Is the FOBT issue about to become an FOBT scandal?

When the Guardian first exposed Philip Davies MP, which resulted in my complaint to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner an interesting blog appeared. Alistair Campbell wrote on his blog that gambling addiction was a ticking timebomb; Mr. Davies was “an out-of-touch arrogant tit” and that he would welcome an inquiry into how the gambling sector got its tentacles around government. However Mr. Campbell must have had an attack of tentacle-itis as his blog was taken down after 24 hours.

In its spring newsletter, the Association of British Bookmakers (ABB) claimed it had “averted a separate review of B2s” (betting shop roulette machines also known as FOBTs). DCMS instead included them in the triennial review of all gaming machine stakes and prizes but has not made public the justification for doing this. The purpose of Triennial Reviews is to look at increasing stakes and prizes, not lowering them. So how was that separate review averted? Can you feel those tentacles?

In its most recent newsletter the ABB claimed that its members are briefing MPs and they have received pledges of support. But of course these MPs are only half-briefed at best.

The ABB is claiming that 7,900 betting shops out of around 9,100 (about 85%) are at-risk if the FOBT stake is reduced to a £2 maximum per spin, (from a £100 maximum) as we recommend.

Are they really trying to convince politicians that machine gamblers and their money will suddenly evaporate from betting shops? They will still have slot games, already capped at £2 per spin, which is a growth area now, and there will be a reversal of the trend of the last 10 years with some money substituting back from machines to traditional sports and race betting over the counter. More staff will be required and lone staffing would end, but more importantly high risk, high stake, high speed, hard core, addictive and labour un-intensive gaming machines would no longer be the primary driver of betting shops.

For those MP’s who have been briefed by the bookmakers, do your constituents a favour and arrange to meet with us at your party conference. Our insight and expertise outweighs that of the bookmaking lobbyists who have briefed you so far.

Meanwhile Philip Davies, who is unhappy that we have prevailed against his ASA complaint says he is appealing! In a twitter exchange with Adrian Parkinson, a campaign consultant, he tweeted that Adrian and I are "nasty pieces of work" and that I "play the man not the ball".

The ABB, whose AGM was attended by Mr. Davies, was the first to play the man, when in the initial stages of the campaign claimed I had an "assumed commercial motive". I’ve written about my story; who I am and our campaigns, which provides some finality on that point.

We would really welcome a chance to play the ball on the right pitch in front of the right crowd. How about a parliamentary investigation as Alistair Campbell proposed?