Mailwatch(ed) Forum

This stuff doesn't look good. But it's not really a back channel, is it?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... s-treasury

the BGC has also embarked on a back-channel lobbying push, according to emails sent to its members and seen by the Guardian. In at least one case, a social event was promoted to Labour staff directly by the Labour Staff Network (LSN), offering them the opportunity to attend and hear speeches.

The event was a darts-themed evening, hosted by BGC and Flutter plc, the owner of Paddy Power, Betfair and SkyBet, an event the trade body said would help it “continue building constructive engagement across Westminster”.

One of the MPs involved, Gareth Snell, is an MP in Stoke, where Bet 365 are placed. Not that many jobs about in Stoke, so not surprised he's engaging with them. Another, Jo Platt, has highlighted gambling harms in Westminster Hall before. Would be surprised if she was particularly susceptible to lobbying.

Gambling is a booming business. Not the nicest of things, but that's the reality. And if you want to regulate it, best to work with them. Because if you don't, you'll get them coming down on you with all the bad publicity, branding you killjoys who want to wipe out the working class.

There’s an interesting debate about gambling taxes alluded to in the article. Almost certainly they’ll be raised but there’s a big divide between racing and everything else.

There’s a proposal to have uniform tax rates, which has a certain logic to it. But racing has broken ranks and is saying “stick up the tax on everything else, high as you like, we don’t care, but ours should be much lower because it’ll kill racing”

I don’t see anything particularly sinister in all the people attending an event- I expect it’s a case of gambling being more interesting than most of the work they do. But it, and the involvement of ex MPs in the lobbying are a bad look. Even if Reeves’ need for tax is likely to win the day.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Tue Jul 29, 2025 10:54 am it’ll kill racing

Which, let's face it, only really exists because of gambling. In that sense this is a circular argument.

Indeed, unless there's some underground action on Dressage we're not aware of.

There’s a difference between
tax of 9% and 35% in terms of the effect on racing. In terms of employment in racing, having sufficient horses enter races to make them competitive , you’d set the tax low. But the other way of looking at it is, gambling on horses has bad effects for society. What is the appropriate level of tax to pay for that?

My guess is that racing will get a lower rate, something up from what it is now.

Other option: Gambling is going to happen regardless of its legality. Do we control and tax it, or drive it underground?

Rachel Reeves’s ‘save less to invest’ policy could be brilliant for ordinary Britons – or a disaster
Hilary Osborne

Fair comment. Caveat emptor. If you don't want to invest in stocks, pay the tax. No reason that the taxpayer should subsidize you or the banks.

The front page preview says "Rachel Reeves' investing policy could be a disaster". Absolute joke of a paper. Job done. Give everyone the impression the Government are mad libertarians, so they vote for Steady Eddie Davey and the Greens.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... r-disaster

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Tue Jul 29, 2025 1:16 pm Other option: Gambling is going to happen regardless of its legality. Do we control and tax it, or drive it underground?

It's already offshore, especially in Gibraltar, but the Exchequer gets about £3.4bn in gambling taxes a year, out of £15,6bn industry revenues. Bad though the name companies can be, it's not like betting with a literal gangster in Manila. You'll get paid if you win (almost certainly) and they won't literally shoot you if you can't pay. Discussion seems to suggest tax revenues can go a fair bit higher.

Was surprised Reeves didn't raise the tax last year, and suspected some lobbying success. But that might be unfair. The reason might have been that the budget was very close to being the biggest peacetime tax raising budget ever (a distinction held by Norman Lamont in 1993), which might have been a sound bite they didn't need.

Gee, thanks, Clive. Thanks for implying the Government isn't bothering with Climate Change.

The people signing up may not be mad leftists, but they're signing up with people who are absolutely clear in their appalling attitude to European allies. You called this stuff out when you were in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet. You ought to be doing it again now.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... l-bradford

Train operators allowed to run more east coast mainline services to Glasgow, Hull and Bradford
Regulator to extend paths from London for private operators despite capacity concerns and impact on state-funded services

Not sure if this was expected. Lots of people seemed to think that the new government were hostile to Open Access services (these are privately run services which seek to fill in gaps in provision, subject to capacity). The fewer of these you have, the easier it is for government-run trains (the big majority, as it will be) to take in income and run on time. Good news for Hull and Bradford, anyway. See whether the lines can cope.

Midland Mainline Electrification is paused. This is a bad idea, but there's not much money about, and the limit on this spending is the bond market, not Reeves' rules. My impression is that they're prioritizing new stuff, like urban trams. The MML looks just the same on a map whether you electrify it or not.

Advice for the government here,, from political sage, Anthony Seldon. Part of a longer thread, which is very amusing. The solution to current polling problems is... building a strong economy, spending lots on defence, reducing crime, lots more trade "all underpinned by AI". He does this by putting David Milliband in charge of the Cabinet Office, hiring some biographers and appointing a very powerful economic advisor in No.10, like Alan Walters under Thatcher (who managed to get the Chancellor to resign, it was a huge thing at the time).

Aren't they doing a lot of that anyway? Someone btl suggested that a sixth idea he had was to let Seldon have access so he could write a new biography.

I'm sure a Starmer biography would fly off the shelves.

Lots of talk about Heathrow. Because of the "hub airport" argument, I'm open to it, but it sounds expensive to say the least.

If the aviation industry's passionate about airport expansion than produce aircraft running on electricity instead of fossil fuels. They're nearly there but don't indulge the industry until they are.

Depends how much of the air traffic is completely new, how much of it is business gained from other airport. There's an argument (this is an old post, not sure if he still thinks this) that the UK's hub airport isn't Heathrow at all, but Schipol.

https://www.tomforth.co.uk/hubairports/

Airplane decarbonisation is like carbon capture. There's some way to go with the technology, but it's not "failed". It's that other ways of reducing carbon have been easier so had more attention. But it's still a step into the dark.

Sadly, I expect Labour to get no credit at all for this. Reform will romp home in Scunthorpe.