Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
bet365 & Labour
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on
-
Thanks Michael & Happy New Year.
-
-
Theresae Sen. Emp. salutem.
As Chris had descended to the level of an old ablative Latin tag in my regard I hoped he might respond to my suggestion that if I had been subjected just after birth to the supreme penalty of a given name and surname such as 'Chris Setz', I too would have immediately assumed for myself a nom de plume or a nom de guerre. (I, somewhat romantically, chose calami over styli or plumae since calamus (reed) could also mean an arrow or a shepherd's pipe as well as a pen.)
Di te incolumem custodiant. Bene vale -
Senectutis Imperator (Knight Equestrian, Ist Class)
-
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
APPRECIATE your thoughtful contribution FPR. Unfashionable? Yep, guilty as charged!
The matter of party funding crossed my mind too. It's a fraught subject, big enough to be the topic of another thread.
I suspect that some Labour supporters imagine that it is only the wicked Conservative Party that accepts money from Big Business and ends up in their pocket. I think The Mail performed a public service with their well-researched article, by demonstrating that the Labour Party has been at least as venal as any other.
In the early 2000s, there was little-to-no public pressure for a slackening of gambling laws. Pressure came from the "industry".
I reckon that £400,000+ must have helped to assuage any moral qualms the Blair administration may have had about loosening the legislation.
The Mail article in effect, offered an explanation where explanation was needed, as to why the Gambling Act came about in 2005 and why, in the long run, there are now so many betting shops, especially in poorer areas.
Commentary in yesterday's Times compared former Labour Leader Neil Kinnock favourably with Ed Milliband. The thesis was, that Mr Kinnock told his party what it needed to know, rather than what it wanted to hear. However, gambling policy is far from being the only last-government-legacy that the current Labour leader needs to recognise and confront.
Given the accusations of hypocrisy that Mr Milliband has faced in this regard, I hope that he will not be detered from improving and pursuing his – potentially constructive – policy on FOBTs.
Even if he does not become Prime Minister, could he not yet offer on this issue – belatedly and imperfectly – leadership that has long been lacking?
(The government's push in 2004-06 to promote gambling interests nationally, also had its local counterpart. One Haringey councillor publicly advocated a casino at our charity Alexandra Palace. As a former Executive Cabinet Member for Regeneration, he presented his Casino Proposal to fellow Cabinet Members. They turned it down.Mysteriously, permission for precisely such a use was later promised by the 'Mayor and Burgesses' in the then-secret, now-infamous, Lease to Firoka. Save for High Court action in 2007, the council's promise would be in force today).
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
I think a very public statement along the lines of "We made a massive mistake in changing the gambling laws and this is what we intend to do about it" might help a tad!
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
I think I read somewhere about something called a search engine which lets you look things up and find out facts - e.g what party leaders have said on public issues. Maybe I'm wrong though.
-
-
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. -
-
-
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.
-
-
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
-
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!
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
