Home > Stephen Pollard

Wednesday 8 October 2008

Dare to dream and make your ultimate trip a reality

The latest culture as recommended by our staff

Michael Henderson

Michael Henderson suggests

Email registration

Free weekly email update

Great products and special offers for Spectator readers

Click here for great value events

Click here for exclusive articles, offers, tasting notes and discussion

Hattersley and my gambling

Tuesday, 19th February 2008

Tim Worstall rightly points out the idiocy of Lord Hattersley's piece today. Here's the Lord H:

To make casinos profitable, new gamblers have to be attracted to their tables. It will be gullible local citizens from Wolverhampton and Hull, not Hong Kong millionaires and the Las Vegas super-rich, whose money the casino owners take home......And who would benefit? Not the citizens of Sutton Coldfield, Bath, Dumfries or any of the other chosen locations. Only the gambling tycoons have anything to gain.

And here's what Tim says:

Only the tycoons, eh? So the gamblers, the punters, they don't gain anything? No pleasure? No amusement as they pass their time? No jolt of adrenaline as they win or lose? Stephen might have a word or two to say about that.
What Roy doesn't get is that the only reason people go to casinos is because they perceive that they get something out of it: it's the same with any other trade or purchase. Voluntary exchange only happens if, as and when both parties gain from it.

What Hattersley means, of course, is that he doesn't get anything from gambling. Well la-di-dah. I don't gain anything from reading his columns, but I wouldn't dream of stopping other people from so doing.

I have no idea how much I lose overall from gambling. In the couple of years I kept a book, I was up, but they were freak years when I had a massive series of wins on Best Mate ante post in the Gold Cup three years running, starting off at 16/1. I guess I must be down overall, but I couldn't care less because I only bet what I can afford to lose without noticing. I find it pleasurable backing horses, and I pay for that pleasure, just as I would if I was paying for the pleasure of a coffee or to go to a football match.

It's one thing arguing against the extension of casinos - I happen to be in favour but it's of course perfectly legitimate to be opposed. But Hattersley seems to be opposed to gambling per se and appears unable to conceive that there are people who gamble for pleasure rather than because they are addicts wasting away their money.Indeed, it's worse than that - he thinks:

At a time when the Home Office proposes another “crackdown on serious crime”, the casinos would undoubtedly attract an international army of undesirables.

The piece ends thus:

Lord Hattersley was deputy leader of the Labour Party 1983-92

Labour was in opposition. The words 'cause' and 'effect' spring to mind.

Previous Back to Stephen Pollard Next

Blogs: Clive Davis | Melanie Phillips | Americano | Coffee House | Trading Floor

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (7)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Ray

February 19th, 2008 10:29pm

"The only reason people go to casinos is because they perceive that they get something out of it... Voluntary exchange only happens if, as and when both parties gain from it." Come off it, Stephen. The fact that casino owners bank millions and drive round in Ferraris whilst ordinary punters end up frittering away the kids' Christmas present money before sobbing over the phone to debt counsellors ought to tell anyone with an ounce of sense exactly who gains from easy access to gambling joints. Affluent columnists for upmarket political journals can afford to lay down a couple of tenners now and then on a promising horse. Your average denizen of a grim northern council estate probably can't, so it is reckless and irresponsible to put even more temptation in their way.

Nick Kaplan

February 20th, 2008 9:08am

It is a remarkable skill of Hattersley and the rest of his party to always be able to make up some victim of some apparent crime in cases where neither exist. The reason for this is purely self-gratification; it makes them feel good that they are protecting someone whether or not they need protecting. This kind of paternalism is not about the welfare of the poor, it’s about the egos of the left.

Steve

February 20th, 2008 11:19am

Ray has already made some of the obvious points, but I doubt if you will be persuaded since you need to self-justify. Suffice it to say that Hattersley is (unusually) right and you are, as occasionally happens, wrong.

john moran

February 20th, 2008 1:07pm

i vote with steve n ray on this. call me a prude casinos are a vice as well as being seedy and more improtantly a dangerous place to 'generate revenues'

Nick Kaplan

February 20th, 2008 2:23pm

If by Ray (and Roy) being right you mean his massive, overly emotive generalisation that “ordinary punters end up frittering away the kids' Christmas present money” then perhaps you have a point. However this wild assertion plucked out of thin air needs to be supported with some kind of empirical evidence, for example some statistics showing the percentage of people who get addicted to gambling. As his and your argument stands it is worthless, most people have enough self control to go into a casino and bet a sensible amount of money, whether they win or lose they benefit from the fun they derive from the risk. The fact that some individuals are unable to have enough self control should not be enough to deny the rest of us the right to have some fun if we so choose. As for the comment “casino owners bank millions and drive round in Ferraris” let us not pretend this is an argument, as opposed to the pure envy motivated rhetoric which it really is.

Ray

February 20th, 2008 7:14pm

Nick - According to Dr Mark Griffiths of Nottingham Trent University (one of Britain's foremost authorities on gambling) there were approximately 300,000 problem gamblers in the United Kingdom prior to the introduction of the Gambling Act. And anyone who has ever counselled a compulsive gambler will tell you that stories about the wife's housekeeping money being raided are far from being "emotive generalisations". Furthermore, my point about the casino owners and their wealth was made not out of jealousy, but rather a desire to make an obvious, yet important point: namely the very fact that gambling is such a hugely profitable business should tell any prospective gambler that, in the long run, the casino will always win and you will always lose. Dr Griffiths concludes that "availability of opportunities to gamble and the incidents of problem gambling within a community are known to be linked. The potentially hazardous threat that (super-casinos) pose is reinforced by research indicating that the most problematic type of gambling in Britain is associated with games in a casino."

Nick Kaplan

February 20th, 2008 8:00pm

If this is the case it seems you have a valid argument, I will merely suggest that you should have presented it in such a way first time round. I would still maintain that the way you initially presented your argument was far from objective and almost certainly emotive. However, your comment about casino owners being wealthy is still superfluous. Of course the casino always wins; this is the only reason why anybody would run one! In this respect it is no different from any other business.