X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Blogs

Our rulers don’t seem to care that the National Lottery fleeces the poor

3 October 2013

3:12 PM

3 October 2013

3:12 PM

Now the latest on the Politicians Keeping In Touch front. It’s funny how it’s the wives who take the brunt of the endeavour. It was Samantha Cameron yesterday who had to parade at the Tory party conference in a teal £42 polyester dress from Asos.com…no question, then, of Mr Cameron being asked to take a turn in an M&S suit. Alas, Mrs C did what every sensible person does who has to wear something from Asos or Florence and Fred (and may I say, given their modest cut when it comes to fabric only skinnies can carry this off) and replaced their belt with one of her own. It was a matter of minutes before the eagle-eyed girls in the fashion departments of our finest newspapers outed this slim black number as from Emilia Wickstead, retailing at £196. Which may or may not cancel out the fact her shoes came from TopShop. Funny that: Miriam Clegg wore TopShop shoes too for her husband’s big day, only with a Zara dress – so in touch!

How things change: it seems like only yesterday that Sarah Brown and Sam Cam were doing their bit at party conference in chic pieces from Erdem or Rifat Ozbek — Turkish-British designers who emphatically do not retail for £42. One can only hope that Asos doesn’t turn out to be one of those companies that contract out their manufacturing to companies in countries with below-par working conditions, because that wouldn’t be a good look at all.

We’ve already put politicians — the London Mayor, the PM, the Deputy PM — through their paces on the usual questions of how much a pint of milk costs (depends whether you’re buying organic) and how much a value loaf is (and is there anyone who actually thinks that Samantha Cameron is going to be eating carbs in the way of Tesco Value White Sliced?), the sole effect of which will be that they’ll send their researchers out to Sainsbury to check out these things before they get interviewed by anyone in future. But the gist of all this isn’t completely frivolous…it’s to discern whether the issue that matters to people on an average income, the rising cost of living, has registered with those who manage the economy. As I mentioned previously, people like John Major did take inflation much more seriously than ministers do now, simply because he came from a background where the cost of things mattered: he said as much quite recently.

[Alt-Text]


Yet, funnily enough, one thing none of the party leaders was asked was the price of a lottery ticket, though perhaps that might have been more pertinent. That’s gone up today by 100 per cent, from one pound for a line to two. Which doesn’t really matter for players on above average incomes but which makes quite a big difference to the poorest players…and Lottery players are disproportionately drawn from those least able to afford it. (A 2008 study in the US showed the poorest players spend almost 10 per cent of their disposable income on tickets.)

Yet the proportion of prize money the National Lottery pays out is not actually increasing, at just under half its takings. Also the odds of winning the jackpot are unchanged at one in 13,983,816, though the advent of a new Lottery Raffle with £20,000 prizes means that it’s less rotten value than it would otherwise be. There has obviously been a backlash from poorer punters, at least those with access to the internet: a poll for the Daily Mirror suggests nine in 10 are angry enough to say they’ll boycott the thing as a result; they won’t, of course.

The National Lottery has been described as a tax on the poor, which makes sense only if you think of tax as a voluntary affair. But it is a form of gambling which looms especially large in the lives of the poor. As the late Auberon Waugh (a fan) observed, it is a way of bringing the element of existential hope into otherwise dreary lives. Of course, as I never tire of telling my children, you’d be better off betting on the horses — and after two visits to Leopardstown they’re shaping up nicely in that respect. But the fact is that the advertising, the propaganda, works: people really do think it could be them.

National Lottery ticket prices haven’t gone up since the inception of the thing in 1994 but inflation has, just not by 100 per cent, not quite. What you could have bought for a quid back then you pay £1.67 for now. So wouldn’t it have been fairer, kinder, to have gone for, say, a 50 per cent increase, to raise the price of a line to £1.50 instead? The Culture Secretary, Maria Miller, has let it be known that she was kept closely in touch with the latest developments. Did it not occur to her to suggest to Andy Duncan, the Camelot MD, that an increase of 100 per cent was excessive? Whatever happens, the Treasury gets a cut of 12 per cent on Lottery takings – just short of £700 million in 2010/11. It wouldn’t hurt for ministers to register disquiet at the punters being so blatantly fleeced even if the proceeds do help pay for the Olympics. It would at least serve the important purpose of showing how very in touch they are.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close