LBC, on UK Politics, 28 October 2026

6.0out of 10Serious

Gambling firms backlash after Chancellor hits them with tax rise

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.4 findings

Chancellor John Healey has announced a rise in gambling taxes to help fund a package of support for high streets. The chancellor said he will slash taxes on the high street by raising the threshold at which small firms begin paying business rates from £12,000 to £18,000, with some 70,000 businesses excluded altogether. The package of high street discounts will be supplemented by increasing the Machine Games Duty, paid on Category B slot machines in betting shops and adult gaming centres, from 20% to 25%.

Mr Healey added the move would protect pubs and seaside arcades. “To pay for this support for our high streets, I’m raising taxes on gambling - by increasing Machine Games Duty from 20% to 25% for higher-stakes machines, while protecting pubs and seaside arcades,” he said. Read more: What was in the Budget? All of the key points from John Healey's speech Read more: Budget 2026 LIVE: Chancellor unveils £100 energy payment for 20 million households “I’ve made my choice at this Budget: asking a bit more of our banks to support ordinary people, raising taxes on gambling to support good growth on every high street.”

While the increase is lower than the 40 per cent which was feared – and – . That, in turn, . Betting machines have become a fundamental operation for bookmakers but .

Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture

LBC never says that shares in Entain, Evoke and Rank rose after the announcement because investors were relieved the rise was smaller than feared. Without this, a reader believes the firms named in S23 were seriously hurt by the decision, when markets read it as better than expected.

How we know

The Betting and Gaming Council said it was a “deeply damaging decision” from the government, one which makes the “illegal gambling market more attractive to customers”. A statement from chief executive Grainne Hurst read: “This is a deeply damaging decision and a blow to the thousands of workers, businesses and communities who depend on Britain’s regulated betting and gaming industry. “The Chancellor has ignored repeated warnings about the consequences.

At 25 per cent, EY projects almost 9,000 people could lose their jobs and almost 1,000 betting shops and casinos could close or be at serious risk. These are real people and families facing the loss of their income and security, in places where alternative work can be hard to find. “Every betting shop or casino closure means lost livelihoods, more empty premises and another huge blow to our high streets. These venues will not simply be replaced, particularly in places already struggling to attract jobs and investment.

Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture

The EY projection of almost 9,000 lost jobs and 1,000 closures was modelling commissioned by the Betting and Gaming Council. LBC prints it as if it were an independent forecast.

How we know

“Higher taxes on the regulated industry also will make the illegal gambling market more attractive to customers, where operators pay no UK tax, contribute nothing to British sport and offer none of the safeguards required of licensed businesses. “The Chancellor has chosen a tax rise that will cost British jobs, close businesses and hollow out high streets, while handing an advantage to illegal operators. The Government cannot ignore the consequences of this decision.”

It is the second successive Budget to raise gambling taxes, following increases to remote gaming duty and online betting duty announced last year. Former chancellor Rachel Reeves announced last November that Remote Gaming Duty would rise from 21% to 40% from April, while General Betting Duty on online wagers is due to increase from 15% to 25% in April 2027. The rise will affect companies including Ladbrokes owner Entain and Evoke, which owns William Hill UK and 888.

Read the original article on lbc.co.uk (opens in a new tab)
What we found (4)

LBC reports the Chancellor's rise in Machine Games Duty, then states the gambling industry's predictions of harm to bookmakers, racing and jobs in its own voice, as if they were settled. It gives the Betting and Gaming Council ten sentences and gives the campaigners who wanted a bigger rise no voice at all. It also leaves out that gambling shares rose on the news because investors expected worse.

  1. States one side's claim as fact

    Serious

    “it is still expected to have a serious impact on bookmakers and betting shops”

    Why this matters
    LBC writes "expected to have a serious impact" with no one doing the expecting. The industry's own forecast becomes the outlet's assessment.
    The impression it gives
    That it is widely agreed the rise will seriously hurt bookmakers.
    The context
    The serious-impact forecast comes from the industry. Other outlets reported that investors welcomed the smaller-than-feared rise and that the closure forecasts are contested.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    “will mean the loss of millions of pounds in levy and media rights income for British racing”

    Why this matters
    LBC states as certain fact, "will mean", a loss to racing that is only a prediction. It names no source.
    The impression it gives
    That British racing will definitely lose millions because of this rise.
    The context
    This is a prediction made by the rise's opponents. City AM attributes the damage-to-racing claim to the shadow sport minister, and even he says only that it "will likely" do so.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    “the hike in tax could result in betting shops becoming unprofitable, leading to closures due to the slimming profit margins and increasing costs”

    Why this matters
    LBC repeats the industry's closure argument in its own voice, before the Betting and Gaming Council is even quoted.
    The impression it gives
    That closures are the neutral, expected result of the tax.
    The context
    Closures are the industry's warning, based on modelling it commissioned. Campaigners dispute it.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

  2. One side gets the space

    Minor

    “campaigned for in some quarters”

    Why this matters
    LBC reduces the people who argued for a higher duty to "some quarters". It names none of them and quotes none, while the industry body fills S11 to S20.
    The impression it gives
    That the only serious voice on the tax is the industry opposing it.
    The context
    The Social Market Foundation and some Labour MPs had called for 40 per cent and argued from gambling-related harm. The article never mentions harm.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

  3. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Minor

    What is missing

    LBC never says that shares in Entain, Evoke and Rank rose after the announcement because investors were relieved the rise was smaller than feared. Without this, a reader believes the firms named in S23 were seriously hurt by the decision, when markets read it as better than expected.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

  4. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Minor

    What is missing

    The EY projection of almost 9,000 lost jobs and 1,000 closures was modelling commissioned by the Betting and Gaming Council. LBC prints it as if it were an independent forecast.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

How other outlets reported it

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from LBC

  1. 28 OctMinimum wage to rise by nearly 4% for millions of Britain's lowest paid workers, Healey confirms3.0
  2. 28 OctChancellor unveils £5bn defence investment drive as Britain pledges to boost military spending to 3% of GDP by 20303.0
  3. 28 Oct'No confusion at all' on Government's stance on Brexit, Burnham insists at PMQs3.0
  4. 28 OctBritain is broke. Does Andy Burnham have the guts to fix it? Writes James Hanson0.0
  5. 28 OctChancellor scraps standing charges on gas bills as he vows to 'back entrepreneurs' in first Budget3.0

Everything we scored from LBC