Conquest’s law
English historian Robert Conquest once proposed two rules of politics: Firstly, that everybody is a reactionary on the subject they know best, and secondly, that the behaviour of any organization can be explained by assuming it is secretly controlled by a cabal of its enemies.
Well, no arguments on the first one. I suspect this article will be proof enough there. On the second, John O’Sullivan stated that the example of the post-war British Secret Service was a poor one because it “actually was controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies in the form of Kim Philby, Anthony Blunt, et al. In which case, Conquest’s Law should have operated to make it a crack anti-Soviet intelligence service of James Bond proportions.”
There were even bishops, and men of unimpeachable integrity like Iain Duncan Smith
Unfortunately, there’s no risk of that being the case when it comes to gambling reform. In September, the credentials of those attending a summit in London were impeccable. As well as the usual suspects, there were even bishops, and men of unimpeachable integrity like Iain Duncan Smith. The keynote speaker, Lord Foster of Bath, also really does have experience of secret cabals, having apparently only joined the House of Lords in order to more powerfully advocate for its abolition.
The bookmakers and punters who actually comprise the industry, however, were notable in their absence. When it comes to discussing gambling, gamblers need not apply.
Wrong direction
Now, it might seem understandable to stack the deck in reform efforts in favor of those who want increased restrictions. One could hardly make the case that the UK’s gambling regulations need to be liberalized, after all.
The problem with this approach is that by excluding anyone with any actual knowledge of betting, the proposals risk ending up as haphazard, design-by-committee nightmares that fail to achieve any of the desired results. This is precisely what now appears to be happening.
We would like to at least give enough benefit of the doubt to the reform lobby that the general aim of gambling reform when it comes to the effect on punters can be summed up thusly: to better protect those at risk from problem gambling while minimizing the impact on casual hobbyists.
Mere total failure would in fact represent a significant upgrade on the current plans
The problem isn’t just that the current discourse is advocating policies which fail to achieve these objectives. Mere total failure would in fact represent a significant upgrade on the current plans. In fact, the general trajectory of efforts at reform could scarcely look any different if they were designed to achieve the precise opposite of these two outcomes.
Punishing punters
One of the problems, of course, is that punters and bookmakers have a naturally antagonistic relationship, and to a lesser extent even among themselves. As a result, coming together as one voice is a near-impossible feat. With all this to contend with, bettors are also facing difficulties elsewhere.
Anecdotally, I know of several friends who gamble regularly and responsibly, wagering (not spending) no more than ￡50 ($63.19) a week and mostly on horses and football, who have stopped altogether. The reason for this is the recent news that mortgage and credit providers were finding even these small sums to be reason enough to deny applications, even to those on comfortable salaries.?
You may argue that this specific case is not a regulatory issue, but instead credit companies coming to their own conclusions, misguided or otherwise. You may equally reasonably argue, however, that a regulator might have something to say about this sort of thing.
Laser-targeted to punish the responsible and nobody else
Consider a policy like this, after all: in what way does it possibly do anything to help those with gambling problems? Instead, it’s laser-targeted to punish the responsible and nobody else, who gain a mortgage they were getting anyway, and lose a perfectly safe hobby. They do, however, fare better than the gambling addict, who loses the mortgage but keeps their destructive habit for a double loss.
Stakeholder sprawl
So, in this case, banks are not helping things. They’re making them actively worse, and that’s despite them now having a seat at the table as the most shadowy of figures – the “stakeholder.”
We’ve seen a remarkable bloating of the number of these involved, which is really a wider problem in the UK in general. There are two issues with this.
Firstly, the overwhelming majority of people actually involved in betting – the bettors – never seem to get caught up in the relentless stakeholder sprawl. The second is that the alleged stakeholders are only ever brought in to suggest new ways of monitoring and punishing punters, and never asked to explain their own behavior. None have ever been asked to justify denying mortgages, or in the case of many newer banks like Monzo and Revolut, straight-up closing customer accounts due to a history of betting.
The Gambling Commission admitted that delayed withdrawals were their number one complaint
There are many other issues plaguing punters that gambling regulators have turned a blind eye to for years. The authorities that have mandated checks on affordability and money-laundering seem to have no issue at all with the fact that they only seem to ever be applied whenever a customer attempts to withdraw their winnings. Earlier in July, the Gambling Commission admitted that delayed withdrawals were their number one complaint, but have pledged to do nothing more than “monitor compliance in this area.”
So, we can conclude that almost every alleged stakeholder has no interest in protecting the ordinary consumer. Bookies might lose a few mug punters worried about a mortgage application because the regulator does nothing, but they’ll gain that on holding back a fortune in customer withdrawals. Because the regulator does nothing.
Addicts suffering
But now that we’ve successfully achieved one direct opposite goal of gambling reform, let’s take a look at how our secret cabal might also hinder any efforts to help problem gamblers. The first port of call should be to follow the advice of the summits and reformers and treat gambling itself as the problem.
By treating the activity as the problem rather than addiction, the negative feedback likely feeds back into the issues for normal, healthy bettors discussed earlier. Is it any wonder that a lawyer putting a ￡20 ($25.28) Lucky 15 on the horses is considered a destructive and potentially ruinous act when every official body maintains it is so?
Drug policy does not treat cannabis and heroin as equally addictive
This approach is also moving in the opposite direction to efforts at combating addiction in other areas of life. Groups devoted to helping alcoholics do not propose monitoring every single person’s drinking and making it difficult to buy alcohol. Drug policy does not treat cannabis and heroin as equally addictive and harmful substances. This, however, is the precise approach taken by many of the advocates of gambling reform.
Worst possible result
Worse still, the approaches being considered aren’t just ineffective – they result in driving people towards more addictive and destructive forms of gambling. Consider affordability checks – the focus on bet size means a person who places an occasional ￡1,000 ($1,263.97) poker tournament during a big series is almost certain to be flagged due to the size of the bet, as well as being classed as on a gambling binge if they fail to cash.
Gambling addicts are very likely to fly under the radar and avoid any checks at all
In contrast, a person who plays slots and online casino games on a daily basis is likely to lose steadily over the course of the year with little variance, betting small amounts hundreds of times in a single session. As a result, gambling addicts are very likely to fly under the radar and avoid any checks at all.
The results of this can be seen already, with Q3 Gambling Commission data showing a 21.30% reduction in poker, a 10% reduction in real event bets, and a 13.40% increase in gambling on slots. The policy has driven people away from the least addictive and destructive forms of gambling into the most dangerous ones.
The tragic thing about all of this is that it doesn’t even conform to Conquest’s second law. The enemies of the gambling reform lobby don’t want the end result of punishing safe punters and making things worse for addicts, for the simple reason that nobody does, because it doesn’t benefit anybody. Unfortunately, if gamblers continue to be ignored, it’s what we’ll end up with.
