Labour backbench MPs push for tough, wholesale changes to gambling regulation
The Guardian understands that a large and growing group of backbenchers are concerned that ministers may pull punches on further regulation of the UK's betting and gaming sector, which took a record £11.5bn from punters last year.
Weeks after Starmer and Rachel Reeves's chastening climbdown on welfare reform, the group are expected to push for a rethink of the government's approach to tackle concerns that more than a million people in Britain may be suffering from a gambling problem.
The group's proposals include drafting an entirely new Gambling Act to replace the much-criticised legislation introduced by Tony Blair's government in 2005, including measures to address high volumes of gambling advertising.
Sources said there have also been discussions in Westminster about moving responsibility for gambling policy into the department for health, rather than the departure for digital, culture, media and sport, effectively treating it as a public health issue, rather than a leisure pursuit.
MPs who won their seats in 2024 are among those making the case for a tougher stance, via the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on gambling harm, which will launch a wide-ranging inquiry into the future of regulation on Thursday.
The group is chaired by Tory grandee Iain Duncan Smith but features a bevy of new Labour MPs, including Beccy Cooper, Sarah Coombes, Alex Ballinger and Andrew Pakes.
They have also won support from party veterans such as Dawn Butler and the mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, on a parallel drive to hand more power to councils to block the spread of 24-hour slot machine venues.
The Fabian Society, the socialist thinktank that co-founded the Labour party, has also published a pamphlet calling for some of the most addictive gambling products to be banned.
The groundswell of support for more extensive reforms appears to be at odds with how the government has approached gambling since assuming power.
While ministers have rubber-stamped some of the previous government's policies, such as a cap on slot machine stakes and a statutory levy on betting firms, the government has shied away from imposing more controls on advertising, or tackling permissive licensing laws.
Labour has longstanding ties to the gambling industry, including the receipt of donations worth more than £400,000 in the four years leading up to the 2024 election.
Both Starmer and Reeves have received donations from gambling firms including Bet365 in recent years, while several senior party figures are close to former MP Michael Dugher, who now chairs the betting industry lobby group.
Tom Watson, the former Labour deputy leader, became an adviser to Flutter, the owner of Paddy Power, Betfair and SkyBet, after leaving politics.
Many backbenchers with an interest in gambling regulation, including several who won their seats in 2024, do not have such connections. They now have a stronger bargaining position after the Labour leadership's authority was weakened by this summer's successful rebellion over welfare reforms.
Cooper said: 'I think a new Gambling Act will be needed to meet our manifesto commitment to reducing gambling-related harm.
'To future proof a new Gambling Act – as with the tobacco industry before it – we need to be able to ban the most harmful products, remove all advertising aimed at children and stop sports marketing that minimises the harmful nature of this addictive product.
Pakes and Ballinger agreed on the need for a new Gambling Act.
Ballinger, a former Royal Marine who has raised concerns about gambling addiction among ex-servicemen and women, said he was particularly concerned about advertising. He said the APPG would 'make the case to our colleagues and we can make the same case to ministers collectively'.
Ballinger also said there was a case for discussing whether the health department takes over gambling policy.
The Guardian has approached the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
Jeremy Corbyn more popular among younger voters than Keir Starmer, new poll shows
Jeremy Corbyn is far more popular among young voters than Sir Keir Starmer, new polling has indicated, suggesting that Labour's decision to extend the vote to 16 and 17 year olds could backfire. While both leaders remain deeply unpopular among the public, there is a surge in support for Sir Keir 's predecessor among those aged 18-24, a new poll has shown. The survey comes just days after Mr Corbyn launched his own political party alongside former left-wing Labour MP Zarah Sultana. While Sir Keir's approval ratings are poor across all age groups, new polling conducted by YouGov on the day Mr Corbyn announced his new party showed that the left-wing politician has a rating of plus 18 among 18-24 year-olds. By contrast, Sir Keir has an approval rating of minus 30 among the same group. But among voters overall, the two leaders have a near identical approval rating, with Sir Keir on minus 40 and Mr Corbyn on minus 39. Earlier this month, the government announced it will give the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds, expanding the electorate by 1.6m people at the next election. While there have been accusations from the right that the move was an attempt to shore up its own support, the YouGov polling for The Times suggests the move could serve to split the electorate even further if the results are reflected among 16 and 17 year olds. It comes amid growing concern over the direction of Sir Keir's government from voters on both the left and the right, with the prime minister's approval rating hitting an all time low earlier this month. Sir Keir's support among the public reached new depths of minus 43 after the £5bn welfare U-turn, according to new polling. The survey, first reported by The Sunday Times, also found that just a year after coming to power, seven in 10 voters think Sir Keir's government is at least as chaotic as the Tories' previous term. That includes one in three voters, who believe it is more so. Seeking to capitalise on the discontent with the Labour government, Mr Corbyn promised a 'new kind of political party' when he launched the as yet unnamed project with Ms Sultana on Thursday, claiming that more than 200,000 people have signed up. But dismissing the movement, technology secretary Peter Kyle said that the Islington North MP 'doesn't think about governing, he thinks about posturing'. Asked about the move, Mr Kyle reflected on what he called the 'chaos and instability' of Mr Corbyn's leadership. Speaking on Times Radio, Mr Kyle said: 'He's not a serious politician. He doesn't think about governing, he thinks about posturing. And we see that writ large at the moment, because all the posturing, of course, just puts him at odds with his own supporters, which is why you've got George Galloway saying he won't join it.' When Mr Corbyn and Ms Sultana announced their new party, a Labour source said: "The electorate has twice given its verdict on a Jeremy Corbyn led party." The polling, conducted by YouGov for The Times, spoke to 2,013 adults between July 24 and 25.
Daily Mirror
23 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
KEVIN MAGUIRE: 'Keir Starmer must do one thing to make Donald Trump bromance worthwhile'
The Mirror's Kevin Maguire is urging PM Keir Starmer to persuade Donald Trump to 'turn the screw on Benjamin Netanyahu' ahead of their meeting in Scotland today The US both arms and sustains Israel, so if Keir Starmer's bromance with Donald Trump is to be worthwhile, then the PM must persuade him to turn the screw on Benjamin Netanyahu. Britain itself cannot end the horrific starvation and daily slaughter of Gazans, despite MPs on the left as well as the right over-estimating the global clout of a country that is, in fact, a middling power. Starmer got and gets much wrong on this war, from initially refusing to condemn the unlawful blockade of water, power and humanitarian aid to continuing arms sales to Israel. And despite pressure from deputy PM Angela Rayner and much of the Cabinet, he has refused to recognise a Palestinian state. Yet Starmer did end some military supplies, sanctioned the vilest two extremists in Netanyahu's government and resisted Tory calls to oppose international war crimes arrest warrants, including one on PM 'Bibi' Netanyahu. Starmer's growing revulsion over the killings of Palestinians is genuine. But cajoling Trump during his Scottish golf trip to put the squeeze on Netanyahu would be a prize worth securing. He could persuade Trump to help transform an Israeli 'tactical pause' in parts of Gaza into the end of the 22-month war against Hamas, and a cessation of bombing that is most likely to free Israeli hostages. Starmer is able to point to a trade deal lessening the impact of the US President's hostile tariffs as a benefit of sucking up to him. Increased UK military spending is a downside and, oh, how Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky must wish Joe Biden or Kamala Harris were in the White House instead. Urging Trump to lean on Netanyahu wouldn't be easy and a US President who fancied an ethnically cleansed 'Trump Gaza' – two million Palestinians driven from their homes – may retain his own grotesque plans. But for Britain and the PM this is about being on the side of humanity, and that means ending the hunger, ending the killings. Immediately. Next election 'lottery' Having six significant national parties, and seven in Wales and Scotland, is going to turn the next general election into a total lottery. And magic grandpa Jeremy Corbyn's new party threatening to do to Labour what Reform UK did to the Conservatives at the last. Splitting the left-wing vote, as Reform did on the right, could hand victory to Nigel Farage just as Keir Starmer was gifted the keys to No 10 on a historically low 34% share of the vote. Labour, Greens, Lib Dems, Tories, Reform and Corbyn's vehicle, provisionally trading as 'Your Party', fighting it out with Plaid Cymru and the SNP thrown into the mix north and west of the border will test the credibility like never before of a two-party electoral system. Starmer needs to start worrying about his left flank instead of suspending MPs for caring about the disabled and environment. Corbyn is unlikely ever to be Prime Minister but win, say, 5% of Labour's 34% and he would blow up British politics. Revenge would be booting Starmer out of Downing Street and possibly putting Farage in. British politics has never been so volatile. Or unpredictable.
The Sun
23 minutes ago
- The Sun
I was kicked out of Wetherspoons for wearing Union Jack dress – staff's four cruel words mean I'll never go back
A WOMAN who was wearing a Union Jack dress and was refused entry to a Wetherspoon's pub has said she'll never go back. Wearing her patriotic dress, Tanya Ostolski, 54, was told "you're not coming in" despite being a regular for nearly 30 years. 3 3 Tanya was trying to visit The Picture House in Sutton-in-Ashfield, Nottinghamshire, when she was barred entry. The events followed an anti-illegal immigration protest that took place 50 metres away from the pub in Nottingham town centre on Friday July 25 which Tanya attended. After marching in the protest, Tanya made her way to the local Wetherspoons but was denied entry due to her dress, despite putting away the flag she was carrying, she says. The decision caused anger amongst some protesters who clashed with bouncers on Friday evening as they were also denied entry, they said. A spokesperson for Wetherspoons has confirmed the pub asked customers with flags and placards not to enter so as not to "increase tension". Tanya said: "I'm disgusted, I won't be going back there. "I go in there all the time and I wasn't causing any trouble. "The whole day was a peaceful protest, I'm a grandma and I've never caused any bother. "I just can't believe this was all over a flag - it was really upsetting, I didn't do anything wrong." According to Tanya, she was first refused entry because she was carrying a St George's cross flag but after putting it away she was still refused entry. She claims witnesses defended her at the time, calling the bouncers actions "unfair" as she wasn't "causing any trouble". Tanya added that she had the flag tied around her waist and was asked to put the flag away and that she couldn't come in. "But I had flags all over my dress and then I was told I can't come in at all - I was really confused, it's just a flag," Tanya said. "I asked for a valid reason and they just kept saying you're not coming in. "I'm not aggressive and didn't want to cause trouble, so I just walked away. "I've heard I won't be welcome back or I might be barred." The protest was sparked after Reform MP Lee Anderson made an unfounded claim that a local man charged with rape was an asylum seeker. Anderson made the claims on X, despite being advised against it by Nottinghamshire Police as it could interfere with the justice proceedings. The claim regards a man who was arrested after reportedly raping a woman at Sutton Lawn. An estimated 300 people attended the earlier protest, with around a dozen counter protesters from Stand Up To Racism also present. Protests began at around 4.30pm and had ended by around 7pm. Anger was directed towards Sir Keir Starmer, with people chanting "stop the boats". At one point in the evening, police guarded the entrance to the Wetherspoon pub after protesters like Tanya complained about being turned away. JD Wetherspoons has a "no flag" policy which was prohibits the pubs from hanging the England flag. The move caused backlash from pubgoers during the 2018 football World Cup. But during the men's Euro 2024, the popular chain overturned it's policy and allowed the pubs to hang the England flag during the summer tournament. Wetherspoon spokesman Eddie Gershon commented in response to the incident in Sutton-in-Ashfield. He said: "Pub managers have a duty under the licensing laws, and as a matter of common sense, to judge every situation on its particular circumstances. "In this case, the pub manager felt that it was important not to increase tensions. "Therefore, on this occasion the manager asked customers not to enter with flags or any placards." 3
