Gambling has transitioned from being a prominently debated issue among political parties to a mere footnote in contemporary political discourse.
During the UK’s last general election, the gambling industry was a significant topic of discussion. Manifestos from the Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, and Scottish National Parties all outlined ambitious plans for reforming and, in some cases, curtailing the sector. Central to these plans was a comprehensive review of the 2005 Gambling Act, which had increasingly been viewed as antiquated in today’s smartphone-centric world. The phrase “analogue law in a digital age” became the shorthand for dismissing the Act as outdated.
At that time, there was notable unanimity among politicians who otherwise seldom agreed on various issues. This unusual consensus was interpreted as a clear signal that substantial changes were imminent, as noted by the law firm Wiggin.
However, in 2024, following the seismic changes brought about by Brexit, the Covid-19 pandemic, and the recent release of the 2022 Gambling Act white paper, the gambling industry has almost vanished from current political manifestos. When the white paper was released, the then CEO of the Betting and Gaming Council, Michael Dugher, hailed it as a “once in a generation moment for change.” He suggested that its publication should put an end to the “lengthy and often polarised debates on gambling.” The lack of industry-focused policies in current manifestos seems to imply that Westminster agrees with Dugher’s sentiment.
Regulus Partners’ Dan Waugh offers a nuanced perspective. He states that the 2019 manifestos were remarkable not for their depth but for the unprecedented attention they gave to gambling issues. He attributes this focus to the cumulative pressure on the industry, initially aimed at fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs) and later turning towards online gaming.
“The lack of interest in 2024, apart from the Liberal Democrats, is unexceptional,” Waugh noted. Gambling has historically neither swayed votes nor been a significant electoral issue. Thus, it has often been neglected in political manifestos. Waugh further explains that the recent legislative review and subsequent changes might have led political parties to consider the matter settled, reducing their interest in pursuing further reforms. He also observed that Labour’s manifesto contained only vague statements about raising standards, with no substantial new commitments.
Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats did commit to broad statements about “reducing gambling-related harm” and “reforming gambling regulation, strengthening protections.” Labour acknowledged the evolution of the gambling landscape since 2005, but much of their intended reforms are already set in motion, thanks to the white paper.
.
Waugh believes a Labour government would be reasonably favorable from a gambling industry perspective. “Labour doesn’t seem to have a particularly negative agenda towards the gambling industry,” he noted. Importantly, there appears to be no significant partisan divide when it comes to gambling reform. For instance, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Gambling Related Harm includes politicians from across the political spectrum, such as Labour’s Carolyn Harris, Conservative Ian Duncan Smith, and SNP’s Ronnie Cowan.
Around 2019, the Campaign for Fairer Gambling, led by Derek Webb, and other prominent campaigners like Matt Zarb-Cousin were highly active in supporting gambling reforms. However, the Campaign for Fairer Gambling has since shifted its focus to the United States. While Zarb-Cousin remains an active campaigner, his work now extends into gambling-blocking solutions like GamBan. This shift has left groups like Gambling with Lives to lead the charge, but their efforts haven’t gained the same traction.
“The Conservatives and Labour are ideologically not far apart,” Waugh remarked. He highlighted on the World Series of Politics podcast that much governmental work is carried out by civil servants rather than politicians. There is considerable evidence suggesting that major state organs, at least those interacting with gambling, have been influenced by a strong public health movement that views gambling as the new tobacco.
A report from the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, part of the Department of Health, proposed 81 recommendations for state intervention in the gambling market. While some recommendations were sensible, others were more extreme, such as a total ban on gambling advertising and marketing, even extending to racecourses. Other suggestions included banning the sale of alcoholic beverages at casinos, bingo clubs, and racecourses, and imposing an annually increasing industry tax above the rate of inflation. There was even a recommendation for plain packaging controls on gambling products, which could drastically alter the appearance of items like decks of cards.
“These are quite radical policies,” Waugh stated, stressing that they come from influential bodies within the British government. Alarmingly, there is some evidence that the Gambling Commission aligns with these views.
In summary, while the election may seem pivotal, its actual impact could be minimal since several state organs already hold an anti-gambling stance. Though casinos might argue their progress has stalled, other reforms are ongoing. The white paper initiated a series of consultations and legislative adjustments, and significant uncertainty remains regarding future changes like affordability checks, which continue to cause concern within the industry. Hence, it’s not that the industry no longer feels the heat; rather, it’s still reverberating from the drive to fulfill the 2019 pledges.
