Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
bet365 & Labour
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Thanks for the links, FPR.
'Giving more power to councils' confuses – dangerously - the goal with the means to the goal.
Anyone interested in this subject is encouraged to examine the all-powerful Act. At its heart, is the direction to Licensing Authorities to AIM TO PERMIT (premises licence applications). This creates the rubber stamp.
But even this emphatic direction is underpinned by the declared intention of the Act: the Market Demand Test:
The 'logic' of the legislation was that the number of new betting shops could not be determined by councils (or communities or courts).
ONLY market demand would determine the numbers. On the face of it, this accords with New Labour's business-friendly approach. However, in premises that house FOBTs, it's like saying, we'll have no limit on the numbers of our crack-cocaine outlets, this should be determined only by the number of our customers.
'Giving more power to councils' alone, risks making the situation worse, because it would be in direct conflict with the main aim of the Act.If the central thrust of the Act is removed (to normalise gambling) then no extra measures are needed to restore the (sensible) ability of councils to control the numbers.
The willingness – or not - of Mr Milliband to confront the insidious centre of his predecessors' Act, is the real test of his seriousness.
Also, IMO, the number of FOBT's should be reduced and consideration given to banning them.
--
Yesterday's Financial Times carried a review of a new book, Addiction by Design.Over 15 years, an anthropologist looked at the casinos of Las Vegas, the home of the most perfected gambling establishments. The design of these places is utterly cynical. One of the points made, is that they don't aim to make one lose money fast. They aim to make one lose money slowly, in order to maximise time spent at the machine.
In some respects our council appears to be compromised when it comes to gambling policy. There was the secret promise for a casino at AP and even now, when it would be trivial to do so, the council declines to adopt a No-Casino Policy, as other Boroughs have done. Would it be seen as sending out the wrong signal?
A senior Labour Councillor once pointed out to me that William Hills' main office is in our Borough and that they are a big employer. The headquarters of one of Britain's biggest bookmakers, is just across Station Road from the main Haringey Council premises. -
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Yep, you were right, FPR. Thanks for giving the links.
I know some people think this is pernickety, but I find it helpful to be able to check, triangulate and explore further for myself. And to find out when I've been getting something wrong or partly wrong.
Clive is also right that it will be a test for Ed Miliband to see if a Labour Government will push through effective legislation. And confront not just Labour's past mistakes but the no doubt well funded opposition from gambling interests.
Though as Michael's Anderson points out, the online gambling genie is well and truly out of the bottle. To which I would add, so is corner shop mini-betting. Every time I pop into a local "newsagent" for a paper or a cheap notepad etc, half the other customers seem to be buying lottery tickets or scratch cards.
George Orwell in The Road to Wigan Pier (1937. Chapter 5) observed that "Organized gambling has now risen almost to the status of a major industry". He also suggested that football pools were one of the "cheap palliatives" which had helped to avert revolution.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Just heard an interesting article on R4 on gambling addiction. While physical betting shops are a problem, remote gambling (on line) sounds even worse. In the programme it said that spend on online gambling has risen over the last couple of years in the UK from £10bn (yes billion) per year to over £20bn in 2012 and a lot of these operations are based overseas, especially in Gibralter, so their contribution to tax revenues is negligible.
One of their PR people said the lack of tax they paid was offset by money they give to charities that try to help people with problem gambling. Bit like the arms industry making a contribution to a hospital that treats gun shot wounds.
-
-
Thanks for the info, Michael. Here's the link.
Gamble faster and harder by accessing a casino on your schmuckphone smartphone.
-
Permalink Reply by Finsbury Park Ranger on
-
Click the mouse and lose your house. Women do the online thing lots.
Also gamblers get bombarded by google advertising tempting them to gamble that no one else gets in such abundance, quite cruel when they're trying to quit ... and it's all only a few clicks away wherever there is an internet.
Imagine a world where gamblers got bombarded with solutions online to overcome their self harming behaviour instead ....
Of course it won't help the party coffers much though. -
-
-
Michael, at one Council Licensing hearing I witnessed, the Applicant was asked how much they donated to GamCare. That is the industry's token gesture to the problems they enable. Answer: £2,000 (annually; a drop in the bucket).
Governments must find the short-term, terrific tax-take from FOBTs attractive. However, much of the long-term, hard-to-quantify social costs are likely to be picked up by the State – and may be bigger.
Yesterday, the campaigning Mail published an account of their reporter's visits to premises housing FOBTs, with interviews:
Daily Mail story on FOBT users.
-
Permalink Reply by Philip on
-
I think the elephant in the room is the whole issue of gambling shops. The local authorities are virtually powerless to stop them opening all over the place with crazy long hours. If someone you love has been caught by addiction you will know the hate involved. We need much more power to ban them outright or do what Westminster did to the porn industry and drive them out of business by charging huge license fees. Party links to the gambling, pay day loan,booze and fags industry are considerable but the end game has to be the end of this cancer.
-
-
Philip, the huge donations by bet365 to the Labour Party, amongst other lobbying, appear to have helped to purchase the Gambling Act 2005.
The Labour's government's Act made certain that licensing authorities would be all-but-powerless to turn down new premises Applications. As well as securing the future of betting shop expansion in this way, the major thrust of the Act (the Market Demand test) was to normalise gambling.
One piece of evidence for this is the very name of Labour's big donor: bet365. It is surely not coincidence that there are 365 days in a year?It was coy of bet365 not to include 24/7 in their name, as the new world of on-line gaming means that punters can "play" 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Smart phones permit people actually to gamble, while travelling on the bus.
In terms of their donation to New Labour, the effective return on investment for bet365 is of the order of 100-fold, even 1,000-fold.
--
PROGRESS: It's good to see the small amount of progress on this matter.At PMQs on Wednesday, Mr Milliband raised the matter of FOBTs with the PM. Mr Cameron acknowledged, belatedly, there is an issue to be looked into and he largely agreed with the Opposition Leader.
Naturally, the gambling industry is squealing at the possibility of a serious re-visit: in several respects, the Gambling Act needs reversing (and not decoration, that is the danger).
This emerging political consensus is not a moment too soon. IMO, some of the change of heart of the PM, could be down to the Daily Mail's campaign.
The Mail's attack on Ed Milliband's father was disgraceful. However, while always reviled by the most tribal of Labour's supporters, I think the paper deserves credit for its unstinting moral lead about this most diseased form of legal commerce. It was good Cllr. Alan Stanton who once sagely opined that not everything the Mail printed was untrue!
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Setz on
-
>>... appear to have helped to purchase the Gambling Act 2005.
Clive, I respect your views on many things and don't want to see them undermined so I ask, surely you can't be serious?
To claim that an act of parliament was 'purchased' on the basis of what you've read in the newspapers doesn't sound tenable to me. Anyone who had bought an act of parliament would have taken every step practical to cover it up. Were they to be found out, it would be a triumph of journalism and would enter the political canon of 'big mistakes'. No doubt criminal proceedings would result.
As you claim this was done when a Labour government was in power, why wouldn't the current government prosecute all those concerned? Or did nothing illegal take place? If it wasn't illegal, was it immoral then? Are you calling for a change in the law to make it illegal? What exactly would you make illegal that isn't already?
-
-
*shakes head*
-
-
Chris thanks for the opportunity to expand my thesis on New Labour's Gambling Act 2005.
I do not believe that the £0.4 million donation secured the future of the gambling industry ... by itself.
In your quote, you omitted the qualification amongst other lobbying. Much lobbying was in the public domain.
I have already made the point that, during the term of the last government, pressure to slacken gambling laws did not appear to come from the public. Pressure for change (or in industry parlance, reform or modernising) came from operators. At least some of this was formal, public and published.
In 2001, the DCMS consulted with the industry, their representatives and others.
I attach the Appendix to the Gambling Review Body's recommendations. I draw your attention to Appendix E, "Consultation Lists of Respondents", near the end (on the penultimate page, one of the entries is Lexington – this has local relevance, to which I'll return).
--
"AIM TO PERMIT" – Although nominally an Act of Parliament, the most powerful clauses in the Gambling Act 2005 could have been drafted by the "industry". Foremost among them is the direction Aim to Permit (i.e. new Licence Applications). Unless this is struck out, little progress can be made.
--
Until the Daily Mail's article, most people following these matters assumed that industry representations had been oral or written and above board. That was the public picture for more than a decade.
However, there can surely be no more effective representation than representations accompanied by the smell of piles of freshly printed bank notes!
A kindly gesture of £400,000+ probably helps a political party to see things your way.
bet365's huge donation was secret for years. The Mail provided the missing pieces in the jigsaw puzzle as to why we have this pernicious legislation. IMO, they deserve credit for this.
Can I encourage you to set aside any prejudice and to read the article?
===========================================Local Labour & Lexington
The then government's drive to promote and normalise gambling was reflected locally.Lexington Communications plc, is a PR firm reported to be linked to the Labour Party.
Around 2006/7, Lexington was paid £182,200* by Haringey Council to help sell our charity's asset, Alexandra Palace, to a former slum landlord. *(FOI data).
The buyer wanted to install a casino, but the whole sale was frustrated at the last moment by High Court action, brought by the Save Ally Pally campaign.
Certain Haringey Labour Councillors were determined to get that casino. To this day, it remains a mystery as to how the promise for casino use, by our council, made it into the final agreed Lease.
Don't expect any exposé in Haringey People magazine! - Attachments:
-
-
Gambling Report Appendix.pdf, 722 KB
-
-
-
I too am appalled at the way gambling has been allowed to flourish and Gordon Brown has a lot to answer for as he saw the income from gambling rather than the social and subsequent financial cost.
At the time I wrote to Barabara Roche and other Labour M.Ps begging them to oppose the legislation and when it came to the vote they were all absent from the chamber on the day - they copped out.
The gambling lobby with their financial power cow local government due to the cost of opposing licenses and are cynical when offering free coffee in the area of St Anne's hospital where mentally distressed patients end up betting in their shops all for the sake of a free coffee. Its disgusting behaviour by any standards.
The sooner society clammers for a change in legislation and particularly the advertising and easy smart phone and fixed odds machines the better.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
