Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!

Tottenham mobilising against betting shop saturation

The proposal by Paddy Power to take over independent record shop premises Every Bodies Music seems to be the straw that broke the camel's back in Tottenham. Residents have had enough and a mass rally is planned outside the shop on the corner of West Green Road and Tottenham High Road to protest at betting shop saturation from 12 - 3 this Saturday.

Perhaps a few of those folks complaining about residents lack of action on Green Lanes could find the time to lend their support to this?

Tags for Forum Posts: betting shops

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on September 10, 2010 at 12:58

John thank you for the link, which was an interesting read. I've now read the Guardian story (from 2004) and am coming back. The following quote is taken from that article.

The virulent proliferation of roulette machines is understood to have generated a degree of panic in the Department of Culture Media and Sport, where plans had been afoot for a wholesale deregulation of Britain's casinos, bingo halls and betting shops in the government's imminent gambling bill.

I have a simple question of English Comprehension. In the above sentence, who does the "imminent gambling bill" belong to?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on September 9, 2010 at 23:18

John I'm sure you're right about the wining and dining of New Labour politicians. This is the meat and drink of political lobbyists. But you seem to suggest that the last government's Gambling Act happened in spite of the wining and dining and not because of it. How credible is this?

Of course, the government had no idea that it might lead to an influx of tax revenue, did it? (never mind about the social consequences). I suggest a good part of New Labour's promotion of the Act was to prove they were at least as "market-friendly" as the Conservatives. This theme pervades their Gambling Act and has led directly to saturation betting shops. Only the marketplace would determine the number of betting shops (a similar dogma that lay behind their 24-hour drinking legislation.)

New Statutes don't just fall from the rafters of the House of Commons. They involve Law Draftsman, Bills, Gazettes, Readings, Whips, Divisions, Votes, Lords and Royal Ascent. Much legislation is regrettable, but I'm not convinced that this particular piece of legislation is the freak accident that you suggest.

You might consider saving the sympathy you hold for the last government (some of whose members are now millionaires) instead for the families whose lives are blighted by having problem gamblers as breadwinners.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on September 9, 2010 at 23:35

It was about jobs not tax. Gambling is tax free. Company profits (like those of Tesco et al) would have been squirrelled away offshore. Do not underestimate a socialists ability to revere jobs as mana from heaven and American non-farm payrolls is arguably the biggest financial number of the month.

Labour really thought they were one step ahead of the lobbyists and perhaps hubris was their downfall but this was not about handing our gambling addicts to BetFred on a plate, that's just how it turned out at the end. If I had been in Tessa Jowell's shoes I cannot say I would have done any differently, it all looked OK given the employment offers. That's why I think there must be room in the existing legislation to do something about this. The rules around FOBTs are VERY strict. I'm sure they're not allowed to load them up from a debit card the way they do. Can you imagine the government allowing a bookie direct access to your bank account? Now that would be evil.

I sympathise more than you may realise with families that have a problem gambler as the breadwinner (no, not my direct family).

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by PeterPiper on September 10, 2010 at 0:41

John, have you any stats regarding the net increase in full-time jobs in the UK, brought about by the 2005 Gambling Act? How many of them provide a "living wage"?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on September 10, 2010 at 10:06

Gambling is tax free

John betting shops have been described as a tax on the poor which although not absolutely accurate is a fair, general description of the effect. But by influx of tax revenue, I was refering to the last administration's expectations of the company tax receipts on the profits of the betting "industry".

In the first half of this year, for example, one of the larger operators William Hill, saw overall net revenue rose to £529.9m (from £515.5m in the first half of 2009).

Bear in mind too, that this is overall net revenue and all the other costs of their operation had to come out of the aggregate losses of the mug punters, the sad losers who keep going back.

I too would like to know more about the claimed job creation facet of betting shops. I would have guessed not a great effect. Is there perhaps also elsewhere a job-destruction effect also, since it is sucking money out of alternative, more constructive forms of economic activity?

Whatever else good they may have done, New Labour fouled up badly over their Gambling Act, which was controversial at the time, particularly amongst men of the cloth. We will never know if the gambling industry's persuasion extended to brown paper envelopes, but we can surely say that at a minimum, there was naivety.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on September 9, 2010 at 18:17

I'd be interested to hear if there are any realistic alternatives for the future? Pier's proposal sounds realistic, if, as all acknowledge, not ideal. But are there any alternatives?