The winning defence of that waning national obsession was that money filleted from the less well-off went to “good causes”, such as the kind of culture the Government feels more comfortable with.But what does this new money filleted from the less well-off go towards? Creating safer bets for the gambling rich we know as shareholders And tax revenue of course, some of it. The economy itself has become a “good cause”, one that needs constant stimulation if its uneven largesse is to continue to be enjoyed.And that largesse will indeed be uneven. Even with the strictures placed on it now, there are estimated to be around 400,000 gambling addicts. It is expected that this figure will rise with the liberalisation to come.

There is a nasty contradiction inherent in expanding gambling to feed an economy that is already delivering an ever greater gap between rich and poor.For very many people, gambling is a bit of fun to indulge in for thrills and socialising. But for the most vulnerable, it is a sure route to a ruined life. How much responsibility the gaming companies will be expected to shoulder for the rise in gambling-related debt and deprivation is not yet clear.They may be obliged to fund research. But, actually, we know quite a lot about gambling addiction already. All the research suggests that it is the brief, low-stake, quickly repeated gambles – such as scratchcards or slot machines – that turn most quickly into a habit.

Will the revenue gained from gambling be used to throw such unfortunates a lifeline? Or will they simply be the losers in an activity that – ostensibly at least – caters to those who know when to stop?If the latter is the case, then the deregulation of gambling – and the attitudes to addictive illness that are implied by it – surely has a bearing on the way we look at similar illnesses, such as alcoholism and drug addiction. The resources offered for help and rehabilitation of these blights are far from adequate. It can therefore be taken as read that a rise in addictive behaviour around gambling will not be met with adequate safeguards for those who fall foul of the new order.Is this something that should concern us? Certainly it concerns the Government to some extent, which is why there is this idea of a levy on the gaming companies in place. Is this lip-service, though, to combat the cries of critics? Or a genuine undertaking to look out for liberalisation’s losers?If it is, then why is it in the gift of the gaming companies? They, surely, are banking on some people failing to maintain control. Can they really be the ones best placed to help their favourite customers overcome their desire to hand over their money? Or are we still not facing the fact that with freedom comes responsibility, and that in a social democracy, the state has to take responsibility for those who have proven themselves unable to be responsible for themselves.d.orr independent.co.uk
More from Deborah Orr. Accordingly, you hire a tandem in London (for added togetherness and intimacy!) and put it on the train to:a) Kent, because you meet a better class of illegal immigrant there;b) Hampshire, because it’s like Sussex but not so posh;c) Orkney, because in summer the sun hardly sets so you can cycle till midnight;d) Lincolnshire, because you’ve heard it’s flat.Yes, you take the train to Lincoln and get off with your tandem, only to find that Lincoln is set in quite hilly country. Oh, well – you’re in love and you’re young and it’s lovely weather, so no matter and off you go, with you in front and Linda behind you in what tandem riders call the “stoker” position.