Tuesday, 10 November 2026

The self-appointed Gambling Policy Commission

Something called the Gambling Policy Commission suddenly appeared this week, with the announcement that it will be launching "an independent review of UK gambling laws and regulations". 

 
A Commission is usually an official group convened by government, such as a Royal Commission. This one has nothing to do with the government, so what is it and who is it "independent" from?
 
A look at its website provides the least surprising answer imaginable...
 
Seed funding for the Gambling Policy Commission has been philanthropically provided by Derek Webb. 

What more needs to be said? Derek Webb has been behind so many anti-gambling groups in the UK since 2013 that it is hard to keep up. He has founded and/or funded the Campaign for Fairer Gambling, Stop the FOBTs, Clean Up Gambling, the Coalition to End Gambling Ads and an anti-gambling All-Party Parliamentary Groups which keeps changing its name, as well as funding various left-wing think tanks (and, indeed, the Labour Party). Their demands get more and more extreme. There is no reason to think that the Gambling Policy Commission will take a more balanced view of the issue than any of his other front groups. 
 

Members of the Commission have been drawn from a range of backgrounds, including economics, law, public policy, health, academia and sport. They are: Philippe Auclair, Professor Chris Bojke, Peter Kellner CBE, Professor Lindsey Macmillan, Professor Sir Anton Muscatelli, Dr James Noyes, Professor Janet O’Sullivan and Thomas Savill.

The group is chaired by Jagjit Chadha OBE, professor of economics at the University of Cambridge. James Reade, professor of economics at the University of Reading, is serving as the Commission’s chief economist.

 
Not all of these names are familiar to me but some are. Dr (of theology) James Noyes led the charge for affordability checks and gambling duty increases. Peter Kellner used to be on the board of Action on Smoking and Health. Janet O'Sullivan is a trustee of the neo-prohibitionist pressure group Gambling With Lives, which has just got £5 million from the gambling levy. Jagjit Chadha was the director of the National Institute for Economic and Social Research when it produced a piss-poor estimate of the cost of gambling harms in 2023.

Chadha, Savil and Noyes are all directors of the similarly named Gambling Policy Committee, a limited company set up in March to manage the money which, by the look of it, will all be coming from the ubiquitous Mr Webb.

The Guardian's racing correspondent Greg Wood has written about the GPC, treating it as a quasi-official organisation and not mentioning Webb's involvement. He urges the racing industry to participate in it. This strikes me as bad advice. The anti-gambling lobby cannot be appeased or bargained with. No one can stop Webb from having his little show trial but consumers and the industry should be wary of giving it legitimacy and credibility by participating. It will not have any bearing on the GPC's conclusions, which will inevitably be to ban, ban and ban. It will just allow them to say that consumers and industry were heard during the process.

In 2017, the parliamentary commissioner for standards rebuked the APPG on FOBTs for trying to pass off a self-published report as an official House of Commons publication. The bookmakers were invited to take part in that charade but wisely refused, describing it as a "kangaroo court". A cordon sanitaire around Webb's latest venture would also be sensible.



A botched hit piece on the Science Media Centre

The Science Media Centre (SMC) has been a lifeline for journalists in need of a quote since it was formed in 2002. It emails expert opinion about embargoed studies and publishes a list of expert comments on its website for the public to view. The comments are sometimes positive and sometimes negative. Sometimes the experts disagree with each other, but the SMC provides some useful perspective. 

The SMC has occasionally received flak for amplifying the views of experts who don’t go along with the latest craze. The Guardian has been having a pop at it ever since it voiced criticisms of a BBC documentary attacking genetically modified crops in 2002 which happened to have been co-written by its editor. In 2023, the Guardian got its knickers in a twist after five professors made some fairly obvious criticisms of the ultra-processed food panic at an SMC event. It turned out that some of these nutritional scientists had “links” to — hold on to your hats — the food industry! 

These manufactured controversies provide the backdrop for a study published last week titled “Does the Science Media Centre promote pro-corporate views of science? An analysis of SMC funding, governance and expert commentaries on public health research”. Most of its six authors have dedicated their careers to researching the “commercial determinants of health” — an ideological outpost of “public health” academia which takes a dim view of the free market and sees the hidden hand of big business in everything. 

The SMC is funded by universities, academic publishers, charities, media outlets, government agencies and companies. In 2023, its biggest funders were the Gatsby Charitable Foundation, UK Research and Innovation, Springer Nature and the Wellcome Trust. The authors of the study are not interested in these organisations and focus instead on the “health harming industries” that also donate to the SMC. Under their expansive definition of “health harming”, these include Diageo (alcohol), BP (oil), Nestlé (food), Danone (infant formula) and CropLife International (pesticides and plant biotechnology). 

The authors have trawled through every one of the 472 Rapid Reactions to scientific studies published by the SMC in 2019 looking for pro-industry bias. They give each comment a mark out of five. If the scientists quoted expressed scepticism, such as pointing out flaws in methodology or questioning whether correlation equals causation, they are given a lower score. If the experts were more positive about it, they get a higher score. The authors then split the studies being critiqued into two groups, those which are “industry-­favourable” and those which are “industry-unfavourable”. 
 

Read the rest at The Critic (no paywall). There is a twist in the tale. 

I've written more about it on my Substack...
 

As I say in The Critic piece, they do not have the slightest interest in assessing whether the comments made by experts in SMC Rapid Responses are true or not. All they care about is whether a comment is “pro-industry”. Anything “pro-industry” is portrayed as inherently suspect. Like much of their “research”, this study has one aim: to discredit anyone who does not toe the extremist ideological line of the authors.

Science is the pursuit of truth. If an academic is not interested in truth and only cares about a perceived power struggle between goodies and baddies, they are not scientists. They are activists.

 

 



Wednesday, 4 November 2026

Nanny State Newsletter #6

It's out! Here's a sample...

 

Ian Gilmore and the usual neo-temperance suspects tried to revive the campaign for minimum pricing in England this week. They wrote a letter to the health secretary, Yvette Cooper, which most of the media wisely ignored. LBC was a rare exception and it is thanks to their coverage that we can see that the “public health” lobby are still lying through their teeth about this policy.
 

In a letter to Health Secretary Yvette Cooper, 55 experts said that the evidence from Scotland and Wales, where MUP has already been introduced, is “clear and compelling” as it called for England to adopt the policy.

“MUP is a proven policy that targets the cheapest drinks linked to the greatest harm, protects health, and eases pressure on public services.”

The policy was introduced in Wales in 2020, with the authors highlighting how this led to the “removal of cheap, high strength products associated with the highest levels of harm from the market”.

Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, chair of the Alcohol Health Alliance, said that England “is in danger of becoming the UK’s alcohol harm outlier” as alcohol deaths in England continue to rise.

 
Unfortunately for these charlatans, the figures on alcohol-specific deaths are publicly available and they show that alcohol deaths are not rising in England. England is only an “outlier” insofar as it has the lowest rate in the UK. Moreover, the gap between England and Wales has widened since Wales adopted minimum pricing. 




Monday, 26 October 2026

Christopher Snowdon with Geoff Norcott

I was on Geoff Norcott's podcast What Most People Think again this week, talking about Andy Burnham, leaving the IEA, vaping, smoking, folic acid and more. Geoff's a great man and I enjoy his pod. Hopefully, we'll get him on Last Orders again soon.

You can watch it here and listen to it in all sorts of ways, such as here. 

 



Thursday, 22 October 2026

The Guido Fawkes Show

I was on the (relatively) new Guido Fawkes Show talking about sin taxes in the Budget, what bans I'd scrap and British Summer Time. All the old favourites. You can catch up below.

 



Tuesday, 20 October 2026

Who do ASH think they are kidding?

The con artists at ASH are at it again.
 

The state-funded prohibitionist pressure group Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) has published a report claiming that “the UK’s illicit tobacco market is now only a fraction of the size it was at the turn of the century” and that “the UK has one of the most effectively controlled illicit markets in the world”.

Even for the seasoned liars at ASH, this is risible. Their entire argument hinges on HMRC’s tobacco tax gap estimates being correct and everyone else being wrong. But HMRC’s figures are blatant underestimates. It hasn’t had the data needed to make a half-decent estimate since 2019. Its figures between 2020 and 2023 were “imputed” because it didn’t have tobacco consumption data from the Office for National Statistics, and its figures since then have been “projected” from the imputed figures because of problems with “data availability and small sample sizes”.

In short, it is guesswork, and not very good guesswork at that. As I have said before, their claim that “only” 14% of the tobacco market is illicit is impossible to square with the 52% decline in legal tobacco sales between 2021 and 2025.

 
Read the rest on my Substack. 


Saturday, 17 October 2026

Nanny State Newsletter #5

The latest Nanny State Newsletter has gone out to all the subscribers to my Substack and you can read it here.