Labour is risking the future of racing
That the Labour party has blown its promises in record time and blundered its way through welfare reforms into creating a £5 billion hole in its finances comes as no special surprise. It is merely the latest example. What worries me is that in digging down the back of the sofa and checking the pockets of long-unworn suits in the search for cash, ministers may well begin destroying a historic sport which has given me and many millions a lifetime's enjoyment and which supports thousands of jobs in rural areas. Racing is in danger and the unusual speed with which the sport's sectoral interests are coming together to campaign against a new 'racing tax' shows that it knows it.
Warning signals have been piling up. Fewer foals are being bred. Prize money levels are in decline compared with other racing jurisdictions. Thanks to the nonsensical way in which affordability checks on punters are being implemented, betting turnover is down £1.6 billion over the past two years. Since racing depends on money from a levy based on bookmakers' profits for a third of its finances, that loss is serious. Now, against that background, the Treasury has instigated a study into amalgamating the 15 per cent General Betting Duty on racing bets with the 21 per cent duty charged on online gaming. A tearfully desperate Chancellor can be expected to grab any extra revenue she can and with parliament these days in a moralistic mood over problem gambling, what would be presented as a Treasury tidying-up may not meet the political resistance it should.
The British Horseracing Authority has calculated that 'harmonisation' of the two betting duties at 21 per cent into a single Remote Betting and Gaming Duty would result in a loss to racing of £66 million a year from the levy, media rights and sponsorship. The sport's elder statesman, Newmarket trainer John Gosden, is no alarmist but he has called the 'racing tax', as it has been dubbed, one of the gravest risks the sport has ever faced. Lumping racing together with gaming, he and other trainers argue, would make racing the most expensive product for bookmakers who would concentrate instead on gaming products (proven incidentally to be more of a danger to problem gamblers than horseracing). It threatens too what Gosden calls a massive upsurge in black-market gambling, whereby no revenue comes back to the government, no revenue benefits the sport and wherein there is no protection for the punter.
Most MPs know nothing about horseracing. Fortunately, at least two sensible voices from right and left are making themselves heard. Conservative Nick Timothy and Labour MP Dan Carden, chair of parliament's racing and bloodstock group, have been urging the government not to legislate racing out of existence, arguing that the industry contributes £4.1 billion to the economy and £300 million a year to the Treasury while keeping 100,000 people in work. Both speak from knowledge. Timothy is the MP for West Suffolk, which includes the training centre of Newmarket, while Carden represents Liverpool Walton, home to Aintree's Grand National, and he made a key point in telling the Racing Post that betting on horseracing is fundamentally different to casino activity: 'Racing bets are grounded in skill, knowledge and careful judgment… this isn't reckless gambling, it's thoughtful engagement with a historic sport that rewards patience and insight rather than impulsive risk-taking.'
I couldn't agree more. I haven't had a bet on the turn of a card or the whirl of a roulette wheel in 40 years but the intricacies of horseracing offer endlessly enjoyable debate and occasional success. Like the late Barry Hills, I watch out next time for horses which were hard to pull up on their previous run. My form-guru friend rarely misses a winner wearing blinkers for the first time. Within hours of telling my son last Saturday that horses sent north by Berkshire trainer Andrew Balding and ridden by P.J. Mcdonald are always worth a look, I had winners at 5-1 and 14-1 in my profits column. If you have ever enjoyed the few minutes of ownership that betting on a racehorse gives you then now is the time to act: contact your MP and tell them if they vote for the betting tax then you won't be voting for them ever again. It does help to concentrate the mind.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
4 hours ago
- Times
How to make Great British Railways a success
Before Labour ministers choose slick slogans for their new state-run trains they should recall Henry Ford's words: 'Nothing happens until somebody sells something.' Contrary to what some in the rail sector and Whitehall seem to think, rail services cannot exist without their passengers — what they want and what they are prepared to pay. A herculean effort to win more customers from the airlines and road users is essential. Britain's railways are at a watershed. Under privatisation, passenger journeys almost doubled. By the 2010s, private franchises were running three times as many trains between London and Manchester as the old British Rail (BR) had in the early 1990s. During the two decades between privatisation and the pandemic, passenger journeys increased by 107 per cent and services by 32 per cent. Passenger satisfaction in Britain was higher than for any other major European railway. Revenue increased by 145 per cent in real terms, compared with only a 16 per cent rise in operating costs, and £14 billion of private investment went into improving the train fleet. • Ministers heading for union clash in bid for hi-tech rail travel Privatisation introduced innovations in marketing, ticketing and operational efficiency. The volume of rail travel in Britain rose to a level not seen since the 1930s, on a network half the size and with a very good safety record. The pandemic was devastating for rail. It wasn't just that train travel collapsed during the lockdowns, requiring subsidies of £20.5 billion in 2023-24 prices) to cover losses. People's travel and working behaviour changed, probably for ever. Traditional flows of revenue from business travel, first class and five-day commuter season tickets, particularly in London and the southeast, have fallen away. In the year to March only 13 per cent of journeys were made using season tickets, compared with 34 per cent before the pandemic. Even though passenger numbers are close to 100 per cent of pre-pandemic levels, revenue is still down by £1.4 billion, at 89.1 per cent. Passengers are paying less to travel outside the old peaks. The taxpayer continues to cover an unacceptably high annual subsidy of £12 billion for a sector that only delivers 2 per cent of all journeys taken by the public. Consequently, ministers must now prioritise growth as they prepare to introduce the bill to create the state-owned Great British Railways (GBR), almost 80 years after Clement Attlee first nationalised rail. Without a ruthless focus on what passengers want alongside a demand-led model, a spiral of decline — higher subsidy and fares — could easily take root. GBR risks being a solution in search of a problem and morphing into the ghost of BR unless ministers develop a viable long-term vision. New research from the Centre for Policy Studies highlights four key areas which, if supported, would deliver more passengers, more income and better services for passengers. • Great British Railways 'won't be run by civil servants' First, ministers should support a mixed model across the intercity high-speed network so GBR trains faces competition from non-subsidised 'open access' operators. For 25 years this model has successfully delivered passenger growth and satisfaction on the East Coast Main Line between London, the northeast and Scotland. It has meant better services, more routes, faster trains and cheaper tickets while also bringing more passengers to the route. This has led to new, popular rail operators entering the market, which has pushed the dominant, government-run train operator, LNER, to deliver better services for its customers. European railways that have copied this successful model have seen a 40 per cent increase in passengers and fare reductions of between 20 and 60 per cent. Second, GBR should not regulate itself, especially as the white paper proposes taking key sector powers away from the independent Office of Rail and Road. In no other regulated sector does the dominant market operator also control and deliver key elements of its own regulation, such as decisions on market access and charging. This could have huge implications for growth, open access and more rail freight. Only last week the environment secretary slammed the water companies for 'marking their own homework' and pledged to end 'operator self-monitoring'. But there is a risk that this will become the case on the railways. Third, GBR must adopt an unforgiving focus on making train travel as easy, cheap and user-friendly as possible, not least when designing a new GBR ticketing app to replace those of existing train companies. In addition to competing with popular ticketing sites it must be designed by the world's leading retail software companies rather than civil servants. GBR should deliver a 'Rail Miles' loyalty scheme, which is years overdue and could be linked with purchases made in the hospitality and retail sectors. • The Times View: Prejudice against private train operators is misguided Fourth, the vast 52,000-hectare railway estate can and must generate much more income. Commercial and residential development, renewable energy generation, light parcel freight, health hubs at stations alongside a higher-quality retail offer are all underused sources of income. We must learn from countries such as Japan, where railways earn at least one third of their revenue from non-ticket sources. Rail can and must be at the centre of Britain's industrial, employment, housing and regeneration strategies. The ghost of BR hangs over GBR. But if the passenger is put first and proven models are embraced then the future could be very different. Rail might not get another chance. Tony Lodge is a research fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies and author of Rail's Last Chance, published today by the CPS
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Labour ditches plan to charge inheritance tax on payments made to bereaved military children
Labour has ditched plans to hit the grieving children of military personnel with a tax on their bereavement payments. In October Rachel Reeves announced plans to make relatives in receipt of off-duty death-in-service payments, other than spouses or civil partners, pay inheritance tax from April 2027. This means children and unmarried partners of soldiers who died from illness while off-duty, would have been subject to a tax on their payments. But the Chancellor was forced to back down from her Budget announcement after mounting pressure from members of the Armed Forces, who called it a 'corrosive' plan. The Government confirmed to The Daily Telegraph that after a consultation with Armed Forces organisations it had decided to withdraw the proposals. A spokesman said: 'From April 6, 2027 all death in service benefits payable from registered pension schemes will be out of scope of Inheritance Tax, regardless of whether the scheme is discretionary or non-discretionary.' The latest climbdown comes after Ms Reeves was forced to scale down plans to scrap the universal winter fuel payment and reforms to the welfare system. Mark Francois, the Tory Armed Forces spokesman, said he welcomes the reversal decision 'though it represents another U-turn by this Labour Government'. He added: 'I am pleased that common sense has now finally prevailed.' An HM Treasury spokesman said: 'It's right that we are excluding all death in service benefits from inheritance tax while still achieving the Government's objective of removing inconsistencies between pension schemes.'
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Now shut migrant protest hotel: As demonstrators clash again in Epping, Tories demand that Labour listen to local concerns and move asylum seekers
Labour faced mounting pressure last night to shut the asylum hotel at the centre of angry protests. But ministers stayed silent as senior Tories joined demands for migrants to be removed from The Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, over 'legitimate' concerns about crime. As frustrated organisers of the growing demonstrations said they would not stop until it was closed, fresh clashes broke out outside the hotel yesterday, despite a heavy police presence to separate rival groups of protesters. The demonstrations were triggered after Ethiopian man Hadush Kebatu was charged with sexually assaulting a schoolgirl just days after he arrived in Britain in a Channel dinghy. Police chiefs have already described the unrest at The Bell as a 'signal flare' for another summer of disorder. Epping Council voted unanimously last week to urge the Government to close it. But Treasury minister James Murray refused to comment yesterday when asked why the Government has not listened to the demands. He told Sky News: 'I'm not going to comment on specific cases, but I do understand people's frustration. 'And whilst, obviously, there can never be any place for criminal violence, there's absolutely a right for people to protest about this.' It came after polling found that immigration has overtaken the economy to become voters' biggest concern about the country after the NHS. The survey by Opinium found 49 per cent of people put immigration among their top three concerns – a seven-point increase since May. Meanwhile, Sir Keir Starmer could also come under pressure to act from Donald Trump when they meet in Scotland today, after the US President said he had 'sealed our borders' in America and urged Europe to follow suit. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp told the Mail: 'Ministers must recognise the strength of feeling from the public about this hotel, listen to their genuine and real concerns, and shut it down. 'The Government has lost control of our borders. They need to listen to the public anger on this issue and deport all illegal immigrants immediately upon arrival. 'I am furious we are being overwhelmed by illegal immigrants. What has happened at The Bell is a consequence of that.' Opposition leader Kemi Badenoch said 'agitators' were coming in to whip up trouble, telling GB News: 'The Conservatives have been calling for that hotel to be closed down, because you have to show people there is a response when they have legitimate concerns.' Kebatu, 38, is due to be tried for allegedly trying to kiss a schoolgirl as she ate pizza in Epping on July 7, eight days after he arrived in the UK. He denies sexual assault, inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity and a charge of harassment. There were more ugly scenes outside The Bell yesterday when up to 1,000 demonstrators clashed. Around 400 protesting against the migrants – mostly locals – gathered after lunch, with counter-protesters, including of pro-Palestine groups and trade unions, arriving at around 4pm, and staying for barely an hour. Despite police from 31 forces including Merseyside and Lancashire separating them, at least three people were arrested. Sarah White, 40, who organised the protest against the hotel, said: 'We won't stop. Today has been a great opportunity for our voices to be heard. We've got the message out there that we don't want these hotels. 'This, I think, has been the biggest – there's more to come. We need to feel safe – we don't currently. It's shocking. We won't stop until that hotel is closed.' Maureen Chapman, 73, said she felt 'under threat', adding: 'I have grandchildren living locally. We want this closed and we won't stop until it is. Despite police from 31 forces including Merseyside and Lancashire separating them, at least three people were arrested 'These people moaning, would they want it at the end of their street?' The Home Office said: 'The Government is reducing expensive hotel use as part of a complete overhaul of the asylum system. 'From over 400 asylum hotels in summer 2023, costing almost £9million a day, there are now less than 210. We want them all closed by the end of this Parliament. 'People rightly want to see a robust and effective asylum system and we have a duty to support people who would otherwise be destitute and sleeping rough while their case is decided.'
