years. And to support the point that some in government want an outright ban; the Department of Health and Social Care in Great Britain has recommended that taxes on gambling increase every year above the rate of inflation. If you impose an above inflation tax then you’re effectively prohibit gambling, because it quickly becomes uneconomic and the only gambling that does occur takes place illegally.
Tobacco, food and alcohol industries have all faced bans, restrictions and prohibitions. Are there any lessons to be learned from these industries as to how they've tackled the prohibitionists? Or should any association with tobacco and alcohol be avoided?
I don't think you can avoid such associations, because these are the comparisons being made. We all think that we'd like our industry to compare with good stuff, rather than bad stuff. I’ve been asked why gambling is lumped in with tobacco, alcohol, and arms production? I made the point in return that perhaps alcohol and arms production didn't want to be associated with gambling either. We all see each other as being more virtuous than others do.
So while I don't think we can avoid the comparisons, the question is what can we learn from them? Getting ahead of the arguments, recognising that gambling, like alcohol and food consumption carries risks, is key. Gambling is an age-restricted activity that raises legitimate concerns. We must, therefore, take meaningful action, as opposed to ‘public relations’ action, to address these issues. Te industry needs to be much better at this, and not wait until the political pressure becomes so intense it’s forced upon us.
Dan Waugh Partner Regulus Partners
“I was reading an article in which gambling harm was described as: “the momentary regret after losing a bet.” So I think there are things where we can be very clear are unambiguous harms; self harm, serious financial harm, things like that. But I think when we get into regret or, as the UK Gambling Commission has indicated: “that reduced cinema going is related to gambling problems,” then things are getting a bit blurred.” Dan Waugh
Another point, which is related, is that the industry needs to be an expert on this subject. We need to know more than the public health activists. We need to be all over the evidence so that we can present as an honest expert witness in policy debates, which actually cares and is not simply an industry that gets forced into a series of retreats.
Is there any country that is striking the right balance in addressing and responding to gambling prohibitionist viewpoints?
gambling problems,” then things are getting a bit blurred. So we have to be very specific about what we mean by gambling prohibitions, especially about the problems we are trying to tackle, and it's when we lose specificity that the ideological standpoints take hold.
UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last year talked about creating a smoke-free generation. Do you think that's even plausible that gambling could be banned in this kind of way?
Anything's possible when governments can do more or less what they like subject to the democratic processes. So while I'm not suggesting it's likely that we're seeing a complete prohibition, it is possible. And it's certainly the ambition of some people within government. Tere are also lots of stages that come before outright prohibition that I genuinely can see happening in the next few
We have a wonderful panel at the IAGA Summit, with guests from different backgrounds and jurisdictions, so I'm hoping that our starting point in the UK leads us on to talking about what's going on more generally in the market.
Has anyone got this right? I think a few years ago in Britain, we had it somewhat right. Te basis for the gambling market in Great Britain is explicitly about prevention of harm to vulnerable people while allowing the majority of adults to engage in gambling to the extent it's not harmful. I think that has somewhat been lost and the idea that consumers might enjoy this activity has been lost. Te idea that the rights of recreational consumers need to be protected has been forgotten in the debate.
Earlier we talked about avoiding ideological philosophical views. My own philosophical view is very consistent with the direction of
WIRE / PULSE / INSIGHT / REPORTS P61
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160
