Gambling with Governance: The NatCen Study and Britain’s Ongoing Love Affair with Pointless Research

The great British tradition of commissioning a study to delay actually doing anything. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Gambling Commission (GC), in their infinite wisdom, have hired the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) to conduct an evaluation of the Gambling Act Review—because, rather than taking decisive action, what we really need is a taxpayer-funded exercise in compiling data we already know.

The purpose? To see whether new gambling policies are being implemented effectively, if they are achieving their intended outcomes, and what impact they have on society. A noble cause, one might think—until one realises this is the bureaucratic equivalent of running a focus group to determine if fire is hot.

The cherry on top? The study will stretch over multiple years, meaning that by the time we get any conclusions, the gambling industry will either have collapsed, been entirely offshored, or evolved into a dystopian, AI-run betting empire where punters can gamble their social credit scores instead of money. But by all means, let’s spend millions gathering data that will no doubt confirm what everyone with a functioning brain already knows: that Britain’s gambling industry is a mess, that online casinos have become glorified slot-machine empires, and that affordability checks are about as effective as using a sieve to bail out the Titanic.

Research Methods: Because Asking People to Keep a Diary is How You Fix Policy Failures

The study’s approach is straight out of the How To Pretend You’re Doing Something Handbook:

• They will collect data from operators, meaning they’ll ask the very industry profiting from gambling whether its policies are working.

• They will conduct surveys with gamblers, ensuring that any self-reported data is as accurate as a dodgy accumulator bet at 3 a.m.

• They will run "qualitative activities"—a phrase so nebulous it could mean anything from actual research to a poorly attended Zoom focus group.

And then, the pièce de résistance: diary studies. Because what better way to understand the impact of gambling policies on young people than to ask 18-to-24-year-olds to keep a diary?

Yes, the gambling industry is in crisis, with affordability checks driving punters to unregulated black markets, marketing tactics preying on vulnerable consumers, and bookmakers making record profits. But fear not! The government’s solution is to give young people a notebook and ask them to reflect on their gambling habits three times a year.

This raises several questions:

1. Who exactly is this study for?

   • The people who already gamble know how gambling works.

   • The policymakers already have the stats on gambling-related harm.

   • The bookmakers already know exactly how to keep punters hooked.

   • So, is this just another paper exercise to justify some future policy tweaks while avoiding actual regulation?

2. Why do we need three sets of diaries over 12 months?

   • Are we expecting some profound evolution in young people’s gambling habits?

   • Will participants suddenly wake up in August, enlightened, realising that betting on Crystal Palace to finish in the top four was always doomed to fail?

3. How many ways can we reinvent the wheel before someone just fixes it?

   • We know online gambling is dangerously addictive.

   • We know targeted advertising lures in vulnerable gamblers.

   • We know regulatory enforcement is patchy at best.

   • So why is the government spending years asking 21-year-olds to journal about their betting losses instead of just implementing tougher, evidence-based policies now?

The ‘Fair Compensation’ Model: £150 to be Studied Like a Lab Rat

To ensure that young people are properly "incentivised" to take part in this grand experiment, the study offers £150 per participant for the entire year. Yes, in a move that could only be devised by people who haven’t been 18-24 in the past three decades, they’re offering participants £50 per diary session—roughly the amount you’d lose after five minutes on a high-stakes online roulette wheel.

If we’re being brutally honest, the real gamble here isn’t whether participants will stick with the study—it’s whether they’ll use the study money to place actual bets. The irony of a government-backed study accidentally funding a few flutter-happy participants is almost too rich to contemplate.

But the real insult here is the assumption that £150 is a reasonable fee for spending 10 hours recounting one’s gambling experiences. In an era where influencer culture dominates, where young people can earn more money posting a single TikTok on "crypto trading secrets," we’re supposed to believe they’ll dedicate 10 hours of their time to filling out a dry government survey. For perspective, they could make more money working a Saturday shift in a Wetherspoons—and still have enough left over to place a cheeky bet on the 3:30 at Kempton.

A Better Model: Instead of Pointless Diaries, How About Action?

Rather than embarking on another drawn-out research project to confirm what is already painfully obvious, here’s a radical alternative:

1. Scrap the Research, Implement Sensible Policies Immediately

We already have mountains of data from previous gambling studies. Instead of waiting until 2027 to act, why not implement:

• Higher taxation on online casino games (as they contribute most to problem gambling).

• A proper crackdown on predatory advertising (especially on social media).

• A more nuanced approach to affordability checks (so they don’t simply push punters into black-market betting).

2. Make Bookmakers Pay for the Damage They Cause

Instead of spending public money on more research, why not **force betting companies to fund a permanent, independent body tasked with:

• Tracking industry malpractice

• Holding companies accountable for irresponsible marketing

• Supporting gambling addiction services

3. Regulate Loot Boxes Like Gambling

The study vaguely references loot boxes in gaming but offers no concrete action. This is absurd. If a 14-year-old can spend real money to gamble on FIFA Ultimate Team packs, then let’s stop pretending it isn’t gambling.

4. Stop Appointing People Who Don’t Understand Gambling

Perhaps most critically, stop letting people like Baroness Twycross run gambling policy. Instead of clueless career politicians, how about:

• A gambling industry whistleblower

• An addiction specialist

• A financial analyst who understands consumer exploitation tactics

Yes, this means fewer out-of-touch ministers parroting generic soundbites about "responsible gaming" while posing for pictures at Cheltenham, but frankly, that might be a good thing.

Conclusion: The Only Safe Bet is That This Study Will Achieve Nothing

The NatCen study is the equivalent of spending five years analysing whether eating too much cake makes you fat—a painfully obvious exercise designed to give politicians an excuse to delay action. If anything meaningful were going to happen, it would have happened already.

Instead, young people will be paid £150 to write about their gambling habits, the government will nod sagely at the results, and the gambling industry will carry on raking in billions while pretending to care about responsible betting.

The only truly unpredictable gamble left? Whether this report will gather dust next to all the other ignored research studies—or if it will serve as justification for the next round of ineffective, bureaucratic tinkering.

One thing is for sure: the bookies won’t be betting against themselves anytime soon. And why would they? With a government this clueless, the house always wins.