National Lottery

Radio Five Live had a thing running this morning about admitting to something you've secretly never been able to understand. I'd have loads. But right now, mine would be this: I've never been able to understand what it is about the National Lottery that gives it its hallowed status. Here's why. The Gambling Commission published figures today which showed that the level of gambling in the last year is unchanged. Of 8,000 adults surveyed, 54.9% had gambled in the last month, of which 45.8% constituted people who had bet on the National Lottery. When the GREAT Foundation - the body which raises money for Gambling Research, Education and Treatment - raises money from the betting industry, most major players give a percentage of their profits. Last year, under the threat of a statutory levy from government, five operators - Ladbrokes, William Hill, Coral, Betfair, and Rank - guaranteed that they would make up any shortfall between the amount raised through a fixed percentage and the target figure set by the government. Last year, that was 0.085% of profits to hit a target number of £5million. But 'most major players' doesn't include Camelot, which instead gave a fixed amount unrelated to (and much lower than) the agreed percentage. Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to say exactly what the figure was, nor to show how unfavourably it compared with the 0.085% given by others, because those numbers are commercially sensitive on the basis that from them you can obviously extrapolate. But I can tell you that the fixed amount and the amount that it would have been had they hit the percentage were poles apart, because that much appeared in the GREAT Foundation's most recent published newsletter. So, when it comes to raising money from the industry to fund problem gambling issues, the Lottery claims to be an exceptional case: the excuses given for this are that they say they are not gambling; and they say that so much of their money goes to good causes anyway. The first of these statements is clearly nonsense; or at least, it can't be one thing one minute, and another the next. If the National Lottery isn't gambling, then it should be excluded from studies of 8,000 people in relation to gambling. It doesn't take a genius to work out that if half of those who respond in the affirmative to the question 'have you gambled' do so purely on the basis of having played the lottery, the numbers are clearly distorted if the lottery doesn't actually qualify. We don't add in people who buy Fruit Pastilles to the gambling stats, so if they buy a Lottery ticket at the same time and we add them, it rather suggests that we think they are relevant to the questionnaire. So, they're gambling. Seeemple. The second defence is, unsurprisingly, no more robust. Sure, the lottery gives (I forget the exact number) around 50% of its profit to good causes. But so what? It enjoys a monopoly which is easy to defend even in an internet world (practically if not philosophically) because it requires the purchase of a physical ticket, and therefore the National Lottery charges an astonishing margin on every ticket. Of course it advertises itself with the dream that for £1 you could win £7million, but the reality is that mathematically you will need to shell out £35million before you are likely to scoop the jackpot. No gambling operator in a competitive environment (i.e. everyone else) could get away with that sort of unfair pricing. So, in exchange for making money for old rope, the National Lottery is obliged to devote a higher percentage of its profit to Corporate Responsibility programmes and charitable causes than all the other operators out there who, let's not forget, still run (admittedly, by necessity, more limited) programmes of their own. I'm all for the National Lottery. I don't play it, because I think I might as well throw my money out of the window (although goodness knows I've done that a few times on other things). But I'm not one of these people who gets upset by it as a concept. What I don't understand, though, is why we don't accept that it is what it is: another means of gambling. And treat it accordingly, consistent with everyone else.