Historically, the Conservative Party was considered the natural party of government. The chaotic management of Brexit and Covid, combined with the churn of Prime Ministers, destroyed that myth. By the time of the 2024 election, only the size of Labour’s victory was in doubt.
The collapse of the Tories created an opportunity for Reform, striking fear across the political spectrum. Other parties are now seeking donations on the basis of defeating Reform. However, the Tories have a duty, as well as a need, to become the real opposition to Reform before they can ever become the party of government again.
Keeping voters safe
Yes, the Reform millions matter, but the US mid-term elections provide important lessons. First, the best political stories will outperform the biggest campaign budgets. Second, the perception of financial corruption carries particular weight with voters struggling to pay the bills. UK voters in 2029 will be unlikely to fall for Reform under Nigel Farage.
We may all agree that the primary role of government is to keep the public safe. But how is that achieved? The functions of government are to tax, legislate, regulate and enforce – prerequisites to the delivery of safety. A party aiming to reduce taxes and deregulate is, by definition, better suited to opposition than to government.
The recent Budget increase in machine gambling duty is illustrative. Rupert Lowe MP, the Restore leader, responded by saying he would reduce gambling taxes. His X following was inundated with his supporters telling him how wrong he was.
These were organic responses by people who understand how high street gambling machines have eviscerated their communities. They contrast sharply with the rabble of trolls who attack gambling reform advocates online. Strangely, that rabble was noticeably less active the day after Ukraine bombed a Russian data centre.
Mr Farage joined Mr Lowe in criticising the Labour taxes on gambling, repeating the discredited bookmaker line that it would “drive people to the black market”. I should mention here that a Reform donor has been linked with the now-closed alleged black market site Tether.bet, based in Montenegro and licensed in Curaçao.
Regulate for good not shareholder profit
In 2015, the Conservatives introduced the Deregulation Act, requiring regulators to encourage economic growth. In 2024 this was extended to regulators including Ofcom, Ofwat and Ofgem. But is the growth of selected companies beneficial or detrimental to the economy as a whole?
Water companies enjoy showering their shareholders with dividends and their executives with bonuses. Meanwhile, some consumers do not have the power to shower while sewage leaks into our rivers and seas and onto our green and pleasant land.
As Big Tech companies challenge provisions of the Online Safety Act, and awareness of the harm caused by social media, particularly to children, increases, why should Ofcom regard the growth of Meta as part of its remit? The CEO of Ofcom recently stated: “Sometimes we simply cannot do what I think the public would like to be done.”
While Ofcom has a role in preventing the use of media to promote illicit gambling, there is no evidence that it has achieved anything yet. And yes, even the Gambling Commission has a duty to grow the economy, granted by the Tories in 2017, although they at least reduced the stakes on fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs) in 2019.
However, the Commission, supported by DCMS officials, has interpreted the 2005 Gambling Act “Aim to Permit” principle as an aim to grow gambling. Prime Minister, please ensure that the scope of your forthcoming consultation on this is broad enough to address the abusive growth of “slot farms” as identified in the Guardian, and to counter practices exposed in the TV gameshow Million Pound Shot.
My philanthropic funding for the new Gambling Policy Commission offers a far wider consultation for the purpose of offering independent advice to government. This is effectively my gift to the country, which Labour can utilise.
Next week we will be in so-called “Safer Gambling Week”, with the Betting and Gaming Council lobbying MPs in the Commons on the Wednesday. This is nothing more than a regulation prevention initiative dressed up as harm prevention.
The statutory levy funding for gambling harm prevention in England is directed through the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID). A recently published list of funding recipients includes Chapter One, Gamban, GamLEARN, and Gambling with Lives, all entities that I have supported. None of them will be endorsing Safer Gambling Week.
Each of them was initially excluded from funding. It was only through diligent compliance, extensive legal work, and a change of staff at OHID that the new awards were granted. As I have previously asked – were errors made at the Cabinet Office level? Fair and open gambling policy would ensure there is accountability and transparency.
Pragmatism not vested interests
Successful politics involves supporting policies that are pragmatic enough to gain voters from opposing parties, particularly where party hierarchies are out of step with their members. Strong action on gambling policy will be smart politics, engaging voters who may otherwise consider Reform or Restore.
Labour can win the next two elections under Andy Burnham by embracing the powers to tax, legislate, regulate and enforce, irrespective of the vested interests standing in the way. That is what being the natural party of government means.