‘Progressives’ for job losses

Well done, anti-gambling campaigners – you just cost thousands of people their jobs.

Jon Bryan

Topics Politics UK

Bookmaker William Hill announced last week that 700 of its shops faced closure and that 4,500 jobs were on the line.

We have become used to news like this from the high street, be it Debenhams announcing the closure of 22 of its stores, or Jamie Oliver’s restaurant chain going into administration. But this time, those responsible for these job losses are supposedly progressive campaigners, who claim to be concerned with the welfare of ordinary people.

Finding out that you are facing losing your livelihood is never news you want to hear. But it surely is made worse when you know that it is the work of do-gooders who claim this is all for the best. These redundancies, you see, are largely a result of a successful campaign to restrict the amount of money punters can bet on fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs) in betting shops – government legislation to lower the maximum bet on FOBTs from £100 to £2 came into force in April.

This campaign against FOBTs had cross-party support. The Labour Party featured it in its 2017 manifesto, and the Conservatives backed it shortly afterwards. Then sports minister Tracey Crouch even resigned from the government last year because she felt the government was dragging its feet on FOBTs.

Given that betting shops relied on FOBTs – electronic games machine on which you can bet on roulette, blackjack, bingo and other games – this was always going to happen. The anti-gambling lobby knew this was the inevitable consequence of the clampdown.

All in all, then, campaigners have joined hands with politicians to urge the government to land a killer blow on bookmakers’ businesses. And now the possibility of losing one’s job because of government policy is a stark reality for 4,500 people.

Worse, many of these campaigners had the gall to tell betting-shop workers that this is all for the best. Tony Franklin from Gambling Hurts even acted as if he was on the side of those who work in bookies, writing in a now-deleted tweet: ‘I wish the staff all the best and believe many will look back and realise getting out was best.’

Leaving a job you don’t like of your own accord is one thing; being pushed out is another. And it is a bit disingenuous to pretend that the campaign against FOBTs was really a way of liberating betting-shop staff.

Besides, those unhappy with their working conditions in betting shops will look to their trade union to tackle any concerns they have, not anti-gambling campaigners.

Other anti-FOBT campaigners, such as Labourite Matt Zarb-Cousin, sought to minimise the job losses: ‘It won’t even end up being half of the 4,500 closures the [Association of British Bookmakers] threatened — and many of those were earmarked anyway from when Ladbrokes merged with Coral.’

The Guardian’s Rob Davies took a similar view: ‘By my reckoning, UK’s biggest bookmakers are planning 2,100 shop closures, with 12,000 jobs at risk, blaming FOBT curbs. That should never be trivialised but worth remembering that when lobbying against FOBT cuts, they predicted 4,500 closures and 21,000 jobs.’

Their argument can be boiled down to ‘it’s not as bad as you thought it would be’. But if you are one of those whose job is at risk, that matters very little.

Not that betting-shop workers have been without support. Their union, Community, called William Hill’s announcement ‘devastating’. Tom Blenkinsop, operations director for Community, spelled out what we all knew, that ‘jobs are threatened as a consequence of changes to the law around FOBTs.’ He continued:

‘Betting shops provide an important source of local employment and many of our members have served the company loyally for years. Workers don’t deserve to be the victims of the changes happening in the industry as a result of either government policy or the significant shift towards online gambling.’

Others, such as Marion Fellows, an SNP MP for Motherwell and Wishaw, expressed concern for betting-shop employees, calling the news ‘a blow to workers and communities’. She urged the government ‘to bring together trade unions, employers and government agencies to find workers new jobs’.

So at least some are thinking about the real impact of a government policy that has already put 4,500 jobs at risk. The threat to jobs will continue to increase in the coming months as other betting shops begin to feel the impact of FOBT legislation.

It has been disgusting to see people being at best indifferent to job losses in the gambling industry. It is also striking that those who pretend to care about the level of gambling in the UK measure their campaigning success not by a decrease in the number of problem gamblers, but by a decrease in the number of those employed by the gambling industry.

There is a strong likelihood we will see more job losses in the second half of this year. That is why it is important to stand up for both the workers employed in the gambling industry, and for those who want to spend their leisure time having a punt.

Jon Bryan lives and works in Newcastle, is treasurer of the Great Debate and regularly plays poker.

Picture by: Mikey, published under a creative commons license.

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.


steffan chang

28th August 2019 at 12:19 pm

I think the online casino is the best option for gambling. You can gamble with chips bought by virtual money and the traffic coming on that platform let them earn money.
Double down provides promo codes for such platforms to get some heavy discounts.

Amelia Cantor

11th July 2019 at 10:42 am

This is a drop in the ocean compared to the job-losses that will result from Brexit. And they’ll be non-toxic jobs, unlike those in the gambling industry.

Ed Turnbull

11th July 2019 at 1:01 pm


Thank you for my daily dose of woke parody.

Amelia Cantor

13th July 2019 at 10:24 am

Laugh all you like. They were laughing at Charlie Hebdo too. As communities of colour grow in size and influence throughout the so-called first world, woke ideas are gonna triumph. Just watch.

Hana Jinks

13th July 2019 at 4:02 pm

You’re gonna end up getting rounded up and shot.

James Knight

10th July 2019 at 5:27 pm

Another example of the addiction to nanny state control measures. The initial hit provides the political class and campaigners with a short term feeling of euphoria. But a rapid tolerance soon develops and the craving for more nannying soon returns.

And remember, “nobody would vote to be worse off”.

gershwin gentile

10th July 2019 at 2:11 pm

Just to confirm, there are going to be job losses, but it has nothing to do with Brexit. Ok.

Danny Rees

10th July 2019 at 1:51 pm

In the past those men who blew the housekeeping or money for the kids on gambling were viewed by society with scorn and as feckless wasters who’s wives should be heading straight for the divorce courts.

Today society views them as poor exploited hapless victims of evil corporations.

Personal responsibility is dead.

Hana Jinks

10th July 2019 at 2:10 pm

I agree with what you’re saying, but there’s a difference between a punt on a horse or a sport, or indeed poker, and these rotten machines. Only the most imbecilic would ever use them, and they’re obviously past the point of being able to employ personal responsibility if they do. And it isn’t any different to when the mob ran the rackets, except that it’s the whores to business that pass themselves off as our representatives that run them now. Charming chaps.

Hana Jinks

10th July 2019 at 12:47 pm

“The welfare of ordinary people”

Since when did the British become as irony-oblivious as the Americans?

Why would any bookie worth it’s salt need to rely on fruit machines?

Facts are that they’re more scum-sucking leeches than bookis. They sign you up, and then if you win, or even show any punting nous, they ban you. That’s the business-model of the modern day bookie.

They bet to ridiculously greedy margins, and now cry poor that they’ve lost those machines. Those machines are a license to print money, in that they pay back around 70% of money invested. It’s a way of fleecing the mathematically-illiterate, and the one’s that lose on the machines can’t afford it. What a farking racket.

And you want these people to be able to lose a 100 quid in these things?

Hopefully they’ll learn how to frame a market and take their business to Betfair.

Tom Blenkinsop: Betting shops are a source of misery the length and breadth of the land, and the cause of much suicide. I’ve about as much sympathy for your “workers” as l have for the Auschwitz guards.

Hana Jinks

10th July 2019 at 1:37 pm

I obviously punt, and just as obviously am no ” gambling campaigner” either.


Danny Rees

10th July 2019 at 1:52 pm

The guy you quoted is a bigoted idiot.

Danny Rees

10th July 2019 at 1:54 pm

“Tom Blenkinsop: Betting shops are a source of misery the length and breadth of the land, and the cause of much suicide. I’ve about as much sympathy for your “workers” as l have for the Auschwitz guards.”

Say that to the workers who are losing their jobs you idiot.

Hana Jinks

10th July 2019 at 2:04 pm

Err..l just did.

Stewart Ware

10th July 2019 at 12:09 pm

I’m surprised that going into a bookie to gamble your money away hasn’t already been superseded by doing it on your phone just like shopping. Now the gambling addicts will less visible and less able to be helped when their lives fall apart.

Hana Jinks

10th July 2019 at 2:16 pm

It mostly has, apart from tech-illiterate older people.

Eric Praline

10th July 2019 at 11:30 am

Not sure the argument that because something results in job losses it shouldn’t be done stands up. But in this case it’s for an empty gesture and has probably done nothing to reduce gambling.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.