After a long period of scrutiny, the UK general elections in 2019 saw the party manifestos go into unprecedented detail about plans to reform gambling. In 2024, the plans of the ruling party don’t mention it at all. This means that the Gambling Act Review has essentially put an end to the industry reform issue?
The issue of gambling has been reduced to an afterthought for many political parties.
Last time UK voters went to polls, gambling received a great deal of attention. The Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos, as well as the Scottish National Party’s, all outlined plans to reform the gambling industry and, in certain cases, curtail it.
The review of the Gambling Act of 2005 was at the heart of these plans. “Analogue Law in a Digital Age” has become a shorthand way to dismiss the law as outdated in this smartphone-era.
Wiggin, a law firm at the time, noted that such “substantial agreement between politicians who are in complete disagreement on almost everything else” was a sign of change to come.
In 2024 however, after Brexit, Covid, and the white paper on the Gambling Act from last year, the gambling industry will barely make it into the political manifestos. Michael Dugher, CEO of the Betting and Gaming Council (now its chair), called it “a once in a lifetime moment for change” when the whitepaper was published.
His publication, he said, should put an end to “lengthy debates often polarised on gambling”. The lack of policy for the gambling industry suggests Westminster is in agreement.
Has the debate over gambling reform been settled?
Dan Waugh, of Regulus Partners, says that the 2019 manifestos are exceptional because they cover gambling so thoroughly. He says that the inclusion of gambling was a reflection of all of the issues surrounding gambling.
The industry was under pressure from campaigners around the parliament to reduce stakes on fixed-odds gaming terminals (FOBTs) to PS2.
Waugh describes 2024 as “a lack of interest that is not exceptional, except for the Liberal Democrats.” Since gambling hasn’t historically been seen as a way to win votes – or lose them – it is often ignored in manifestos.
Waugh points out that “the fact that the Gambling Act was reviewed and that many of the policies implemented were ones that the parties had requested in the previous election may explain their lack of enthusiasm.”
The Conservatives may think that the issue is settled because they have completed their legislative review. Labour’s statements about standards were largely anodyne.
The gambling industry doesn’t fit neatly into party lines
Both Labour and Liberal Democrats have made the commitment to “reduce gambling-related harm” as a blanket statement.
Labour stated that it also “recognised” the “evolution of the gambling industry since 2005. The white paper has already made a significant impact on the gambling landscape.
Waugh believes that a Labour-led government would be a good thing for gambling. He says that Labour does not have a negative agenda for the industry at this time. It is also worth noting that there are no real political divisions on reform.
The APPG on Gambling Related Harm, for example, included politicians of all parties, such as Carolyn Harris of Labour, Ian Duncan Smith from the Tories, and Ronnie Cowan from the SNP.
Where are the reformers?
In 2019, a major campaign was launched to support the APPG. It was led by Derek Webb’s Campaign for Fairer Gambling and supported by Matt Zarb Cousin, a prominent campaigner.
Since then, the Campaign for Fairer Gambling has shifted its focus to America. Zarb-Cousin, who is a passionate and articulate campaigner, also works on gambling blockage solutions like GamBan. Gambling With Lives is leading the way.
These campaigns do not have the same impact as before.
From where will reform pressure come?
Waugh affirms that “the Conservatives and Labour, in terms of ideology, are not a thousand miles apart.” As he noted on the World Series of Politics Podcast, most of the government’s work is done by civil servants and not politicians.
He says that there is “fairly strong evidence” to support the idea that major state organs have been compromised, at least in the areas of gambling. They’ve also been compromised by a strong public health campaign, which views gambling as being the next tobacco.
A paper published in The Lancet Journal by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, part of the Department of Health, made 81 recommendations on state intervention into the gambling industry.
“Prohibitionist territory”
Waugh points out that some interventions are so sensible they exist already. Some were extreme. For example, the total ban of gambling marketing and advertising, which would extend to racecourses. This office proposed to ban wine, beer, and spirits sales in casinos, bingo clubs, and racecourses, as well as a tax on the industry that would increase annually over inflation.
He says, “[That] is a sure way to get you into prohibitionist territory as you are making the market uneconomic.” The proposal was to require plain packaging for gambling products. Imagine what that would do to a pack of cards.
These are some pretty crazy policies. But these people are in executive positions within the British Government and are proposing such measures. The Gambling Commission may be sympathetic towards some of these policies, which is perhaps most concerning.
I think that the elections are important, but they may also be just a show because many state organs seem to now have an anti-gambling policy.
The reform process has not slowed down despite what casinos might say after their improvements were slowed by the election campaign.
Operators are still concerned about the uncertainty surrounding upcoming changes, such as affordability tests. It’s not so much that the industry is no longer under pressure, but rather the impact of all the hard work being done to meet the pledges for 2019.
