This week saw Piers Morgan and Rishi Sunak shake hands during a TalkTV interview, sealing a £1,000 bet on whether the government will be successful in getting asylum seekers on planes to Rwanda prior to the start of the upcoming general election. As a result, the Prime Minister has faced sharp criticism due to the wager being seen as controversial on several fronts, with many being particularly affronted by his decision to risk losing £1,000 amidst an economic crisis that has had individuals across Britain struggling to make ends meet.
The situation forced Mr Sunak to clarify that he was “not a betting person.” He further emphasised that his reaction to the wager was simply him stressing on the importance of the Rwanda bill and how he is dedicated to seeing the said policy come to pass. He has not yet officially attempted to withdraw the bet, however, and Piers Morgan said during yesterday’s airing of the Piers Morgan Uncensored programme that a “handshake is a sealed bet” and that his wager with the Prime Minister continues to stand. Mr Morgan did also undermine the broad reactions to the wager and did not neglect to remind that the money from the bet would ultimately go toward a refugee charity.
The Prime Minister’s Wager Highlights a Potential Issue in the Government’s Gambling White Paper
As it seems the Prime Minister would not be able to dismiss the wager even if he wished to, and Mr Morgan himself is confident in winning, Mr Sunak could, in the future, part with the wagered £1,000 as a result. As reported by the Daily Star, this is actually the threshold outlined in a proposal within the Government’s Gambling White Paper that will determine whether a bettor is seen as someone who is partaking in problematic binge gambling.
According to the potential amendment, if an individual incurs net losses of £1,000 within 24 hours, or their total net losses amount to £2,000 within a period of 90 days, they could be considered to be at risk of problem gambling and be prevented from making further wagers at online gambling websites. Even narrower are the thresholds that are to simply prompt operators to check for potential risks of financial vulnerability, with £125 in net losses in a month and £500 lost in a year being the proposed triggers for the new system.
These proposed checks are not seen as a positive change by Britain’s gambling market. They have also been subject to criticism when it comes to horse racing, seeing as industry players have been particularly distraught over the consequences the checks could have on British horse racing as a whole. As previously reported by Casino Guardian, estimates point to the racing industry having to deal with losses of £250 million over five years. What is more, the Racing Post this week reported on the worries of Middleham trainer Jedd O’Keeffe, who urged Mr Sunak to “carefully consider” just how much he is going to harm the UK’s horse racing industry by making the act of wagering “difficult or even impossible” to do.
- Author
Daniel Williams
