

This approach from the Conservatives seems not to be a policy which has anything to do with saving taxpayers money, but has everything to do with limiting what we can do. State control of how we spend our money. What a draconian and Victorian thing to propose.

It’s tempting to write this off as just another policy from an out-of-touch Conservative Party, or to say it wouldn’t really impact on many people, but it’s clear that we need to argue against this principle straightaway before it beds in. Philp told Laura Kuenssberg:

‘We are going to review whether this sort of principle could be applied more widely.’

He also made a point of saying that other things are being worked on in the background, ominously saying that they are ‘not for today’s announcement’.

Perhaps Philp has a team of people working out how to stop people spending their state pension on nights out at the Bingo?

Stigmatising

The very nature of the proposals means that we should view tobacco, alcohol and gambling products as quintessentially different to everything else in society. This is back to an idea that these activities are sins. Well, I guess it was a Sunday when he announced it. Perhaps he was on his way to confession, or had just come from there?

Mark Littlewood

The following day, Mark Littlewood was on Good Morning Britain defending the idea. I was slightly surprised to see him arguing what he did, as I know what his views on gambling are. He spoke on a panel with me previously at the Battle of Ideas, commenting positively about my Letter on Liberty.

Littlewood described the policy as ‘modest’, and admitted that there would be technical difficulties with implementation, but continued to defend the Conservative’s proposals. They may not be a game-changing idea when it comes to overall government spending and the benefits system, but I would argue that they are more than ‘modest’. The proposals fundamentally change the nature of the relationship between the individual and the state, with the state making decisions about what you can spend your money on.

A good idea?

No! These proposals are an awful idea, and I don’t understand why the Conservative Party is proposing them. If reducing the benefits bill is a target for a future Conservative government, then this does not do that. Arguably, it would cost more, as there will have to be a mechanism put in place to ensure that spending on some products will be prohibited.

But perhaps my main concern is that this is yet another way to attack the activity of gambling.

Spending money on alcohol, smoking or gambling may not be necessary to fulfil the basic necessities of life - ‘three square meals a day and afford your heating bills’, as Littlewood expressed it - but the idea that the state should make a judgement about what you spend your money on seems to be very paternalistic and patronising to me.

Gambling is a normal activity

It continues to frustrate me that an activity such as gambling is always talked about in such a negative way, and the moralism that surrounds discussions on the subject annoys me.

Gambling is a normal leisure activity that millions of us engage in on a regular basis, and I will continue to make that point whenever I write or speak about it.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Good elections for the Greens

Green Party candidates performed well in the elections that took place across the UK on Thursday. They won two mayoral contests - Hackney and Lewisham - and won control of five councils: Waltham Forest, Hastings Borough, Hackney, Norwich, and Lewisham. In Newcastle upon Tyne they went from 4 council seats to 24, and have (alongside Reform UK) become the second biggest party in the City.

Scottish Greens won constituency MSPs for the first time, including ousting the SNP’s Angus Robertson, a big scalp to claim.

In Wales, the Green Party won their first ever Members of the Senedd, including a seat in Caerdydd Penarth for their party leader, Anthony Slaughter.

All this follows the election of Zack Polanski as Green Party leader last year, and (in February this year) Hannah Spencer became the MP for Gorton and Denton in a by-election. Spencer won a previously safe Labour seat and beat the challenge from Reform UK’s candidate, Matt Goodwin.

In summary, the Green Party is becoming a serious force in UK Politics.

Not good news

If you have an interest in gambling, none of this is good news. If ever the Greens start to implement their ideas or policies on gambling, it’ll make the world a worse place.

On what do I base that opinion? Let’s look at some of the proposed regulations and thoughts about gambling that run through the Green Party today.

Banning Greyhound Racing

Two years ago, a Green Party conference ‘voted to support an immediate ban on greyhound racing’. To justify this position, a spokesperson said:

They also said that a ban would stop greyhounds being ‘raced for the benefit of the betting industry and commercial gain’, as well as stopping ‘the unnecessary deaths and suffering of these dogs’.

Such a policy, it is claimed by the Green Party, would also ‘help reduce the harm caused by problem gambling.’

‘Remove all animals from sport’

A few weeks ago - during Grand National month - stories began to surface about what the Green Party Leader, Zack Polanski, thought about horse racing. It seems that he wants to ban it, based on what he has written on social media:

‘Zack Polanski is trying to fool the country into banning racing’, claimed a headline in the Daily Mail.

‘Polanski has advocated for (horse racing) to be banned altogether as recently as 2024’, according to a piece on the LBC website.

There doesn’t seem to be a specific policy from the Greens that advocates the abolition of horse racing, so it is likely that these are just Polanski’s thoughts and wishes, rather than anything concrete. However, it is Green Party policy to ban ‘the use of the whip in horse racing’, alongside introducing ‘a single regulatory authority to enforce animal welfare standards’, which would be funded by a ‘high compulsory levy’ applied ‘on the gambling industry’.

A new tax to casinos, bookies and other gambling venues

Under plans set out in their 2026 manifesto, the Scottish Green Party has said that they would introduce ‘a new tax to casinos, bookies and other gambling venues’. They outlined what the purpose of such a tax would be:

They also announced their plans for gambling advertising, stating that they want to make it illegal for gambling companies to sponsor ‘sporting events and teams’.

Increasing taxes on gambling companies

When Gordon Brown floated the idea of increasing taxation for gambling companies to pay for abolishing the cap on child benefit, the Green Party said that didn’t go far enough. A statement referred to the gambling industry as a ‘massive cash cow’, and argued that:

Tax increases on gambling that were discussed last year, which the Greens said didn’t go far enough, formed part of Labour’s budget in November 2025, and were implemented last month. According to what the Green Party has said, they want to increase taxes on gambling companies even more.

Preventing gambling companies from starting up

The Green Party has gone on record about their desire to make it more difficult for a gambling company to start up.

In a series of posts on social media last year - including this one - Zack Polanski bemoaned the government for allowing the gambling industry to ‘thrive’ and said that gambling companies were ‘taking over our high streets’ saying that councils are ‘pretty powerless to stop it’.

Polanski went on to say that the government needs to do a complete turnaround of the ‘aim to permit’ section of the Gambling Act and that there was a need ‘to legislate against’ gambling venues and stop them opening up in the first place. A party election broadcast in February 2026 also showed his disdain for anything to do with gambling.

Against betting shops, greyhound stadiums, and all gambling?

Not all of the ideas about gambling from the Green Party have been formulated into specific policies, but in an interview/conversation between Polanski and the newest Green Party MP, Hannah Spencer, there was a considerable amount said about gambling which indicates general intent. Although it was unfocussed, it is worth listening to the section of the discussion where gambling is the subject matter. I’ve pulled out some key parts of it (below):

Writing for betting.co.uk, Charles Perrin analysed in this article how the New Green Party MP Suggests How She Would Change UK Gambling Industry. His summary is that the Green Party want to ‘shake up the UK betting industry’.

What does all this mean?

It is difficult to know exactly what all this means for gambling, but I would stand by my initial summary earlier that this is not good news.

It might be different if the emphasis of the Greens was on ‘gambling harm’, but it is clear that they just don’t like gambling. Much of what they say tends towards prohibition, which is interesting given their approach to drugs. The number of statements and policies where they want to continually increase the taxation (or levies) on the gambling industry, shows an intent to regulate legal gambling out of business. This is not good news for anyone, although unregulated gambling companies might be happy with this approach.

At the very least, we can expect these questions to be on the minds of both the gambling industry and gamblers over the coming weeks and months:

These are just some of the questions that may arise as the fallout from last week’s elections continue, and that’s why I see no reason to celebrate the electoral success of the Greens.

I remain concerned about what their victories mean for gambling and gamblers across the UK.

Share

Leave a comment

Recent Debate

Over the last few weeks there has been a flurry of activity in the gambling sphere about Affordability Checks – the idea that the state must ‘check’ whether you can gamble a certain amount of money. Let’s look at a few of the headlines that we have seen this month:

‘Two thirds of punters would be unwilling to provide documents such as bank statements and payslips in order to continue betting’

according to a YouGov poll for the Betting and Gaming Council.

‘Racing fans urged to write to their MP over affordability checks’

says the Racecourse Media Group, who produce Racing TV, as they get behind a campaign to ‘Save Our Bets’.

‘We are writing to express our deep concern over plans to introduce affordability checks for betting’

begins a letter to the DCMS Secretary of State, Lisa Nandy, signed by over 400 figures across the horse racing industry, including MPs and the British Horseracing Authority (BHA).

From being a much-promoted policy a short time ago, it looks like Affordability Checks are coming in for some serious criticism, and not before time. They are a hideously illiberal idea - a point I made four years ago in ‘Risking It All: The Freedom to Gamble’.

They were never a good idea

The idea that the state needs to step in and control our finances (as we cannot be trusted with them) combines an assumption about the sensibility of politicians and government officials with a dim view of the public. Making policy based on those assumptions was always going to fail, and it is frustrating that so many in the corridors of power did not do their due diligence properly on this idea.

The government had it as a consultation question in the 2020 Gambling Review, it formed part of their White Paper in 2023, and has been a contentious issue amongst everyone associated with gambling and gambling policy.

But those who actively campaigned for this policy should not be let off the hook, and the Social Market Foundation and Dr James Noyes were a key part of that campaign.

A U-turn?

Noyes is now asking the government to ‘pause’ the Gambling Commission’s implementation of proposed financial risk assessments - the new way of phrasing the same idea. His letter to the Government is reported in The Guardian – ‘Key gambling reform campaigner calls for pause to controversial affordability checks’.

Why the change of heart? Turns out that he still has no issue with the concept in theory, but Noyes doesn’t like the practice.

‘It was a worthy idea in principle’

he says in his letter, sticking to his guns about how others know more than the public about how they should spend their own money.

The Social Market Foundation

As a bit of a recap, let’s look at what was said by the Social Market Foundation (SMF), with Dr Noyes as the lead author:

‘Online gambling should face £100 a month cap on spend’.

was the main headline at the time, which makes it pretty clear about the intention. He went on to say:

‘Gamblers should be free to spend more than this threshold – but only after they show that their gambling is neither unaffordable nor harmful.’

It is all well and good to now complain things aren’t going well with affordability checks, but on what basis could anyone ever consider that they would work? Noyes seems not to have thought about the practical implication of a deeply reactionary and unpopular idea.

How did the SMF think anyone was going to assess whether someone’s spend is ‘affordable’ and/or ‘harmful’? It should have been clear that these concepts would be difficult to change from a subjective judgement into something more objective and measurable.

Perhaps it just didn’t occur to them? Or perhaps they spent too little time thinking about consequences, unintended or otherwise. Either way, Noyes now calls for a ‘pause’, when it is a complete abandonment that is needed.

State limits were never a good idea

The government setting a limit on what it’s citizens can spend was never a good idea, which is why the Betting and Gaming Council pointed out early on that they ‘can think of no other area of the economy where the government determines how much an individual can spend’.

It’s also why a significant number of ordinary punters - not usually known for uniting on a single issue - got behind a campaign which led to over a hundred thousand signatures and a debate in Parliament. That campaign was something that the organisers should be proud of.

What you can do now about Affordability Checks

There continues to be a debate on this issue, in the racing and gambling media. But you don’t have to be interested in either of those issues to do something about it.

I’d urge all of those reading this who have a decent concept of liberty and freedom to take a stand. Not just for gamblers, but for all of us.

Write to your MP, and let’s make sure that the idea of Affordability Checks for gamblers are not just paused but defeated once and for all.

Share

Leave a comment

Saturday 4.00p.m. 11th April 2026

Today is Grand National Day. I have my horses picked out, I’m off to put my bets on, and I have the venue sorted where I’m going to watch it. All I need now is for Johnnywho to cross the line first at Aintree at around a quarter past four this afternoon.

If you are not quite as sorted as I am for today, here’s my TOP THREE TIPS of how to get the most from this brilliant horse race.

1. Check out the runners and riders

Newspapers will often have a free pull-out guide, but for those who only view their media digitally, you can check out the BBC Guide which is pretty decent, and there are plenty of others too, such as The Metro, or GrandNational.Org.

There is a significant amount of information available for you to read up on and study. But if you are anything like me and my family, you will go for names, colours, or the type of horse. One member of my family will always choose a grey horse over any of the others in the field.

This year I’ve picked a horse based purely on the name - Johnnywho - and I’ve written about this previously during the Cheltenham Festival when Johnny was a name on my mind. So, this year our family picks are:

If any of these come in, it’ll be a takeaway in our house later tonight! No prizes are available for those who correctly guess which horse Kay chose for today.

2. Place your bet in-person

There’s nothing wrong with online betting, as I have written about on previous occasions. However, with betting shops taking a hit recently because of the increases in taxation on gambling announced by The Chancellor last year, they could do with all the support and footfall that they can get. So, pay them a visit today and put your bets on in-person with your local bookie.

There’s still something nice about going into a bookies, interacting with others and putting a bet on. It is far more satisfying to write your choices on a bit of paper and hand it over to the cashier, rather than simply tapping away on a screen in isolation.

Bookmakers can be real sources of community to some people, even though commentators and politicians often talk negatively about them. I’ve never found time spent on an afternoon in a bookies to be wasted time - there’s always something to keep you interested or entertained.

Having the physical slips in front of you as you watch the Grand National is also much better than simply looking at your phone. Today’s one-off betting won’t save the hundreds of betting shops that are likely to close this year, but do yourself (and others) a favour and put your bet on at a bookies in-person this year.

3. Watch it with others and enjoy the thrill of the race

You don’t have to bet a lot of money on the race to enjoy it. You don’t even have to bet on it. The horses are magnificent creatures - that’s why they are called thoroughbreds - and the jockeys are incredibly skilful. I’ve managed to get to Leicester and Wetherby racecourses so far this year, and I continue to enjoy the sport and be thrilled by close-run races.

With so many horses and fences, the Grand National is an excellent watch. If you are with others, there'll always be someone with an interest in a horse competing at the front for the win. If you don't get lucky, it's nice to be with someone else who does.

And if you have done the right thing and not bet your house on it, you don’t have to take it too seriously if your horse doesn’t win or get a place.

Betting on a horse race and having a flutter is great fun. I have friends who only bet on this every year and look forward to it. Despite all the negative publicity that gambling attracts, it is still the enjoyment and the thrill of the possible win which attracts us to the Grand National today. It is one of the great sporting events that the UK has produced. There was even a virtual Grand National during the Covid-19 Pandemic six years ago.

But when you watch it today, watch it with others, and make it a communal experience to get the most out of it. I'll be with Richie (and others) today to watch it, and that's also the name of the jockey on Johnnywho today. All the omens are looking good!

So, how do you win on the Grand National?

In short, it’s not a race where you should be counting on winning. Your horse may not even finish the race. You win on the Grand National by doing everything you can to simply enjoy the spectacle through investing your time in something many only do once a year.

Yes, it’s great if you pick the winning horse, and I will be overjoyed if Johnnywho comes in first. But the Grand National is about more than just one horse. It is an event with so much more surrounding it, and it is good to feel a part of that by investing in the event and choosing a horse to back. That's why Grand National sweepstakes are still popular.

Make sure you savour the time spent watching the race and forget about everything else going on. I certainly intend to switch off from things and immerse myself in everything that the Aintree Festival throws at me this afternoon. That, in and of itself, is a win that we could all do with at times.

Enjoy it folks. I certainly intend to.

Leave a comment

The Cheltenham Festival

One of the biggest weeks for gambling and horse racing ended this week. The Cheltenham Festival is a flagship event, running over four days in March, with the Cheltenham Gold Cup being the highlight. I was lucky enough to have the day off on Friday to watch the Gold Cup in the Paddy Power Sportsbook - a new space in the London Hippodrome Casino. It was a great venue to watch it.

‘These four days are like Christmas to me’

I can always tell that the festival is upon us. One of my friends (‘This is my Christmas’) adds me to a WhatsApp group named Cheltenham Bets/Tips - or some variation thereof - and everyone piles in there with what they are up to.

One year, the group was called something like: Cheltenham Picks: Winners Only. I think that name was done under the Trades Description Act. There didn’t seem to be much correlation between the names of horses being shared in the group, and the winners being reported in the racing media.

I love the community feeling of the Cheltenham Festival, and the benefits of it are well documented. Four days of fun - and back to normal afterwards - mark it out as a great sporting and betting event at this time of year.

For all the negativity sometimes associated with gambling, the Cheltenham Festival has a lot of good stories to tell. It would be nice if there were a few more of them shared to counter the normal narrative. The killjoys even tried to assign the festival a role in the Covid-19 pandemic, although the evidence for that was far from compelling.

Sharing stories and knowledge with others throughout the week was both helpful and amusing. There’s something great about winning together, and even commiserating together. Friends joking about their experiences gives a different complexion to the week.

The WhatsApp group was also an education in the benefits of communal knowledge and trying to beat the bookies before the horses set off. There is a skill to taking advantage of offers and promotions, which we might see less of in the coming months if some of those anti-gambling policy makers have their own way.

Remembering Johnny

I’ve previously written about how we chose a horse by its name to remember someone. Cheltenham week was no different.

Johnny passed away last year, and two horses this year had his name. Both of them won, and at good odds too! The feeling that someone is looking down on you and helping you along is a great emotion to have, and it makes you think more about Johnny, and how he would have loved to see those horses win too.

As I mentioned, I was lucky enough to watch the Cheltenham Gold Cup in surroundings designed to bring people together to enjoy horse racing, gambling and some camaraderie, which never goes amiss.

Thanks to The Hippodrome for providing that great venue experience, but especially to Johnny, for providing the only winner for me on that day.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Anyone following politics in the UK knows that there is a by-election on Thursday in Gorton and Denton. It is a keenly and closely contested seat. Labour, Reform UK and the Greens, all have a chance of topping the poll.

Gambling & Anti-Gambling

The subject of gambling has not been an issue on the doorstep in this constituency, or amongst the many political commentators who have been offering their thoughts. However, I was struck by two negative references to gambling which arose during the political campaigning this week, which I think are both worthy of consideration and comment.

Both were throwaway comments, but they give us an indication of how anti-gambling sentiment has seeped into the psyche of the political class. It is so ingrained in them, they don’t even realise it. And there is no challenge by anyone to either the sentiments, or the veracity of what they are saying.

The Green Party

On Thursday, broadcasting from what looked like a front room from the 1950s, the leader of the Green Party (Zack Polanski) indicated his disgust that anyone might accept money in the form of a donation from a gambling company. He complained that:

‘Reform and Labour both accept money from oil and gas companies, arms trade companies, private healthcare and gambling companies.’

What I found striking about this is that Polanski felt that all he needed to do is to simply mention ‘gambling companies’, and we would all understand what he was saying. He implied that they are all awful, evil and destructive organisations, and that (without even nodding or winking) we would know that he was referring to something dreadful in society.

By accepting money from a gambling company, he complained, ‘That means they work for them and not you.’

The Labour Party

Saturday morning (yesterday) the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party (Lucy Powell) wrote an open letter published on social media where she made clear her disgust at the electioneering antics of the Green Party during this by-election campaign. She asked Zack Polanski how he felt ‘ethically’ about something that had appeared in some of the Green Party’s leaflets:

‘Can I just ask you how you feel ethically about sharing betting odds on the election which are based on a couple of very suspect big money bets?’

Powell went on to offer her thoughts on this issue:

‘It doesn’t sit easily with me and I’m surprised by your association with big money election betting.’

What is the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party trying to achieve by raising this? Presumably, Powell is using gambling as an issue, hoping to move some possible Green Party voters into support for Labour instead. She is trying to play on any anti-gambling sentiment that’s out there and use it to garner support for her party and their candidate in the by-election.

My thoughts

That anyone should have an ethical issue with sharing information about gambling odds is bizarre, especially when ‘the Bookies favourite’ is continually referred to by politicians, journalists and media commentators in this seat - and there is nothing wrong with doing so.

We constantly use language associated with gambling in our everyday conversations, as the numerous references to this being ‘a three horse race’ make clear.

What problem does Lucy Powell and the Labour Party have with making reference to gambling odds? As I have argued previously, gambling is a normal and everyday activity, and there’s nothing wrong with that. The problem can’t be with the target audience, as they will all be adults, albeit that a change in the law will soon mean that you will be able to vote at 16 but not gamble until you are 18.

No, Powell and the Labour Party seem to have a problem with the idea of gambling per se. She appears to represent a puritanical streak in the Labour Party which runs deep. Powell is so anti-gambling, she doesn't even realise it, or question that it might be a problem.

But what about the Greens? And their issue, seemingly, with anyone who takes money from gambling companies? The problem here is that there is no push-back against some of the idiotic claims of Polanski and the Green Party.

Would he criticise the Carers Trust and their relationship with the Rank Group PLC? A gambling company that raises thousands for a good, charitable cause. Would he accuse the Carers Trust of working ‘for them’ (i.e. the gambling company)? Rather than for who they actually work for - the Carers that they support.

And what do Polanski and the Green Party think about the financial support provided for Walking Football and Birmingham City Football Club Foundation by Entain and Coral? Or the support from the Betting and Gaming Council given to the charity Racing to School? Or Paddy Power’s financial help which has not only regenerated the sport of Darts, but has also raised record amounts of money for Prostrate Cancer UK.

Concluding comments

In some ways it is no surprise that anti-gambling sentiment seeps throughout the political class who dominate political discourse in the UK, but that does not mean it should not be challenged. Polanski talks at speed and is difficult to stop, assess and challenge, and Powell restricts our ability to criticise her, as demonstrated by the settings that she has on her social media posts.

But wherever an opportunity arises, they should be challenged about their approach to an activity which millions of us engage in. I’ll certainly not miss any chances to do so.

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

‘Monday night looks best for the casino’

While away at a friend’s house for a few days the other week, we were planning what to do. I suggested going to the casino one night.

I was thinking of maybe a few spins on roulette, a couple of hours of poker and perhaps watching a football match. My friend said that he would like to do that, as would one of his friends.

‘Monday night looks best’, he texted, and a plan began to take shape.

Two phone calls, one visit, and ten minutes of registration

I was aware of the rules and regulations about becoming a member of this casino, and that you would need certain documents to do that. One of our party had no access to their passport or driving licence, so it was going to be a bit trickier than I had hoped.

This was confirmed to me when I rang the casino and asked what we needed, and re-confirmed when I called back. Eventually, we secured methods of age and person verification, which got us over the line and compliant with the regulations.

So, after a bit of a process, the three of us managed to get in, but it was not as simple and straightforward as some might expect.

None of this is a criticism of either the casino or the staff that we dealt with. They were clear, thorough and helpful. It’s more a comment about the steps that are necessary to gain entrance into a casino and have a gamble, although its certainly easier than when you had to give 24 hours notice.

It was a reminder to me of the levels of compliance that are necessary in this industry, which are often not a part of any public discussions about gambling.

While some claim that the gambling industry is all about ‘preying on the vulnerable', that is not a picture that I recognise, and it certainly wasn’t true on that Monday night when we went to the casino.

It’s a myth that gambling is too easy and too accessible

What was clear to all three of us was that the idea that gambling is too easy and too accessible was not borne out by our experience.

When someone says that, odds are they don’t know what they’re talking about.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

I’m not going to pretend I know very much about horse racing. I don’t. I enjoy going, and I love watching the Grand National, but my knowledge and expertise about gambling lies elsewhere.

That’s ok, and I am comfortable with that. I will often pick a horse to bet on because of its name, which is what happened to me recently.

When you put a bet on to remember someone

A couple of weeks ago, we lost someone in our family. We were all thinking of them that week. On the Saturday, my partner and I decided to put a bet on. We wanted to choose a horse that reminded us of our loved one.

Determined to find a horse with a name that would suit their memory, we went into the Bookies and began to scour the papers inside.

When we saw a horse called ‘Our Absent Friends’, we knew that was the one. And, it was running in our home town of Newcastle. It felt like it was meant to be.

It was second favourite, so a small bet to win felt the right thing to do, and we messaged other family and friends to let them know.

Everyone crossed their fingers as they waited for the race to start and finish. It seemed a nailed on certainty.

It gave us some smiles while we thought about it, and the hope that we would win a few quid to spend on a meal or drinks later that evening.

Not meant to be

Of course, these stories don’t always end perfectly, and this one was no different.

‘Our Absent Friends’ came a very disappointing 8th, with only two others slower than it!!

Turns out, it just wasn’t meant to be.

Its the thought that counts

What was nice about that moment was the hope that came with having a small bet, sharing that with others, and the anticipation of what might occur. It reminded me about everything that gambling can be - enjoyable and uniting - even when you don’t win.

Be lucky people, and remember those close to you.

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

I was talking to some people in the gambling industry at the end of last year. They were asking me about playing poker. One of the areas that we talked about was playing poker in casinos - which ones I liked, and why. I responded something like this:

The cardroom manager needs to be in control of the poker that’s being played - whether cash or a tournament.

The dealers need to be in control of their table.

I also talked about the importance of poker players being vigilant, speaking up, and making sure that the rules are being followed. This is especially true of more experienced and confident players, who arguably have a responsibility to police things.

One of the things that I didn’t mention in that discussion (which in hindsight was a big omission) was the responsibility that poker brands and ‘the poker industry’ have to the enjoyment and integrity of the game.

The responsibility of casinos and ‘the poker industry’

Those in control of the game - whether a dealer at the table, or those controlling the cardroom, or managing the whole casino - all have a responsibility to the integrity of the game. And, they have the power and the authority to be able to do something about it.

The same goes for those in charge of a poker brand or business.

Given the high profile that they have, poker brands possibly have the biggest responsibility.

Ambassador appointments mean something

After the announcement by WPT Global that Ren Lin was to be one of their new Poker Ambassadors, I have been thinking back to that conversation that I had about the importance of making sure that poker was organised and delivered in a ‘good’ way.

Those following the news in the poker world will likely know what I am on about. There has been some fallout after the announcement regarding Ren Lin, which did not go down well amongst everyone.

For those not following it, Lin’s involvement in the game of poker has not been without incident. Hence, some have said that they were ‘Totally Blindsided’ by his appointment.

Most notably, the appointment led to the departure of David Lappin and Dara O’Kearney from WPT Global, both of whom are well know and well respected in the poker community.

David and Dara have taken a principled stance, and I applaud them for it, as have others. However, some of the discussion around this continues to reveal that there is a problem within poker, for which there does not seem to be a simple and easy solution.

Luck, skill, and cheating

Poker has always been a game with a mixture of luck and skill. That’s what makes it so good to play.

Getting over bad luck is normally just a matter of time, and becoming skilful takes patience and practice. But if control of games and penalties for cheating are not properly applied, or are applied in a haphazard way, then the credibility and reputation of poker will slide.

I’m not sure what the answer is to all of this, and I may return to this subject again in the future. I am aware that I am only scratching the surface.

However, I do think that the actions of Dara O’Kearney and David Lappin have made a route to that improvement better and easier. For that, they deserve credit.

WP lads. GG.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

The Christmas period is traditionally one where excess is allowed a little more than usual. In contrast, the New Year is when we resolve to hold back and be a little bit more reserved, perhaps setting ourselves goals to achieve.

This short piece is about both those parts of the Christmas holiday period.

Christmas indulgence

While there are always one or two voices saying a version of ‘Careful Now’, when we might over-indulge at Christmas, I get annoyed with some real miserable folk out there who dampen down every opportunity for people to have a little bit of enjoyment. The anti-gambling lobby are among the biggest Grinches at Christmas, and Henrietta Bowden-Jones comes into that category.

‘Buying lottery tickets as presents during the festive period can cause harm’

The above quote was the message that Bowden-Jones thought the world should see last week, as she reacted with some anger when she saw an advert for the lottery in her copy of The Times.

‘Killjoy’ featured in some of the responses to her social media post - a perfectly reasonable way to react to the miserabilist approach of Bowden-Jones. Her response to a simple promotion for the national lottery seemed disproportionate to many who saw it, and I have a great deal of sympathy with the replies that her post generated which pointed that out.

Criticising people’s Christmas shopping habits is a strange thing for Bowden-Jones to do, considering her concerns about stigma, but it is perhaps not out of character. It fits in with the continual anti-gambling narrative we see in large swathes of those at the top of society. She is part of that.

Anti-gambling sentiment runs deep

Recently, the anti-gambling narrative has focused on a campaign to increase gambling taxes, which were subsequently announced in the budget. Those changes were described by the Betting and Gaming Council as:

‘a devastating hammer blow to tens of thousands of people working in the industry across the UK, and millions of customers who enjoy a bet.’

That is a comment with which I wholeheartedly agree.

So in-built is the anti-gambling sentiment amongst most politicians and commentators, they seem not to care one jot about the effects of the budget. As time goes on from the announcement of those tax increases on gambling, it is difficult to find anyone predicting anything positive about the expected impact.

Reviewing and reflecting for the New Year

That bad news around taxation will dominate thinking about the sort of year it's been for gambling, and I’ve written elsewhere for SlotsHawk this month where I review the year and look ahead. I argue that while challenging the dominant narrative against gambling is a continual task, it needs to be stepped up next year if gambling is to survive.

What that might mean in practice will perhaps have to wait until we are into 2026, but in the meantime, I’ll perhaps pop out and buy a load of lottery tickets for my friends and family for Christmas. It’ll be my way of sticking two fingers up at the miserabilists who don’t want us gambling at any time of the year.

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Earlier this year, over 100 backbench Labour MPs signed a letter to the UK Chancellor. It urged her to tackle child poverty by lifting the cap on child benefit and paying for it via an increase in gambling taxes.

If we take those concerns about child poverty at face value, then we have to ask two things:

1. Why did none of those Labour MPs vote to abolish the two-child benefit cap when they previously had the opportunity to do so last year?

2. Why did the two lead MPs in this group not celebrate the lifting of the two-child benefit cap, but instead gleefully post a video on social media about how great it was that gambling was going to be taxed more in the coming years?

No other answer is more compelling than this one:

They are anti-gambling.

You will often find people in the debate about gambling who insist they have nothing against gambling. I usually take people’s word for it, and judge them on things they say or policies that they propose. I’m not going to tar all of those MPs who went along with Ballinger and Cooper with the same brush, but I will judge them by what they prioritise in their own messaging on this issue, and to what extent they take ownership of their actions.

In the case of Ballinger and Cooper, their post-budget celebratory messaging was sickening to watch. While they could not hold back their joy about the successful attack on gambling and the gambling industry, job losses were being declared in the industry, cuts in the sponsorship of horse racing was being announced by betting companies, and those speaking up for gamblers were saying this budget was bad news.

Disingenuous

It was disingenuous of Ballinger, Cooper (and many others) to pretend their reasons for wanting gambling taxes to be increased was connected with children, families and poverty. On budget day, it became obvious that they are just anti-gambling, and we should not pretend otherwise.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Share

We’re probably all familiar with the phrase ‘The customer is always right’, but that isn’t the case in discussions about which taxes UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves should increase in the upcoming budget.

For example, if you look at discussion and political commentary about possible taxes on electric vehicles, much of it is focussed on the buyers and drivers of them, as well as the impact that it would have on the industry, especially with regard to net-zero targets.

‘Motorists could soon feel the effects’, according to an article this weekend, while last weekend a slightly different scheme to increase EV driving costs was described as an ‘anti-motorist cash grab’.

The understandable concerns from both the car industry and car drivers are given serious consideration in the media, while the concerns of the consumer in the sphere of gambling (which is also facing tax hikes) are not. I’m sure most of our jaws would drop to the floor if we heard increases in the taxation of gambling being described in a national newspaper as an ‘anti-punter cash grab’.

Gambling consumers don’t count

If you look at the recent report from the Treasury Committee on the issue of gambling and taxation, it had no references to ‘customer’, ‘consumer’, and only one reference to ‘punter’. All references to ‘gambler’ were in a negative context, with no attempt to show any benefits or positives of being a gambler, which are well documented (see paragraph immediately below). Unlike EV car drivers, gamblers have few people standing up for them and defending their interests.

The impacts of neglecting the gambling customer experience are huge. It means the effects of increasing taxes on consumers are either ignored, belittled, or shrugged off. Often, they are painted as ‘industry propaganda’ and/or ‘the concerns of gambling lobbyists’. Such derogatory and dismissive phrases are rarely used to describe the AA and the RAC, when they speak up for the interests of car drivers.

The public will be hit and harmed by taxation in the upcoming budget

Whatever the government decides to do in the coming weeks when it comes to increasing taxes, it will hit a lot of people. While some reading this might be thinking they would rather government tax rises hit gamblers and not car drivers, the two groups of people are not mutually exclusive.

Around half of adults gamble on a regular basis, and about two-thirds of us drive a car. Any increase in taxation is going to hit a substantial number of us, regardless of whether you drive, have a bet, or do both.

The upcoming budget

If you see tax increases being announced in an area of life where you think you might not have any interest, its worth stopping to think before you jump to that conclusion. Tax rises have both intended and unintended consequences, and that’s not likely to change with this budget.

My concern is that attempts to speak out against tax increases on gambling are not just ignored by labour politicians and even the TUC - they actively campaign for them. This war against the gambler has a few of us fighting back and speaking out against it, but we could do with a few more on our side.

If you are reading this and think the ideas in it need a wider airing, please share this post, comment on it, sign up to get these articles direct into your email in-box, and ask others to do the same.

Thank you. Be lucky.

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Yesterday, the Treasury Committee examined gambling and taxation. It led to some debate on the problems that might be caused by gambling and some gambling products, as well as whether gambling causes ‘social ills’.

Considering the purpose of the meeting - ‘to understand differing views on how gambling should be taxed, including the potential revenues which could be generated and any potential impact on the sector’ - you might be wondering how a group of MPs managed to get into a discussion about a rather nebulous and contested term: ‘social ills’.

Nevertheless, it did take place, and both that discussion (and some of the media pieces that followed) showed that even some of the best MPs and journalists simply cannot separate out gambling and problem gambling. They often use the terms interchangeably as if they are the same thing, and they cannot accept that not all of us subscribe to the belief that ‘gambling is a social ill’.

The same thing happened last week when a Labour MP talked about ‘gambling’ and ‘gambling addiction’ in the same breath, as if everyone who gambles is addicted. Politicians, journalists and commentators need both clarity and nuance when discussing a subject like gambling, which are too often missing in public discussions about it.

Two narratives

It’s worth watching the whole of yesterday’s session if you can, but you only need to catch a small part of it to see we have two separate narratives about gambling, which never come close to meeting each other in the middle.

The underlying beliefs of many of the MPs appear to be that gambling is harmful, but that we regulate it to try and make sure that it is not. While they might agree that the majority of gambling is done safely and without any problems, they simply cannot get away from the idea that ‘gambling is harmful’, and that ‘gambling is a social ill’.

When Grainne Hurst, CEO of the Betting and Gaming Council, pushed back against that idea, members of the Committee just couldn’t accept it. Those two narratives simply do not coincide with each other at any level, which means that you get an immediate and obvious clash.

Speaking after the meeting, the Chair said:

‘While I accept parts of the gambling industry make an economic and cultural contribution to the UK, I am frankly flabbergasted that representatives from the betting sector could not accept that certain forms of gambling, such as highly addictive online casino games, cause social harm for some people. I don’t believe that is a defensible position.’

I would suggest that this was not the same as the statements and the questions that were being put yesterday, and I would further suggest that when you are talking about ‘social harm’ it is about the impact on society, not just an individual. Hence the inclusion of the word ‘social’.

It was also clear that the questioning on ‘gambling and social harm’ did not allow for proper discussion. Instead, it caused the clash of narratives that I have described here, and have been reported elsewhere. Arguably, it diverted the Committee away from it’s primary purpose - an examination of what to do about gambling taxation in the forthcoming budget.

Standing up for gamblers and gambling, and addressing gambling harms

I don’t think anyone is denying that there have been problems created by gambling and that these can be very acute and intense for all concerned. But I would argue that it is another step to agree with the voices on the Select Committee yesterday who start from a particular premise, and one that is not universally accepted.

For that reason, I think it was perfectly legitimate for Hurst and the Betting and Gaming Council to push back and to explain things as they see it. I am certainly grateful for the way the BGC stood up for both gamblers and gambling in the evidence that was given yesterday, as well as touching on what’s been going on to address gambling harms.

Both Grainne Hurst and Stephen Hodgson gave a good account of themselves yesterday, and it is a shame if this clash of narratives prevents a proper examination of the proposals to increase taxes on gambling.

Jobs are at risk and punters are likely to suffer. We need to keep repeating that point to those parliamentarians who are prepared to listen.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

‘Its shroud waving’

Polly Billington appears to be one of a number of new Labour MPs who dislikes gambling so much that she doesn’t care about the workers in that industry. She dismissed the concerns as ‘shroud waving’ on the BBC current affairs discussion programme: Politics Live.

It’s bad enough when a Labour MP dismisses concerns about job losses, especially when they are quite real. But when you listen to her other comments, she doesn’t care much for the 20 million of us who gamble every month either.

Billington said that she knew about the impact of an excessive number of betting shops on the high street, without divulging any more information about what she meant, or acknowledging the significant decline in betting shops over the last six years (2,400). Gawain Towler, from Reform UK, quipped that the impact of betting shops was ‘employment’, while also pointing out the significant decline in betting shops that we have seen recently.

‘Disingenuous’

It’s sometimes difficult to work out exactly what people really think when they are discussing political issues, particularly with a subject like gambling, which at times can be emotive. Polly Billington was one of those Labour MPs who signed a letter to the Chancellor about gambling taxes and child poverty, so it is clear what they want in terms of policy. They want to see a rise in taxes to pay more benefits to reduce child poverty.

It sounds simple, and difficult to oppose, but as Ella Whelan from Spiked pointed out in the discussion, the Labour Party have shown that they don’t really care about child poverty in the first place through their previous actions:

‘I think framing this around child poverty is disingenuous because if you really cared about child poverty you would find the money to lift the child benefit cap now, but your party doesn’t have the political will to do that’.

Sometimes, you reveal your true self

It is unusual, in any discussion, to see two people sticking up for gamblers and gambling, and only one taking an opposing view. Perhaps, in that defensive mode, we saw some of the beliefs about gamblers and gambling being revealed by Billington in her choice of words.

The discussion touched on terms like ‘sin taxes’ and ‘puritanical’, but Polly Billington took great exception to the latter term when it was cast in her direction. However, she did label gambling as both ‘bad’ and ‘evil’, which was illuminating. When talking about a legal activity which is enjoyed by millions of us on a regular basis, I would suggest that you are taking a ‘puritanical view’ when you use those terms.

Billington also moved seamlessly from talking about ‘gambling’ to talking about ‘gambling addiction’, as if the two are the same thing. While this could easily be a mistake in the heat and pressure of a debate, those who decide on the law do need to be quite specific. Otherwise, you risk doing things which impact on all of us which might not be the intention, and may not be necessary.

Now, that might well be the intention, to treat us all the same as if we need help. But if it is, the idea that a generic approach to all gambling regulation is going to be of assistance to those with a gambling addiction is to misunderstand both gambling and gamblers. As I argued in ‘Risking It All: The Freedom To Gamble’:

‘The prevention or minimisation of harmful gambling is important and complex work, requiring an appreciation that many millions of consumers gain enjoyment from gambling, and that ill-considered attempts to address problems can in themselves be harmful.’

Are all jobs equally important?

We have previously seen the decline in jobs in the gambling industry not only being campaigned for, but also being celebrated. We could see changes being introduced in the budget next month by a Labour government that cause more decline on our high streets, and more job losses.

The difference this time is that 100+ Labour MPs on the backbenches, like Polly Billington, are spurring them on. And using puritanical words and arguments to justify it.

It may not be the dark ages or the highest point of puritanism, but it is certainly dark times when it comes to political discussions on gambling.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

I’m reading a book by David Reid on Risk. It’s a useful antidote to much of the public discussion on risk, and things associated with it.

As I have a keen interest in the narratives around gambling, it is always interesting to read about things like Risk, Harm, and Uncertainty. That latter word is something that is central to gambling, and it features in Reid’s book about how risk is seen throughout history.

The Battle of Ideas

I’m reading the book as I’ve been invited to be one of a panel of respondents to the author at a discussion in London at The Battle of Ideas, taking place on Saturday 18th October 2025. You can find out more about this session here:

Battle Book Club: Running the Risk – From Shark Attacks to Nuclear Disaster

In his book, Reid puts ‘gambling’ into a bit of context:

Gambling is one of mankind’s oldest activities, and the attitude toward gambling of the average citizen in different civilizations throughout history can tell us a great deal about how they conceived risk and uncertainty.

It is well known that gambling is more prevalent in societies with widespread belief in gods and spirits whose benevolence might protect them from the hazards associated with games of chance.

What’s refreshing about this, and some other parts of the book, is the appreciation that gambling is not a new activity, and that it is difficult to imagine it ever ceasing to exist.

Reid makes reference to a time when gambling in Rome was seen as ‘a serious threat to the moral and social well being of the city-state’ and how it became a prohibited activity. He also references the concerns about addiction which led to the prohibition of gambling. Given what happens when things are prohibited, it was unsurprising that Reid then tells us that in spite of the prohibition of gambling ‘it continued to thrive.’

Echoes of this debate persist in discussions today.

Well researched and very detailed

Reid writes in incredible detail about a wide range historical events which will be familiar to many. But with some, I knew little about the detail. This book rectifies that.

The depth of analysis is very good, and he deserves credit for the variety of examples that are examined.

On a gambling note, the history of dice, and the mention of an ancient backgammon board being discovered twenty years ago, were just some of the things that I wasn’t aware of. Here’s a snippet:

I’m looking forward to finishing the book, and engaging in the debate in London. I’ll perhaps return to write again after I have met the author and exchanged ideas.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Share

A change of heart?

Having previously opposed lifting the cap on child benefit, a group of Labour MPs (led by Alex Ballinger and Dr Beccy Cooper) now seem to have changed their minds: https://www.itv.com/news/2025-09-24/101-mps-urge-reeves-to-hike-gambling-taxes-and-scrap-two-child-benefit-limit

The reason? Well, they might all have different reasons, but they are all united by the view that this can now be paid for by taking the money from the gambling industry and gamblers themselves.

Gamblers in opposition

As a recreational gambler, I'm opposed to what they are suggesting. And I suspect that a considerable number of the 20 million of us who gamble feel the same way.

The proposal will take billions from gambling. But where do they think that is going to come from? And do they think it will have no consequences?

The likely impact

Changes which undermine the relationship between the regulated gambling industry and gamblers are never a good thing. They push people towards a black market, which we have seen grow over the last few years.

But, more importantly, if the government take money away from the industry, it will undoubtedly lead to a lowering of the customer service and experience. We can expect worse odds, fewer incentives (such as ‘free bets’) and an overall return to the player which continues to diminish.

Unintended?

As one of my friends said to me when discussing this situation, ‘The unintended consequences are so obvious, we can hardly call them unintended’.

MPs are supposed to scrutinise ideas and policies and consider the effects of intervening in this way. It doesn't appear that a proper impact assessment has been done, so what is going on?

So why are we here?

This leads us back to the question as to why over 100 Labour MPs are backing this idea. As a number of them have spoken out against gambling in the past, we perhaps have our answer.

They just don't like gambling. Or gamblers.

Attacking the gambling industry (which has sometimes been described as ‘evil’ or ‘predatory’) might seem like a popular thing to do in some quarters. An ‘easy hit’, as they say. But that ignores not only the impact that this might have on jobs for the workers in the industry, but also that not everything has been going well for the sector. Bet365, for example has only just returned to making a profit https://sbcnews.co.uk/sportsbook/2025/01/07/bet365-2024-accounts/

Time to stand up

It's time to stand up for both gambling and gamblers, and it is disappointing that the story from ITV did not include a voice from the punters.

If a large section of society can continue to be ignored in this way, that's not a good sign for anyone.

I'll continue to speak out for both gambling and gamblers, and I'll be doing that in person at the Battle of Ideas in London next month:

https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/speaker/jon-bryan/

Come along!

Share

Leave a comment

Subscribe now