Tom Watson, the deputy leader of the Labour party and a politician with a long-standing interest in the regulation of gambling, offered some hints of what might be in a new Gambling Act if or when his party returns to power in a speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research on Thursday morning.
Watson was a prominent figure in the long-running and ultimately successful campaign to reduce the maximum stake on betting shop gaming machines (FOBTs) from £100 to £2. Tom Watson calls for crackdown on in-game gambling Read moreThe machines’ presence on the high street was legitimised by Labour’s last Gambling Act in 2005 and it was frequently pointed out by those seeking to defend £100-a-spin roulette in Britain’s 9,000 betting shops that there are no limits to stakes when punters using gaming products online. But that, according to Watson, is likely to change under a future Labour government. Having described Labour’s most recent attempt at regulation – or, perhaps more accurately, deregulation – of gambling as “a piece of analogue legislation failing to meet the needs of the digital age‚” Watson added: “Why would a limit to a game offline not apply to the same game online?” It was, of course, a rhetorical question, and the wide variety of gaming products available, in different environments, with different fixed margins and subject to T&Cs which vary from one operator to the next, should offer one clue as to why a one-size-fits-all policy is unlikely to prove effective. And why not extend it further, to casinos for instance? Roulette is the same game, after all, whether you play it online, on a FOBT or in a casino. And what about betting? Why not limit stakes on racing and football bets too? A £10 maximum for all races at Cheltenham, anyone? It may sound ridiculous, but according to the Racing Post, Watson “would not go into the detail of what the stake limits might be in monetary terms”, nor, even when asked, if they would apply to racing and sports betting. He did, however, describe a “culture of limits” also including the speed of gambling, which could easily be applied to sports and racing bets too. For me, there is a clear concern here that one of the most obvious lessons of Labour’s disastrous Gambling Act 2005 has not been learned: gambling is a very complex issue and it is a terrible mistake to seek to over-simplify it. The clue has always been there in the name of the most recent legislation, and also in what it replaced – the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, which recognised that fundamentally different forms of gambling require fundamentally different regulation. The gaming machines which were allowed to masquerade as Fixed Odds ‘Betting’ Terminals are the most obvious example of what can happen when the lines between different forms of gambling become blurred. Much tighter definition and a much deeper understanding of the profound differences between a £5 bet on the Grand National and a £5 chip on a roulette wheel will be essential if any future Labour government is to make a better fist of gambling regulation than the last one. Friday’s best betsObvious betting opportunities are becoming a little thin on the ground as Cheltenham edges ever nearer, but there are a couple of interesting runners at Newbury, where Christoper Wood (2.20) and Emitom (3.25) both look worthy favourites. Jabulani (3.55) is a solid 5-1 chance on the same card, but the Flat meeting at Lingfield may offer the best bet of the day in Motajaasid (2.00). Richard Hughes’s runner ran well to finish second over seven furlongs at this course last time, his best run to date away from Southwell, and has winning form at today’s trip of a mile. Source:https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2019/mar/01/talking-horses-labour-need-to-wake-up-to-gambling-complexities-horse-racing-tips
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |