When Matt Zarb-Cousin agreed to discuss gambling with me at the Battle of Ideas Festival last month, I thought 'good', and 'good for you'. He knew he was coming to an event where the debates were taking place under the banner of Free Speech Allowed, and where liberty and freedom are widely championed.
'You've got home advantage,' Matt said to me just before the event started, but as soon as audience members began to speak, it was obviously not going to be as one-sided as some might have thought.
The headline question for the debate was 'Is Gambling Immoral?'. Matt and I outlined our respective positions on gambling and morality, taking a few minutes to do so. Matt's central proposition was while there was nothing wrong with gambling in and of itself, the way that the gambling industry operates is immoral, and he backed that up with examples (largely from the UK gambling industry) to make his points.
The debate was chaired by John O'Brien, from MCC Brussels, who did a good job quizzing both of us to create a 'head-to-head', while also taking around a dozen comments and questions from the audience and allowing Matt and I to chip in with our thoughts too.
There were questions about whether there is a need for more regulation and if an industry standards body could help. I offered the view that we don't need more regulation for an industry which is already highly regulated. Matt stated that the problem with an industry body is that it moves at the pace of its slowest member.
Personal stories and anecdotes from audience members featured quite heavily in the discussion, but the conclusions of those speaking did not always end in a similar fashion. One audience member described the normality of gambling in their family as scratch cards feature around the Christmas Dinner Table like an extra Christmas stocking, acting as a talking point and an opportunity for someone to win. Another stated how 'free bets' mean something different to a gambling addict, in comparison with how an avid gambler might perceive them. One very passionate attendee spoke about the personal impact he had seen friends and family experience, which led him to conclude that gambling should be banned. A spokesperson from the Betting and Gaming Council stated that none of those who wish either to ban or severely restrict gambling seem to have considered the likely consequence that will have - an increase in the use of illegal betting sites.
Since the debate, it has been pleasing to hear various comments from those who attended about how good it was to have a well-organised discussion with clearly opposing views. I'm grateful to those at the Battle of Ideas who agreed to put on this debate, and to Matt Zarb-Cousin for attending and engaging in the discussion.
There wasn't much agreement between the two of us, but it showed the necessity of discussing gambling that goes above sound bites, and engaging with an audience in ways we don't often see. I'd happily do it again!
Jon Bryan is a gambling writer and recreational poker player. You can find him on social media and Substack as JonBryanPoker.
Photography: Annie Murray-Bryan
