UK Gambling setback - no gambling ads on TV or radio allowed

[*TT*]

On the bright side, the US isnt the only nanny state after all.

http://www.igwb.com/enews-details_email.php?ida=2605

UK REFORMS DEALT A SECOND BLOW: NO GAMBLING ADS


In a further sign that Prime Minister Gordon Brown has abandoned any widespread liberalization of British gambling, Culture Secretary James Purnell announced that Government will not allow bookmakers and Internet gambling sites to advertise on television and radio



In a further sign that UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown has abandoned Tony Blair's plans for widespread liberalization of British gambling, new Culture Secretary James Purnell announced that Government will not allow bookmakers and Internet gambling sites to advertise on television and radio.

Last week, Brown surprised the House of Commons and the industry by saying he was reconsidering plans for the Las Vegas-style casinos that were the centerpiece of the Blair reforms. A panel appointed by Purnell's predecessor, Tessa Jowell, had chosen Manchester to host the first "super casino," as it is known, but the choice was mired in controversy and political opposition and had been voted down in March in the House of Lords.

The industry's ability to advertise for the first time was to be subject to strict rules, but liberalization in this area also had its vocal opponents concerned about the social and personal risks, especially among young people.

"That was one of the concerns people have mentioned and one of the things that, as a new minister in this area, I will be going through methodically to see if the concerns are legitimate," Purnell told The Times. "It is important to have a thorough review of all the evidence."

Purnell said also he would be reviewing all the reforms contained in the 2005 Gambling Act, which was scheduled to take effect in September. The understanding is that he has Brown's authority to ditch those measures as well.

[Ray Of Light]

Gordon Bloody Brown... that bastard! /images/graemlins/mad.gif...

[questions]

Screwy priorities.

[davmcg]

They may not be allowed to advertise, but that doesn't stop me hearing "no one to play with, try Party Poker" 50 times a day on "sponsored" tv shows.

[davmcg]

More puzzling is why Brown thinks he has the authority to abandon reforms that have already been voted on and agreed. The only piece of legislation that failed was the location of the new larger casinos, only the location, not whether they should go ahead. I think there might be legal action if he refuses to implement the reforms.

[awjpoker]

Gordon UTURN Brown strikes again, he seems not to care that people make plans and spend money based on the regulations then he changes them at the last minute. He did this with Sipp's after the Pensions industry spent millions gearing up for the change he instigated he then pulled the plug weeks before go live. Looks like similar here, lots of money spent on preparing advertising, bids for super Casinos etc then he pulls the plug at the last minute.
He is also one of the few who thinks back dating tax changes is a fair policy. The man is an idiot!

[Legislurker]

You would think you Euros would be smart enough not to elect dogood pseudo-religous fundamentalists, but you elect Blair three times, and now you got Gordon Brown. They might not be able to achieve the level of fascism Bush does, but you can bet he will try.

[FatalError]

doesn't this guy have some other more pressing priorities that may or may not have something to do with the middle east?

[wpr101]

Gordon Brown seems terrible so far in everything he has done.

[Symbolic]

Never though I'd say this, but bring back Tony Blair!!!

[Legislurker]

What has Cameron said regarding gambling and the Super Casino, or whoever the Tory shadow minister is for culture?

[qpw]

[ QUOTE ]

More puzzling is why Brown thinks he has the authority to abandon reforms that have already been voted on and agreed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because he does?

His move regarding the 'super-casion' has been very popular in the UK as it was widely seen as something that was pushed through by Adolf Bliar against the wishes of most people.

[Richas]

Calm down, calm dowm.

Let us look at the primary source:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2076222.ece

This was a "wide ranging" interview with the new minister by the Times not a government announcement. To ban advertising they would need new primary legislation not announced for next years queen's speech. All he has said is that he will review the 2005 Act. Meanwhile the Gambling Commission have been getting on with their job they have completed a full consultation and have a whole set of rules for the adverts that have just been published here:

http://www.cap.org.uk/cap/gambling/

They cannot go back on this without primary legislation and will lose in court if the new regs from Sept 1st are not implemented.

All he has said is this:

[ QUOTE ]
“That was one of the concerns people have mentioned and one of the things that, as a new minister in this area, I will be going through methodically to see if the concerns are legitimate.

“It is important to have a thorough review of all the evidence.”

[/ QUOTE ]

ie just what the gambling commission have just done.

This is a garbled interview response probably from a new minister not etirely on top of his brief.

Finally the review of the SuperCasino was to look at alternate methods of regeneration. IMHO they will find that Manchester has other options but Blackpool does not. They can then get it through the commons and Lords quite easily.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
What has Cameron said regarding gambling and the Super Casino, or whoever the Tory shadow minister is for culture?

[/ QUOTE ]

Expecting a policy from Dave is probably expecting a bit much. Their record on this can be summed up really as hyocritical.

In 1997 the Tories had a bill ready to liberalise casino gambling in the UK. Labour ditched it to have a commission which the 2005 Act was the result of. Just before the last election both parties agreed on the 2005 Act going ahead with a compromise of 1 not 8 Regional casinos. This agreement was necessary as without the OK it would not get through before the election so essentially the 2005 Act was given cross party support.

Fast forward to the vote on the technical bit of licensing the additional casinos after the Manchester recommendation. The convention is that these executive orders go through the Lords on the nod and in line with this the Tories had a one line whip for the measure. They heard that Labour Lords were rebelling for 2 reasons - some just anti gambling and some wanting Blackpool so they changed to having a three line whip against the order with just hours to go. Opportunistic hypocrites.

Then it went to the local elections. In Blackpool the tories campaigned for the supercasino blaming Labour for giving it to Manchester and claiming they were fighting for Blackpool. The council went Tory - the local Labour people are convinced it as the Supercasino decision that lost it for them (given the 75% support in Blackpool for it being there).

The good news for Blackpool's bid is that it has two marginal constituencies with sitting Labour MPs. The practical politically expedient option will for Gordos review to come down in favour of Blackpool. Manchester doesn't have a single Tory councillor and no marginals.

[Legislurker]

Thanks, I don't know Parliamentary procedure well, but I gather that gambling politics is as parochial, paranoid, and self-interested there as it is here. I don't feel as ashamed
to be American today as most.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks, I don't know Parliamentary procedure well, but I gather that gambling politics is as parochial, paranoid, and self-interested there as it is here. I don't feel as ashamed
to be American today as most.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it is quite as bad in the UK the main problem as I see it is that nobody is prepared to stand up for the 2005 Act. It was led by an expert review but the politicians either just don't get it or just don't want to defend their own policy, looking shame faced instead of putting the case. It just lets the antis have free reign - ie another loser addict given 30 mins of TV on Friday to explain that drinking loads of beer, then two bottles of JD whist maxing out your credit cards on poker sites is bad.

[qpw]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks, I don't know Parliamentary procedure well, but I gather that gambling politics is as parochial, paranoid, and self-interested there as it is here.

[/ QUOTE ]

The simple fact is that the UK is a democracy (of sorts), and most people do not think that it is the government's job to oversee a large increae in the amount of gambling that goes on.

They were particularly suspicious of the fact that it was reported that large gambling interests (i.e. foreign casinos) had spent large (the figure £100m was mentioned) amounts of money to lobby for changes in gambling legislation that would have made gambling a much more glamourous and accesible option than it is at the moment.

The fact that Adolf Bliar and his ministers then announced that major changes were to take place as a fait accompli did not help matters.

However, there are no suggestions that the UK government is planning any attack on poker.