Category Archives: Economic

Britain, Economic, Government, Politics, Society

Rapacious fixed-odds betting terminals should be curbed

BRITAIN

Fixed Odds Betting Terminals

The Institute for Public Policy Research estimates gambling costs the UK more than £100 million.

IN 2005, a law to liberalise gambling was passed by the Labour government. Following a vociferous public campaign, it was only then that the government was forced to abandon its plans for giant super-casinos across the country.

Nevertheless, with neither fanfare nor further public debate, the new law effectively allowed every high street betting shop to turn itself into a casino – by installing fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs). These touch screen machines, which are so addictive they’re compared to using crack cocaine, offer casino-style games such as roulette, blackjack and poker. In just 20 seconds, a player can gamble – and lose – £100.

Today, it is clear that the social consequences have been catastrophic. Driven by the greed of bookmakers’ in their quest for riches, the number of machines has doubled in just a decade to 35,000. It is no coincidence that the number of problem gamblers has also more than doubled, to almost 600,000.

Meanwhile, we have seen rising violence in betting shops, more family breakdown and ballooning levels of personal debt. Inevitably, it is the poorest communities – where the highest concentration of betting shops are found – which have suffered most.

For those hopeless and desperate gambling addicts who stand like zombies, pumping in money until they have none left, these corrosive machines are life-destroying. But more depressingly, they destroy the lives of those closest to them, mostly the wives and children of those who have become addicted. The bookmakers, meanwhile, profit to the tune of £1.8billion a year.

To his eternal shame, David Cameron also failed to confront this problem with the necessary political rigour that was needed. Instead, what we got was a token effort, in the form of a registration scheme for those wanting to bet more than £50, which was cynically exploited by bookmakers who could target addicts with mouth-watering offers. He ducked entirely the one change that would have made a difference: by reducing the maximum stake. That stank of surrender to the army of betting industry lobbyists.

Now there is good reason to fear we may face another betrayal. Last year ministers launched a new crackdown on fixed-odds machines which promised to consider cutting the maximum stake.

The review has, however, stalled because those at the Treasury fear losing vast sums of tax revenues if stakes are cut from £100 to the suggested £2.

For many, this will seem an utterly immoral position. It is also deeply misguided, for it ignores the benefit to the taxpayer which would come from limiting these rapacious machines. Isn’t it obvious that the State will save a fortune by not having to rescue the countless families broken by addictive gambling?

Chancellor Philip Hammond’s position sits very uncomfortable with a government led by Theresa May, who came into office determined to fight for the vulnerable against unfettered and exploitative capitalism.

As the daughter of a clergyman, Mrs May won’t need the Church of England to say – as it commendably did last week – that these machines are deeply iniquitous.

After a disastrous election, reigning them in is exactly the kind of policy which would prove that Mrs May’s government retains both its authority and moral purpose.

Very few issues in politics are black and white. But with fixed-odds betting terminals, the case for controlling them is unanswerable. The Treasury should consider its position on FOBTs and realise the huge damage that addiction to them is causing.

Standard
Britain, Economic, European Union, Government, Politics

Project Fear? Countries are lining up to trade with UK

BREXIT

NEARLY all of the countries that Remain campaigners said would not want to trade with Britain post-Brexit have called for deeper trade links.

Of the 111 countries that ‘Project Fear’ campaigners said would not want a deal if the UK chose to leave the EU, 105 have signalled that they want to work with Britain.

In the build-up to last year’s EU referendum, the official Britain Stronger in Europe campaign claimed that the countries would have ‘moved on’ after Brexit.

But campaign group Change Britain found that eight nations have ‘enthusiastically’ asked for a free-trade deal with the UK, 97 have said they want a deal in principle, and just six have not yet said whether they are interested in a deal.

Former trade minister, Lord Jones, a Change Britain supporter, said: ‘This report demonstrates that the pro EU Project Fear campaign was nonsense. The UK has the world’s fifth largest economy, the world’s leading financial centre and many of its best companies, innovators and universities. The rest of the world is queuing up to do trade deals with us.’

Standard
Britain, Economic, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

Brexit: The Single Market & Related Options

BREXIT – ACCESS TO MARKETS

Single-Market

Brexit Briefing: The Single Market

AS Brexit negotiations begin to extricate the UK from the European Union, one of the biggest factors ministers will have to contend with is the issue of the single market. The EU has said that Britain will not be allowed to benefit from the free-trade arrangements once it has left the bloc, a major part of why the EU exists for the mutual benefit of constituent members. So, if the UK were forced to leave the single market (very much against its wishes), what could we end up with?

. The Norway Model

MEMBERSHIP of the European Economic Area (EEA) would put Britain alongside Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, and is what Remainers mean when they talk about staying in the ‘single market’. It would keep existing trading rules but take Britain out of the Common Agricultural Policy. However, we would also have to swallow EU laws without being able to influence them, accept rulings by European judges and carry on paying into the budget (Norway’s fee is estimated at around 90 per cent of the UK’s per person). Uncontrolled immigration would continue. Unacceptable to Tory Eurosceptics.

. The Swiss Model

A SORT of EEA minus. The Swiss are members of the European Free Trade Association but not the EEA. They have a series of bilateral trade deals with the EU, which cover trade in goods but very little in services such as banking. The Swiss can negotiate trade deals with third countries, but also make a huge financial contribution to the EU. They are inside the passport-free Schengen zone and have to accept free movement. This option is also toxic for Eurosceptics.

. The Ukraine Model

A JANUARY 2016 agreement between the EU and the Ukraine could form the basis for the UK deal. It includes trade market access and co-operation on defence and security but doesn’t require free movement or the application of EU law. However, the UK would also require a deal on financial services.

. PM’s ‘free trade deal’

IN JANUARY, the Prime Minister said she wanted a ‘deep and special partnership’ covering trade and security. At the same time she says – echoing the Leave campaign – that Britain should take back control of its laws, borders and money. That means no acceptance of EU laws, no more free movement and an end to ‘vast contributions’ to the EU budget. Open issues include immigration rules, how much the UK pays to belong to EU agencies such as Europol, the ‘divorce bill’ and what the new trade rules are. The time it takes to implement such a deal could give Mrs May room for manoeuvre.

. No deal

BRITAIN would revert to World Trade Organisation rules – meaning tariffs on some goods and services. Likely to mean no ‘passporting’ rights for the City of London to trade on the continent. It would create a legal and administrative vacuum on the rights of EU nationals in the UK and British ex-pats, the Irish border, security co-operation, and deals on aviation, agriculture and fishing. Chaotic in the short term.

Standard