John Major attacks the 'Larceny of the Lottery'

As Prime Minister, John Major oversaw the introduction of Britain's National Lottery.  At the time he faced Labour suggestions that it was a regressive way of getting the poor to fund the public services.  Public services should only be paid for by progressive taxation, Labour then insisted.  PM Major denied the charges and his administration only permitted Lottery proceeds to be used for sport, national heritage, good causes and the, er, um, early preparations for Michael Heseltine's Millennium Dome.

Writing a foreword for a new Centre for Policy Studies pamphlet on the Lottery - 'Larceny of the Lottery' - Mr Major attacks Labour's failure to live by the standards it demanded of him:

“From the outset, I insisted that Lottery money should be used for additional spending on causes or activities that the taxpayer should not be expected to cover... When the Lottery Bill was going through Parliament, the Labour Opposition was at pains to stress the importance of government keeping an arms-length relationship from the Lottery and, in particular, grant distribution. But, since it took power, Labour has diverted Lottery funding into areas that have historically been funded by the Exchequer. Indeed, the “Big Lottery Fund” has a specific remit to fund health, education and environment projects when taxpayers would rightly expect many of these projects to be funded directly by Government. The Labour Government’s deliberate muddying of the waters between Exchequer and Lottery revenues is an unwelcome development and one which, as its creator, dismays me greatly.”

The Conservative Party's 2003 Green Paper on the voluntary sector - Sixty Million Citizens - promoted a radical solution to this problem.  It noted the growing politicisation of Lottery funding decisions and a large number of controversial awards.  It suggested that these controversies partly explained the Lottery's falling popularity.  It proposed that Lotto players should be able to ensure that local charities could benefit from the charitable portion of the £1 bet.  One suggestion was turning the Lotto ticket into some sort of gift token that could be given to local charities for them to redeem.  It's still an idea worthy of consideration...

Comments

[Geoff]

I remember those attacks and the careful way we tried to counter them. However this idealistic concept of funding interesting and valuable projects from new money has always been a sham.

We've been hit in succession from different administrations by, firstly: trendy arty projects that the average person would rather remove his eyeballs with spoons than watch - only to be replaced by trendy politically correct lefty nonsense that the same person would then fill their still-bleeding eyesockets with shards of broken glass and fireants than put up with. It irks me that St Paul's Cathedral is not "accessible enough to minorities" and this icon of our country is therefore denied funds for its restoration.

Now this government is funding basic and vital public projects which should always have come from direct taxation.

However, Labour was being disingenuous when they called it a tax on the poor. It's a tax on the desperate, and a tax on the stupid. If you want to win £1 million for £1, play a single number on a roulette wheel and win. Put all the winnings on another single number and win again. Do it again. And again. You'll have just over £1 million. The odds of doing this are around 1 in 2 million.

That's better odds than the Lootery (sic).

[James Maskell]

A tax on the stupid? I feel bad now for working in a shop that sells the Lottery!

[Chris Palmer]

Another point is, why are Camalot still running the Lottery? They take a profit - whereas other organisations have said they'll run it non-profit.

[Tom Greeves]

It shouldn't matter whether the company that runs the Lottery makes a profit, as long as that company is better
able than others to maximise returns for the good causes.

Camelot has done a good job.

[Chris Palmer]

"It shouldn't matter whether the company that runs the Lottery makes a profit, as long as that company is better
able than others to maximise returns for the good causes.

Camelot has done a good job."

Seeing as Camelot have been the only company to have a go, then we have nothing to compare them with. I expect that a non-profit organisation could do just as good a job, and not take a profit - leaving more money for projects.

[malcolm]

Whatever the benefits of Camelot or the Lottery as an idea John Major is surely right that Brown is looting it for his own ends.
I would very much hope that an incoming Conservative government would reform that that money raised from the Lottery can be spent.